Talk:Roadgeek

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Deletion discussions:
Speedy Keep, 28 July 2008, see discussion. No consensus, 23 July 2008, see discussion. No consensus, 13 July 2008, see discussion. No consensus, 30 June 2008, see discussion. Keep and Cleanup, 14 November 2007, see discussion.

Wikipedian roadgeeks

Oh man... I don't think there has ever been a more accurate word for me than Roadgeek. I never knew it existed. Probably much like the native americans not realizing they were called Indians by the white men and also very similar to the molecules within dog feces not realizing that they are called by many foul names. --Wraybm1 03:47, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I made a video of my most recent roadtrip and put it on my website at. [[1]] check it out if you want... or not... whatever.

Roadgeek/Roadgeeking

"A roadgeek (sometimes roadfan) is a person that is interested in roads as a hobby. Typical roadgeek behaviors include:

Taking road trips for the roads rather than the destination (sometimes called roadgeeking)"

Isn't that sort of redundant a roadgeek doing roadgeeking? Personally, I prefer "road scholar" ;) US 71 20:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think roadfan has a less demeaning connotation. --Triadian 00:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

passive roadgeeking

I think maybe something ought to be mentioned about those of us who are immensely interested in roads, but don't take road trips just for the roads, and don't have extensive road picture galleries and such. I remember being on a roadtrip with my father and crossing the Louisiana border from Mississippi. I just about freaked the first time I saw one of their four-digit state highway markers. Since then, I've enjoyed AA Roads and their network of roadgeek pages immensely. I have learned lots about signage. Anyhow, maybe I'm a certain type of road geek, too. Just a passive one. I think that deserves to be alluded to in this article, but I don't want to unilaterally rip up someone's hard work. --Coryma 17:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Roadgeek" vs. "roadfan"

AFAIK, I created the term "roadfan", at least in this context (see Category talk:Wikipedians interested in roads) - I explain the origin in this December 21, 1999 Usenet post: 83p0qt$ggi$1@nnrp1.deja.com. IME it's not really as prominent as "roadgeek", even after seven years. Mapsax 23:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer roadfan because I don't like the term geek attached to what I do. I don't go geeking. I'm just a freakin' fan. Roadgeek is derogatory. I think it is fairly common if you check Google. --Triadian (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

I have checked the links and references and there is enough links and information available to verify the authenticity of this article. I have improved the reference section. However the article could have some cleaning up by more subject knowledgable editors, there still seems to be question marks about originality and POV. Even though I do not have an overwhelming interest in the subject I think there is a lot of room for expansion and it would be nice to see some non North American input as I think it probably is a global hobby.--Matt 02:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ZZYZX!!!

For whomever took/put up the Zzyzx Rd pic, I just wanted to say thank you... Driving from LA to Vegas, how can you NOT notice the biggest landmark before the "Big Thermometer" in Baker? Way cool! Jeff

LOL I know, one day on my third trip to vegas I took a picture of that sign for myself and my gf said what a geek I was, taking photos of roadsigns :) --Cubbi 13:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sites of interest

It would be interesting, not to mention more informative, to actually explain the notablility of each of the features listed in this section. Otherwise it is a meaningless list which does not assert any reason why these are included over any other feature one might consider for inclusion. — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 22:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. However, all of the locations in the list have their own articles and at least some of those offer notability claims with sufficient sourcing. I am reverting the deletion of the list, which should be looked at item by item. There is no doubt that The Ridge Route provides a good example of a Roadgeek destination and ample evidence is offered in its article.--Hjal 16:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that the article was listing these locations as sites of interest for roadgeeks, which a source is needed for that. See WP:SYN. There should be sources for some of the things on the list. Route 66 for example, there are lots of information out there on driving the road. --Holderca1^talk 14:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another reference for a road of interest to roadgeeks has been added.--Hjal (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, a similar list used to exist on the railfan article but was eliminated, see discussion here [2]The problem is this list will be subject to POV, as "favorite roadgeek locations" is a personal issue. Some roadgeeks are interested in historical places, others engineering marvels, others sign goofs, etc... Dave (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This list is important both to further document the existance and notability of roadgeeks and to demonstrate their behavior. I think that the solution to the potential POV problem is to list only those roads or road-related sites that can be demonstrated to be of interest to an identified roadgeek (with a reference to a reliable source) or to a significant number of people (whether identified as roadgeeks in the referenced source or not), with a reference to a news article or to an organization's website. Some of the WP articles linked to for indivual roads on the list provide such sources already, but some editors seem unwilling to accept the existance of a WP article as sufficient in this article.--Hjal (talk) 02:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable roadgeeks

I agree with NE2 that the "Notable roadgeeks" section is dubious; I can think of many more that would be appropriate for that section, with credentials equal to the people already on the list. For that matter, if all it takes is a website and a newspaper attribution to be included, then I should be on there as well, since I have both the former (http://www.roadfan.com/) and latter ("To Hit the Road, You Don't Have to Leave Comfort of Computer", The Columbus Dispatch, 2002-09-16). Mapsax (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of theme have sufficient WP:V cites from WP:RSs where they are a significant (rather than incidental or trivial) portion of the articles to meet WP:NOTE. Some do not, or, at least, nobody has provided such references. However, they are all useful encycopedically to help demonstrate that roadgeeking actually exists as a documented hobby, or group of hobbies; the articles shown as references help demonstrate the various things done by people who self-identify or are identified by others as roadgeeks. I'm sure that there are better refs that don't just Google up, perhaps yours is even one of them (I'll look later), but I can only spend so many hours on saving this page when I'm barely interested in it.--Hjal (talk) 05:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A year later, with the section still there, I'm not sure what to do with it, nor am I confident that I should add myself to the list if it stays (I'm pretty sure that there'd be something in WP:MOS about that). In case anyone thinks that it's notable, here's my preformed cite on myself:

Blundo, Joe (2002-09-16). "To Hit the Road, You Don't Have to Leave Comfort of Computer". The Columbus Dispatch. Retrieved 2009-09-29. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Mapsax (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just so it doesn't seem to be just about me, here are more people that I think should be on the list if it stays:

If there is a contention with someone not above claiming to be listworthy, we can cross-reference people with the Roadfan Locator.

The problem, of course, is the sourcing. (That's the main reason why I included myself above; my roadgeeking skills may not be as refined as those listed above, but I do have a reliable source for myself). Mapsax (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When the List was summarily axed last week I reinstated it, thinking it was vandalism, but then the list was re-axed that same day by another person. They cited some WP link, but regardless of that (which I admittedly didn't look at) the listing of some notable persons that are the title subject should be a valid part of the article. Look at more mainstream articles like Movie Star, I bet there is a list of them, how about Presidents or the like? Even if the list actually does conflict with some Wiki guideline, does it really deter from the article rather than help it? Would a list of notable roadgeeks tend to help identify this rather obscure hobby of ours? N9jig (talk) 11:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So now I actually looked up the reference cited when the section was axed, and it says that the list IS within guidelines:

"1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic (for example, Nixon's Enemies List). Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted. (See Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Appropriate topics for lists for clarification.)"N9jig (talk) 11:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now as to the status of who should be so listed is of course up for discussion, but the existence if the List itself is well within Wiki guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by N9jig (talk • contribs) 11:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the "Notable Roadgeeks" section again. The people listed are not notable by Wikipedia's standards, and thus that information is not encyclopedic. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I disagree, but really don't care enough to force the issue. Petty nonsense like this isn't worth my time, I am surprised it was worth yours. N9jig (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N does not support the deletion of the individuals included in the article. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTE#Notability_guidelines_do_not_directly_limit_article_content. The previosu history of this article included the removal of virtually all of the content, followed by efforts to delete the article. Whether they are "notable" by your standards or not, the listed roadgeeks have certainly been noted--at least some by verifiable, reliable sources, including the New York Times--and provide evidence of the range of interests included in the hobby, its spread to the web, and its notability. Perhaps you would be satisfied with a different subhead? Although guidelines say not to call an article "List of notable Xs," I am not aware that the same guidance applies to sections of articles. Nevertheless, I would find other language acceptable, such as "Noted roadgeeks," "People associated with various aspects of roadgeeking," etc. There is no reason for an attempt to make a comprehensive list, and the prevous list could be turned into prose. Absent a better argument for its removal, I will replace the delieted information in a day or two.--Hjal (talk) 07:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue, in my view, is whether this enhances the reader's understanding of the topic. A bare list of names does not, and neither does trivia like "was perfectly comfortable being referred to as a road geek" or "a self-described 'road geek' whose hobby is learning everything he can about America's highways and byways". What matters to the reader is "out-of-universe" information - for instance, if "has been used as a reference by CalTrans on a number of occasions" can be cited. This is interesting to the reader, not "Randy from Boise calls himself a roadgeek and maintains a website about roads", which is just a specific example of the more general statements made earlier in the article.

On the other hand, the whole article is a mess. But this is a good place to start cleaning it.

On the [insert sci-fi reference here] hand, OpenStreetMap is fun and addicting :) --NE2 12:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following has been copied from the U.S. Roads Project talk page—While there are a few people who run well-known roadgeek sites, I don't think we should have a listing of them. There are a few people who have their roadgeeking noted in the press—Jeff Kitsko, who appears in Pennsylvania newspapers semi-frequently, H.B. Elkins, who appears in the media as a matter of course because he's a KTC PR guy, Steve Alpert, whose photos have appeared in the Vermont drivers' manual, and I guess you could include User:US 71, who often has letters published in a Fort Smith newspaper's road column. But all of those cases seem too marginal; there's no household name that is an acknowledged roadgeek (or would deserve their own article). So really I don't think we should have a list in that article.—After writing the above I thought of the following—what if a list such as this leads to navelgazing in the roadgeek community? I can see a thread on MTR consisting of "hah, I'm a 'notable roadgeek' and you're not" and that resulting in anon editing and instability to this article. That might attract some of the "bad crowd" from MTR as well. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that the list of who should and shouldn't be in such a list can be debated endlessly, there are those who deserved to be listed, and the listing itself is valid as these are the people who define the topic. After all, the article is about a group of people who have a common interest or notoriety, by its very definition it invites a listing of notable persons belonging to that group. The few that Scott listed fall into that list, there may be others. Being Wiki however this list is always subject to wanton destruction (which started this last batch of discussion) or debates over who is and isn't notable. It is just this type of stuff that drove me off of MTR and is close to driving me from further contributions to Wikipedia as well. N9jig (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is also important to note that many of these roadgeek's websites are not considered reliable sources for articles. ---Dough 48 72 21:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is noted; however, that is a separate issue. Someone could be a very notable person and have a personal website not deemed to be reliable by wikipedia policy. Dave (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody "deserves" to be listed. Our primary purpose is to produce an encyclopedia, and that means including what the hypothetical reader would want to read. The only people to whom these names would mean anything more than static is those who already know them, either as roadgeeks or in real life (and it's not our purpose to tell people things about their friends that they didn't know; that's what alcohol is for). --NE2 22:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about this for a while, and could only think of one person who is notable enough for wikipedia article and yet is mostly likely a roadgeek, John Lasseter. As such, I'm inclined to agree with those that state this list should be pruned out of existence. Even then, I've never heard John out himself as a roadgeek; I base this on the some of his works hint that he knows more about the U.S. Highway system than the average Joe, such as the movie cars, and it's depiction of Peach Springs, Arizona.Dave (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biased towards USA

Needs more info about other countries, imo. Btw I would describe myself as a moderate Roadgeek, even though I can't drive yet! tractakid (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't really say it's "biased" towards USA, but yes, more information on other countries is needed. Can someone add the necessary template, or else the relevant information of other countries? Thanks. No News ! 09:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011 tidy up

After the redirect from SABRE (and the long discussions there), I've rewritten that paragraph, but also the introduction as it was clearly written with a pejorative slant: "behaviour of roadgeeks", "bragging" etc. I've also addded to quotations from one of the press articles to highlight what it is about roads that captures the enthusiasm of Roadgeeks.

That paragraph about SABRE is not to "big them up" (again, see the previous discussions) - but they are definitely one of the most prominent communities out there. If there are others, let's add them in.

The only thing I still have concerns about there is the "One Show" link, as the archive is not available from the BBC, but this segment is hosted on a SABRE-affiliated site, featuring two prominent members of SABRE. Any suggestions welcome.Davoloid (talk) 11:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Davoloid, I had already rewritten the SABRE paragraph, trying to use the press sources to cite as many details as possible instead of relying on SABRE itself as a source. Instead, you lumped three press articles footnotes together to cite one contention, and added a self-published source we had already excluded from the previous SABRE article to cite another. So yes, I'm re-writing your re-write to incorporate elements that I had already specifically rewritten. Imzadi 1979 → 15:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. When writing out references, the "work" is for things like website names, newspaper names, etc, not the organization that published it. Imzadi 1979 → 15:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could we also include a mention of "road enthusiast" as a synonym for "Roadgeek" at the top of the article? Road trip mentions this term specifically. --Ritchie333 (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lead will need a total rewrite at a later time, once some more of the body of the article is cleaned up and any reorganization is completed. I just cleaned up all of the references to use the citation templates, which forced all of them into consistent formatting. In the process, I had to dig a few links out of the Wayback Machine to repair otherwise deadlinks in the references. Going forward though, I'm going to try to get the sections into MOS order (Further reading has already been moved, and the one item that's a source removed now that it is in use as a source), but that also means that all external links need to be moved into the External links section. I think we also need to cull the examples to a much smaller list, all of which need to be cited. Imzadi 1979 → 16:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and really, we need to cut down on the length of quotes in the article. We should be paraphrasing the source material in our own words here. I've already removed one quotation to a SABRE member when a simple sentence of prose sufficed. At some point, I'd like to see all of these direct quotes cut down so that they fit inline without blockquoting. Imzadi 1979 → 16:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of the examples are NPOV - nothing in the list is amongst my favourite road features. --Ritchie333 (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is much better that the last time I worked on it, but I would suggest not cutting out too much. If you make it sparse enough, the deletionists will come back again and argue that the topic is not notable. Regarding the examples, I think that it is a matter of listing sufficient examples of activities and different types of road sections to demonstrate what it is that roadgeeks do and what they are interested in. The locations don't have to be the best or the most popular, but should be good, widespread, sourced, examples of the different things that roadgeeks are interested in. It would be good to have more organizations, since they seem to have different interests. They should all be referenced, of course--some of the locations were added by individual enthusiasts with no sources given.

Finally, what do you think about moving the article to Roadgeeking or some other term for the hobby, rather than the participants? I'm still ambivalent, since Roadgeek is so much more common.--Hjal (talk) 16:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to remove the "meat" of the article, but the quotations need to be changed out for our own writing. Yes, I removed a quotation, but the full quotation wasn't needed to cite the fact that not all roadgeeks have cars. Why insert a block quote when a single sentence with the footnote will do, and do better? As for the examples, we have nothing of Canada listed, but way too much of the US. Yes, there are probably an order of magnitude more American roadgeeks than British ones, but we don't need quite so many examples to get the point. (One US example is even listed twice because it involves two states.) I'd like to see the US list culled down so that the state-level subheaders can be removed. Then everything there would still need a footnote. As for notability, the deletionists will fail on that account. Look at the number of press sources we have from three major London newspapers (The Daily Mail, The Independent, The Telegraph), three major US newspapers (the LA Times, St. Louis Post-Dispatch and the Washington Post). I even have cited a smaller, but still "major" paper in Michigan that interviewed Chris Bessert, maintainer of the Michigan Highways website for a story on the history of an Interstate here. That plus the books mentioned would be enough to keep the deletionists at bay. Imzadi 1979 → 13:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SABRE On The Radio

SABRE has recently had unsolicited requests to appear on BBC Local Radio (see this thread). We've already got one reference in this article to satisfy "one of the larger and most prominent communities of road enthusiasts online", but could this be another one to back up the notability claims? --Ritchie333 (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sites of interest to Roadgeeks section

Someone has tagged this section as original research with the rationale "It should have added it to the "Sites of interest to roadgeeks" section. There is nothing to mention, the whole section is original research and it will be removed in 3 weeks if it remains that way". Does anyone else have any opinions on this? --Ritchie333 (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add in that I'm that someone. I feel this is pretty self explanatory. We are deciding, based on no criteria, "sites that are interesting to roadgeeks". Unless a reliable source can be found for these, the section should be removed as original research (in all honesty I should delete it now and it can be readded when and if someone can justify and source its inclusion; however, given the ongoing GAR I think its best to allow some discussion in this case). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the list really needed? It seems awfully WP:CRUFTY... --Admr Boltz 15:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is, well, a mess.

It seems to lack any coherent focus. I think railfanning and planespotting are written better, with much less external links and dubious lists. I'm not really in a position to rewite this article, but an editor with extensive knowledge on the subject ie NE2 could impart wisdom upon it. Buffaboy ^talk 23:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Roadgeek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060905172529/http://www.houstonfreeways.com:80/statesman_2004-12-12.htm to http://www.houstonfreeways.com/statesman_2004-12-12.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Roadgeek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110619010858/http://www.totalvauxhall.co.uk/2008/09/10/society_for_all_british_road_enthusiasts to http://www.totalvauxhall.co.uk/2008/09/10/society_for_all_british_road_enthusiasts/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110904021116/http://road.club.pixnet.net/forum to http://road.club.pixnet.net/forum
Corrected formatting/usage for http://roads.tulok.net/u-a43.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]