Talk:List of national highways in India by state

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of National Highways in India by state. 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/20160328053359/http://aproads.cgg.gov.in/getInfo.do?dt=1&oId=33 to http://aproads.cgg.gov.in/getInfo.do?dt=1&oId=33

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) 13:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Misunderstood revert for edits in Andhra Pradesh section

@Ajf773, Your revert with the edit summary comment "rv table back to how it was, these latest series of edits make this table look worse compared to all the others" is not constructive. If you have spent some time studying my edits on this page and related pages, you would have realized that I tried to bring the list upto date with data as of 31 Dec 2023, from the earlier version of approximate data of year 2018. If you have seen the wikitext version of the edits, you will understand that I have made edits consistent with the earlier edits using the same templates. The reason that the icons for the newly added highways entries are not appearing is, that these need to be specially made using a bot, for which I have placed request on Commons. The request is expected to be fulfilled in a week. All my work required more than 10 hours of painstaking work to understand the current state of the list, research relevant references, identify the differences using off-wiki-tools, update the list ensuring no duplicate entries and updating relevant categories.

You may be aware that list article is helpful to create missing articles and it is not essential to make it after the articles are created. As this page is not currently being featured, there is no urgency to give importance to the looks rather than content. From my recent edit experience, I find that actual content contributors are a miniscule percentage of over all editors, with most editors focusing on reverting vandalism, copy editing etc. In view of the above, I request you to restore the article with my edits. If you have any more questions, please let me know. Arjunaraoc (talk) 23:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• I've no problem with you bringing the table up to date The problem is the style for the section involving Anhdra Pradesh, which you had been exclusively working on, differs greatly from the rest of the article. There is no need to repeat the list of every single highway at the top of the section when it is already in the table. There is no need for the extra links, plus the highways should appear numerically in each section, which they were not. Hence the best way to deal with the problem is to go back to an earlier revision and go from there. Ajf773 (talk) 02:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Ajf773, Thanks for your response. The addition of highway list as summary is useful for maintenance of this list in future, as anybody who looks at will know when the last was updated and whether the detailed table is consistent with the summary. As the first paragraph is a summary and the rest of the table is detail, I do not see a problem in retaining it. We can't know even the count of highways without the summary, as the table does not have serial number information. I hope that other editors of other sections will see the merit in retaining the summary and probably adopt it. I could alternately move the summary to Transport in Andhra Pradesh and probably link to that section from here, though that could make the future maintenance difficult, as I have to open both article pages for maintainance. I find the summary helpful in maintaining the consistency of the details. Regarding your next point about links, it is useful for creating the article, as it contains more detailed information. It could be removed after the article is created. Regarding your point about numerical ordering of the table, It is difficult exercise to do it manually and as the table sort is enabled, it is easy to see the table in an ordered manner. I hope I have addressed your feedback. If you have any other questions let me know. Arjunaraoc (talk) 03:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  The summary just repeats what is there in the tables. It is much better presented in the table. Ajf773 (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• Please address the issues mentioned above before you do a full revert and claim it is as per discussion on Talk page. Ajf773 (talk) 09:40, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Ajf773, I have addressed all the issues raised by you. You are not able to understand the basic difference between summary and detail, as you seem to have not worked on the articles of this type. Arjunaraoc (talk) 09:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Ajf773, I invite you to collaborate in improving the article if you are interested. Arjunaraoc (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  I've been very clear in my reasoning to you to why I've reverted your edits, which you made first without any consensus and which are completely out of style with the rest of the article. Reverting like this is not constructive and considered edit warring. Ajf773 (talk) 09:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Ajf773, I have addressed your feedback already and am surprised that you reverted agin. When the summary has just highway number and the detailed row of the table has more information with beltway and other details, how can you say that they are same. Can you elaborate? Arjunaraoc (talk) 10:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  Hi, none of the feedback was addressed because the current edition remains the same as the last good one on May 7. The table should cover all the information that is needed, and be consistent with tables in other section. If you want to drastically change the layout, it is best to gain a consensus first. In my opinion, the format was good as it was before. By all means, add in anything that isn't up to date. Ajf773 (talk) 10:32, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Ajf773, You did not answer the specific question that was posed. You rephrased your original revert comment and further discussion comments for which I have already answered. Let me summarize my response. Addition of a summary which helps maintain the section is not a major deviation from other lists. As I have used the same templates that are used in the article, there is no change to the layout. The only thing I could accept from your feedback is that the list update should maintain the sort order of the highway number. A reasoanable way of compromise is that I implement the update with the list maintaining the sort order of the highway number. If you agree to my suggestion, let me know. Thanks. Arjunaraoc (talk) 11:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry I felt I was quite clear. I have read the summary again and noticed it is pretty much a copy-paste from the source you provided (page 121 of the source) and a date is provided (31 December 2022). I don't think it's unreasonable to use this as a reference, but the section repeat the entire list of 55 highways when it is displayed more clearly in the table. The order of the highways in the source preplexes me, it seems logical to be ordered numerical by NH number. Ajf773 (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Ajf773, I agree that with ordered table, repetition of highway numbers in summary is of less value. I am fine with deleting the highway numbers in the summary. I am glad we reached an agreement. I will go ahead and implement. Arjunaraoc (talk) 04:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Ajf773, I have made the update. Let me know if you have any other suggestions. Arjunaraoc (talk) 06:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  The links you added in the Notes column is something else I pointed out in the initial edits. What is the context of these? Typically we don't use external links in lists. Also many appear to link to self-published sources. TheMetroRailGuy for instance. Ajf773 (talk) 10:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Ajf773, The links point to the most detailed information from Google search results for most of the new highways for which Wikipedia articles do not exist. This includes the route, construction status and sometimes maps. As this link is helpful starting point for creating full article, I have included them in the notes column. I agree some of them may be considered unreliable as per Wikipedia standards. So when an article is created with reliable sources, these could be removed. Arjunaraoc (talk) 00:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• NH716G-IN.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)