Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 20

Template:Interstates

A user wants to change the design of the template. See Template talk:Interstates. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Templates Jct and Infobox Road and shields

I have a few questions about {{Jct}} and {{Infobox road}}. With Jct, I don't remember it started pulling state-name Interstate shields, but it does now. And after what happened recently with those shields, I don't understand why it still calls them. So can we take a look at that? My second question is simpler. Can we make Infobox road able to display Future Interstate shields? We did it for Infobox Interstate, but then we got rid of that. If we can make it so "I" is replaced by "F" or "FI", then it can just call a future shield (provided one's available). Right now I just insert under "route" "XXX (Future)" which calls the shield, but it's not a solution. Any ideas for both? --MPD T / C 20:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Look at the history of templates like template:infobox road/GA/shield Interstate :| As for future Interstates, it's probably best to manually use marker_image, given there are so few that are fully future. --NE2 20:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

What is the B-class audit

I just wanted to explain what I was doing (not on behalf of USRD at all - this is my personal project). I am going through the B-class articles and seeing if they are truly at the (new) B-class standards. I am checking for three things:

  1. Is the article reasonably complete? If there's three sentences for a hundred mile route, or if there's half of the history missing, it's not.
  2. Is the article reasonably sourced? I'm not being nitpicky here. If there's a RD or history completely unsourced, or if there's only one reference for a long history section, it's not.
  3. Are there other major issues (i.e. cleanup templates, or the article just being a mess in general).

I'm spending about 30 seconds reviewing each article and giving the benefit of the doubt, so I'm being pretty gracious. If I don't see any problems within 30 seconds, I leave it alone. However, I'm still demoting a lot of articles (mostly unsourced RDs or histories). Ouch... --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Interstaes articles still missing maps

Now, alot of articles missing maps has a map now. We still have like 20 articles still have to get map.--57Freeways 01:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow. There are thousands of articles that need maps. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Alot of them is small state highways. interstate articles seem to been slightly imporving. For copyditing is out of my ability.--57Freeways 01:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

But I still don't understand what the point of this thread was. Are you looking for somebody to copyedit? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Redirects and congressional districts

Right now, it's pretty hard to find an article on a congressional district, unless one knows a) The name of the person holding the office, or b) the specific naming structure of Wikipedia's articles on them.

For me, it seems natural to search for, for example, "NC 8", to find the 8th congressional district of North Carolina. But that takes me to the article on NC Highway 8, an equally valid possibility.

I haven't brought this up on any other wikiprojects yet because I wanted to ask first, it would be really helpful if either the redirects were turned into dabs, or a hatnote were put at the top of the road articles directing people to the congressional district (or vice versa).

Thoughts? --Golbez (talk) 08:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

In some cases they are disambiguation pages: VA 8 for instance. I have no problem with this. --NE2 09:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I think a dab's the best way to go. Only because NC 8 could also, for example, stand for North Carolina's 8th House district or 8th Senate district I suppose. But yeah, no objection. --MPD T / C 10:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
And we all know what NC 17 is --NE2 11:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Each state only has two senators, and they both represent the state at-large, not just a district of the state. The state with the most Congressmen is California: I think they have 53 Representatives. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 16:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I was preferring to believe MPD meant state senate district. :> In this case, I might get started on making some dab pages today! --Golbez (talk) 18:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it

Okay, I don't agree with NYSR splitting from USRD. The whole idea is silly (under our system, New York is its own country, among other things). But why in the world do we, non-members of NYSR, get to decide they must rejoin us? The decision should be left up to them. CL — 16:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject membership is pretty meaningless, since anyone can work on articles. Most people in the poll have worked on NYSR articles (and one of the opposes hasn't, as far as I know). --NE2 16:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm guessing you mean me for that oppose :) Still, they should make the ultimate decision on whether to rejoin the central project. I see what you mean with it being meaningless though, but obviously to them at NYSR this means something. CL — 16:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Some NYSR members did give input, and most of them agreed to the remerger. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I didn't notice your oppose; I was referring to Must eat worms (the latest incarnation of AL2TB). --NE2 18:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

So you heard that I left or went off in a huff or whatever...

I'd appreciate it if you read User:Rschen7754/Wikistatus and shared a response to it. It talks about my perspective on USRD and things lately and how I honestly feel about that. If you are in a hurry, the bold statements are the conclusions and the "So what?" statements; the rest is how I arrived at them. --Rschen7754 (T C) 09:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arizona State Route 48 --NE2 11:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Images

Just a note that there are a large number of road-related images listed on User:AWeenieMan/furme/DFUI/Logos that will be deleted for lack of fair use rationales in the near future. Some people from this project may want to lend a hand with WP:FURME. MBisanz talk 03:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of those are Canada's - might want to let that project know. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any U.S. ones, and the problem with the Canadian ones is that they're used more than they should be. They won't be deleted, simply removed from all but one place. --NE2 07:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, didn't notice the nationality, thanks for checking. MBisanz talk 12:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This is old and outdated, but its wrong

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There is a problem I have noticed in State Route Naming Conventions. When the original polls were done in 2006 (see:WP:SRNC), no discussion was ever made of Pennsylvania and its system. Currently we have "Pennsylvania Route X, XX, XXX" when it should be "Pennsylvania State Route X, XX, XXX" because this naming convention we have violates PennDOT code and signage. Also to bonus this the secondary system in the state, quadrant routes - use "State" in their header. (See:the stub State Route 2010 (Erie County, Pennsylvania)). Why do we use State in one header and just Route X in another. Also, other than the contradiction with itself, the PennDOT system is and has been "State Route X, XX, XXX". I propose that we move all Pennsylvania mainline highways to the respective "Pennsylvania State Route X, XX, XXX" headers. There need be no change in the quadrant route system, since they are like county routes and are treated that way. However, I do see a fault in the naming convention and it should be changed.Mitch32(UP) 22:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, about the two state routes that do not match (283 and 380) - they would use the State Route header - but would not be PA State Route 400 and PA State Route 300 - they would be PA State Route 283 and PA State Route 380, but still be mentioned in the article about the difference.Mitch32(UP) 22:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Not the most reliable source: 283/300 & 380/400. No other sources I can find though except for which explains it.Mitch32(UP) 22:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Probably not. According to List of State Routes in Pennsylvania, which does cite sources (including [1]), PennDOT uses State Route for all types, but Pennsylvania Route or Pennsylvania Traffic Route to distinguish from other types.
Another way to look at it is that everything state-maintained has a State Route number and a name. Traffic Routes have a third level, the number that is signed. We use the signed number wherever possible, and this is the Pennsylvania (Traffic) Route, not the State Route.
Unless you want to move U.S. Route 11 in Pennsylvania and Interstate 81 in Pennsylvania to the State Route names, and U.S. Route 222 Business (Reading, Pennsylvania) to State Route 3222 (Berks County, Pennsylvania)... --NE2 22:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I am talking about the State highways (such as Pennsylvania Route 652) - no effect on US Roads or Interstates.Mitch32(UP) 23:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
You're talking about the Pennsylvania Traffic Routes, not the state highways (which PennDOT calls State Routes). But the State Route numbering applies to all state-maintained highways, not just those signed as Pennsylvania Traffic Routes. You appear to have little knowledge of how the system works, which is rather surprising given how much you've written about individual routes. --NE2 23:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I have off-wiki sources - and know this - I don't live in PA or NY. I live in the urban cesspool called New Jersey. I just prefer the other two states highways. Right now I'm still working on more on PA.Mitch32(UP) 00:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
OFf-wiki sources can be cited, you know. You have yet to give any sources that show that PennDOT considers "Pennsylvania Route" incorrect. --NE2 00:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
By off-wiki, I mean PAHighways' Jeff Kitsko - i know him - and he's not citable.Mitch32(UP) 00:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, if you don't have anything else, I think we can close this discussion. Any objections? --NE2 00:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

See relevant discussion here. --Son (talk) 03:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

US Roads triple crown

I've been reminded that I owe a project-level triple crown to this project. Normally I do that by editing a visual symbol that relates to the project into the center of a triple crown. Suggestions, please? Tire treads come to mind. This is your crown (apologies for the delay) and I'd like to make it fun for you. DurovaCharge! 22:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If this were Ontario, you wouldn't have to make one --NE2 22:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I think it should be on a Big Green Sign or something ;) --Admrboltz (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Meh. It sound be on a New York State sign. :-) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
My suggestion is that there are the three crowns, potentially on a BGS background, one crowning an Interstate Shield on the left, one crowning a US Highway Shield on the right, and a slightly larger crown in the middle. I wouldn't put a state shield of any kind because 1) the default if a state hasn't designed one is a circle and 2) mulitple states have had FAs so it wouldn't be fair to single out any state. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I want my bikeshed blue! --NE2 01:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
An editor comes here seeking input on something that she's about to custom design for our project. I think it's entirely appropriate for us to offer some opinions and suggestions, and nowhere did I see a debate or arguing over the ideas. Parkinson's Law of Triviality doesn't apply yet here. Imzadi1979 (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I was joking... --NE2 15:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't sure, sorry. Imzadi1979 (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Could do an exit direction sign, with a crown where a shield would normally go, e.g.

↗

Three crowns would work just as well. Of course a white rounded border would be needed. An accurate arrow can be found in Image:USRD_ELG.svg. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The consensus was that changing images of interstate shields to state named shields is not important or constructive.

Curious about interstate shields again

I thought we said earler to use uniform neutral shields (same as Kansas and New Mexico) until we get the proper specs. Scott was right about this doesn't matter if a state is actually posting a neutral or state shields what matters is the proepr specs we have. Also we have no way to tell whether a state is posting a state or neutral shields. This is becasue I found out lately, after I uproot alot of state-name shields from any state without proepr specs, I found 63 or 75.47 putting state-specific shields back. They like to use Google St View to spot the shields of interchanges when Google St View I thought does "nothing". And also when the interstate hsileds have E Series on blue part of interstates, from 2003 MUTCD, they show the BUS Interstates use Series C on the green part of the interstate.Now we said to never count on AA Roads, should we say to never count on Google maps?--SCFReeways 22:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Just because of what came from Google maps, I wonder what is this cough for by changing templates?--SCFReeways 22:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Nobody cares. --NE2 22:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Freeway, I would recommend not using any state shields in the 20px format, but using them in the larger 70px format for the top of infoboxes for states such as California which actively use them. At 20px, the state name is not at all visible. I don't think going about changing them at 20px in junction templates does any good for the casual readers, who outnumber editors by a large margin. I don't know how to establish authority other than my own driving experience and the interstate-guide.com site I have mentioned before, but I will always object to the use of state shields in PA, MA, RI, NH, VT, MD, VA, DE, NJ and NY articles because I know they are not on the roads to any degree in those places any more. It may be something for state projects to decide rather than USRD. NE, have you ever heard of, nevermind. Sswonk (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • We just can't tell if a state still use state or neutral shield. Interstate-Guide is not a valid source, and most of those states, even MN don't have a state document. With absense of state document, they follow USDOT. CA, AZ, MO, OK, IA, WV all have specific fix sign drawing, and they show state-name print on it, menas the state-name cannot be avoid.--SCFReeways 23:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

63 or 75.47 IPs like to use Google Maps to spot the signs post outside, and google maps does nothing. It is not even a valid source for Wiki, neither is Interstate-Guide. The map is wrong alot too.--SCFReeways 23:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

All the more reason why we shouldn't use these state-branded shields anyway. —Mr. Matté (Talk/Contrib) 00:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

These types of source is the only thing we can count on.--SCFReeways 00:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes, in the long view of sources being cited, which they are often not, an official PDF file showing a state designated shield is acceptable. However, the consensus here is that "nobody cares", in other words the shield state name is not important. In light of the display issues with state named shields, they should only be used in larger sizes such as 70px, and not replaced where the generic shields are now in use. You should let the editorial history show that edits to templates and many exit lists and infoboxes have been reverted, because the generic shield is either official or preferred. There is a lot of highway article edit work to be done, but adding these pointless state shield images is not really "constructive". Sswonk (talk) 05:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Lists review

Currently, there is no effective place to review lists before FAC. HWY PR is ignored. I propose that we should let lists be reviewed at ACR, which gets enough publicity. It has been suggested that we add the designation that the list has been reviewed by ACR to the talk page. Any suggestions? --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why a list couldn't be taken to ACR. (Maybe also have class=AL treated as class=list but with the template saying "A-class list"?) --NE2 03:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Great! This will be perfect for people aiming for a FT or GT that need a list up to FL. ~~ This page was edited by ĈĠ 21:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if a review system is needed; yes I understand your thoughts on it, but usually with FLCs you have plenty of time to fix the issues brought up before its time for it to be passed/failed. --Admrboltz (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah this wouldn't be required to take an article to FLC. But this would open up the door so if someone wanted theirs reviewed, they could. (Heck, ACR isn't technically required for FAC...) --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Only junctions with Interstates ending with 5 or 0

Resolved
 – Implemented at WP:IH. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Interstate 95#Infobox revisited and [2]. I think this rule has to be relaxed to allow for reasonable variation. Why are we excluding junctions with in the major cities of Philadelphia and Washington just because they don't fit neatly into the guideline? That guideline was written primarily to address the infobox from getting too long, which is not the issue here. If the only reason preventing adding these junctions is that the WikiProject, as currently written, implies that these shouldn't be listed, then that's simply not valid. That rule has to go. --Polaron | Talk 04:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

IMHO - It probably could be. Unfortunately, there are some n00b users who add non-major junctions despite HTML comments - you probably should leave a HTML comment telling people not to add any more - at least. I'd like to see what others think on the matter though. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The spirit of the guideline is to keep infoboxes from being longer than the articles they supplement. Since two major cities are left out, I say IAR it and add them back. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
IMO the guideline should say the "10 most important junctions as decided by consensus on the talk page of the article". I know of 2 examples where the rules are intentionally broken: U.S. Route 50, the only junction listed in the infobox between Sacramento, California and Pueblo, Colorado (the better part of 1000 miles) is U.S Route 395 in Carson City, Nevada, even though in that span US-50 crosses 2di's (I-15, I-70) and 2dus (US-6,89,93 and 95). I defend this as appropriate, though not intuitive to someone who is not familiar with the area. Interstate 15 is in a similar predicament, with US-95 in Las Vegas listed as a major junction, for much the same reason as the original question. The problem is, then somebody feels the need to add the junction with interstate 239 in Roosterpoop, CT. I don't know why, but somehow everybody thinks the junction in their hometown qualifies as a major junction. Dave (talk) 04:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I propose rewording the relevant guideline to something like:

Note:

  • Only major junctions go into the Interstate routebox. These would be junctions with other Interstate Highways and/or junctions located in or near the central cities of major metropolitan areas with other important highways such as turnpikes and U.S. routes. Listing of multiple junctions in the same location should be avoided if possible. If any routebox has over 10 junctions, then some of the junctions need to be removed.
  • Auxillary Interstate Highways have more lenient rules in general because of their shorter nature. Junctions with major state roads may be added within reason. The 10-junction limit still applies regardless.
  • For certain cross-country Interstate Highways where the above would result in over 10 junctions (e.g. I-10, I-40, I-75, I-80, I-90, and I-95), a good rule of thumb to follow is to include only junctions with Interstate Highways ending in '5' or '0' and/or those in or near the central cities of major metropolitan areas. In any case, the 10-junction limit should be followed.

--Polaron | Talk 13:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good... any objections? --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

CA 5 discrepancy

California State Route 5 directs people to California State Route 35, to which 5 was redesignated in 1964.

However, the list of California state highways links 5 to Legislative Route 5 (California pre-1964), which redirects to I-580, and has no mention of route 5.

Is this correct, or does Legislative Route 5 need to be re-redirected to Route 35? --Golbez (talk) 23:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Before 1964, there were two systems: (unsigned) legislative routes, and (signed) state sign routes. List of state highways in California (pre-1964)#Sign routes links to SR 5. --NE2 00:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Meaningless votes at ACR

Resolved
 – Put into place for new ACRs. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Recently there have been some votes at ACR saying "Support - good job!" Under the current system, they are counted as support votes, regardless of whether the article fits the criteria or not. What should we do regarding this issue? --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we shouldn't count votes, but do it more like FAC where all reasonable objections should be fixed? --NE2 22:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I like that thought, give it a week, and if they have responded too all reasonable opposes in a week, then promote it. --Admrboltz (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I say this is a good idea too. However, the limit would need to be longer than a week; ACR is known to progress at a glacial pace and I'd say about two weeks would give a chance for any latecomers to take a look. CL — 01:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Not to be meaningless, but a vote is, a vote. You folks are running a circus rather than a consensus, but hey, who am I to pass judgment? If someone takes time to sign a vote on some issue, it is not to be discounted as the passing shot in the dark you wish it to be. Sswonk (talk) 01:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
For someone who does not know the background of the situation, this is a very rude remark to make. (It's not just a simple support; there's another rationale that is in play here that is well known around USRD but that I can't exactly mention in a place like this, or otherwise it could be considered a personal attack.) --Rschen7754 (TC) 01:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you 7754. I would enjoy knowing more if you can elucidate. Now that you mention it, I applied a little reverse psychology, and now that you have an over forty contributor in me, maybe you could reward this response with a little sympathetic gesture and entertain my question, re: when is voting meaningless? Sswonk (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. I can't discuss the specifics on wiki; maybe if you could enable your email address I could clarify there? --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, we can try two weeks and change it later if we can see it's not working. (But I think two weeks is faster than our current ACR process... maybe this would speed it up? ) --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, now that I think about it, two weeks is pretty speedy (compared to now, at least). How about this, the two-week deadline begins after the first comment is made, just so no time is eaten away with no users commenting? CL — 02:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Not a bad idea. That way if we get overloaded, we just don't touch the newer ones... or if we want to torture the nominator :P --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
That works for me too --Admrboltz (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I propose that this be put into place for all new ACRs, if there are no objections. --Rschen7754 (T C) 09:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

AFD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San Diego Freeway --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if this is more appropriate here or at the AfD, but where do we draw the line? I agree this article is redundant, but this is one of MANY articles about "local names for freeways in California" that are at least partially redundant with articles about numbered highways, for example Santa Ana Freeway, Hollywood Freeway or Ventura Freeway. In the latter two cases, why not also merge them with California State Route 170 and California State Route 134. Dave (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
That is what I eventually want to do. Unfortunately, with the poor quality of edits from a certain trio of users, all of the LA freeway articles are a mess. Hopefully I will be able to get this cleaned up in the future. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Can we get a stay of execution and get until American Thanksgiving or something and get it cleaned up and at least show what the article could be? I just hate to see all the work that's been done get removed (yeah I know edit history etc). Just a compromising thought. --MPD T / C 00:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
All the work is simply copy-pasted from I-405. --NE2 00:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
With respect to all, here is the date of American Thanksgiving: 2008-11-27, a Thursday. Sswonk (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Are there any other metropolitan areas where the road articles are in a better shape we could use as a baseline? California is the only state I'm aware of where there is such a mismatch between the named freeways and the numbers on those routes. Phoenix has different names for parts of I-10 and I-17 but to the best of my knowledge there isn't a named freeway that jumps numerical designations, for example. Dave (talk) 01:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The Bruce Woodbury Beltway has an article at Las Vegas Beltway but the road is also split between I-215 and CC-215 which is a county road. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Pasadena Freeway and maybe Category:Streets in Washington, D.C. (which has freeways) --NE2 02:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
The only numbered and named freeways in DC are the Southeast-Southwest Freeway which is I-395/I-295, Whitehurst Freeway (US 29), and Anacostia Fwy/Kenilworth Ave (DC 295). I-66 isn't named. Even then, SE-SW Fwy is technically two different freeways (SW is 395, SE is 295) but it's usually referred to as one name...It seems that NYC/NJ has numbered routes that have many names, but that's common. I don't think there's many out East like out West with one name/many numbers like we're looking for. --MPD T / C 07:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Washington and Oregon do not use names for Interstates, and when they are used in Washington for U.S./State Routes (like Washington State Route 167/Valley Freeway) they only use one number. ~~ ComputerGuy 18:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Category rename

If anyone has an interest, look at a rename proposal for Category:Two-lane freeways. It needs some additional comments. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Is the preference in the main highway article, such as currently at Interstate 5, to link to state-detail articles in the infobox or to link to the main article? For example, on the main I-5 article above, to link to Interstate 10 in California as opposed to just Interstate 10? Right now the current situation is that most of the articles I've looked at point to state-detail pages, provided one is available of course.

I ask because here's the situation:

  • A) If we want to link to state-detail pages, we cannot use {{jct}}, because it calls state-name shields, which is against consensus.
  • B) If we use "NA" as the "state=" in the template above, then it links to the main page.

I don't care which way, I'd just like to know what the current opinions are. But can we all agree to fix {{jct}} so that we can use it in other situations when state-name shields are not acceptable because of their small size (i.e. exit lists)? --MPD T / C 05:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

My preference is to link to state-detail articles in other state-level articles, but the national articles in other national articles. In other words, M-28 (Michigan highway) links to Interstate 75 in Michigan (with appropriate piping) but Interstate 75 links to Interstate 94. (Intrastate interstates would be considered state-level under this idea.) Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
{{jct}} is only small-size, so if there has been consensus that small-size state name shields are bad, templates like Template:Infobox road/CA/shield I should be changed. --NE2 05:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I know a specific user has been running around and changing stuff related to this. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I say we keep the jct templates how they are; to me, it's perfectly acceptable to use a California I-10 shield on a California page, but nowhere else. On a nationwide page, we use the standard shield just for the sake of uniformity. Anyway, I agree that the nationwide interstate infobox links should redirect to other nationwide interstate articles.
Also, I hate how there's been a total lack of communication when it comes to what shields we're using on these state-detail articles. Why are Washington, Colorado and Nevada back to standard shields? It's not that this is necessarily wrong (or maybe it is, I don't know), I just want to know the reasoning. CL — 16:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's acceptable to have a state-specific shield on a state-detail article except that no one can read the state name at 20px. Imzadi1979 (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. Technically it doesn't matter but once you start messing with jct templates you're entering a world of hurt. CL — 16:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I would like to see neutral shields and main article links for main articles. ~~ This page was edited by ĈĠ 16:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thing about our state-specific shields, though, is that they're usually based on how the state actually makes its shields. Compare——the second shield is based on ODOT specs and while, yes, you can't make out the state name at 20px, there are other differences; the numbers are larger and closer together, and you can tell that difference at 20px. (I have to admit that since I've lived here so long the Oklahoma shield just looks so much more "right" to my eyes, even though I know the left one is technically the correct shield.)

I do agree that on national articles it looks a lot better to do the national shield across the board rather than have a smattering of different shields— —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

  • state specific is too tough to see over 25x20px, especially E Sers over blue part of interstate. Alot of people said, the simple rule is 25x20-neutral shields, 88x70px=state-name specific with proper sign drawngs. This have been discuss many times. Rschen, I'm not messign up, I hear this for like the 10th time, little icons we use neutral shields. --FRWY 02:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think all for all exit lists using {{jct}} should have the neutral shields. Again, it's too hard to read the state name. For use in {{infobox road}}, I would go so far as to use only state-specific shields regardless of whether the state does or not. Whatever we decide as a consensus should be consistent across every state and enumerated plainly so there's no mistaking the intent. --Fredddie™ 06:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

All now redirect to Template:Infobox road/Interstate/shield Interstate. --NE2 07:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Can somebody clsoe this discussion?--FRWY 23:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Please do not close this discussion. I will comment within the hour. Sswonk (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Fredddie: the problem with your suggested infobox consistency is that the state name shields have been phased out and barely exist in most eastern states. Although it is by no means official, this site includes a map near the bottom of the page showing there are only seven states, Iowa and California among them, that are still exclusively using state name shields. I have traveled extensively throughout the Atlantic Coastal states, New England and the Great Lakes states in the past few years and can confirm that the generic shields are by far in the majority. Sswonk (talk) 23:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
That seems fair. I was only saying that if this were Fredddiepedia, there would be state-specific shields in the infoboxes. Clearly this isn't Fredddiepedia. I don't want to open another can of worms over the validity of AARoads as a source, but do we have DOT proof from 49 states that they either do or don't use neutral interstate shields? Another thing to think about is this: . I bring it up as a precedent for having shields that aren't in use but are theoretically correct. Should we have a complete set of [[Image:I-{{{num}}} ({{{state}}}).svg]] interstate shields? I'll have more to comment about when I think about it. --Fredddie™ 00:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, I know blue state is consistancy for state name shields, Scott said not to use that map because it's not a valid source. Oklahoma is shade in pink, it should be blue, OK use state-specific on both indep and guide sign use. honestly do people worry that much? To most people these subject is just a "Funpi"-an Asian idiom for garbage talk, nonsnese, having no value with convo, this is harsh, but most people thinks this to be honest, no offense.--FRWY 00:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
1.) As I suggested, the site is not official. But, it does at least show what I have experienced in my recent travels in the east. 2.) "Most people", please see WP:WEASEL regarding that term. The participants in this thread are at least somewhat concerned. You spent a couple of months having state name shields made for you and editing templates in regard to state shields, and were roundly reverted for you efforts, so maybe that is why this issue is funpi to you. The MUTCD shows a generic shield, with the state name listed as an option, not the standard. Comments that can be found in your talk archives suggested the opposite, and your edits supporting that were often reverted. Sswonk (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
DOT proof is hard to get if they don't use state shields because they would just use the MUTCD. Since the federally-established norm is neutral, then the proof would lie on info from the DOT supporting state-named shields. --MPD T / C 02:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, why is this still an argument? This discussion seems closed because consensus seems that we will all accept neutral shields at 20px height. While there are enigmas like California, it seems like we have consensus. I'm all for debating what states should get state-name shields, but we should start a new section in the shields page, IMO. --MPD T / C 02:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
We are at consensus with the 20px shields as far as I can tell. I'm asking about the 88x70px shields in the infoboxes. I agree with debating that on the shields page. --Fredddie™ 03:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh okay, I thought we were still debating the 20px. This section is getting cluttered. I'm open for discussion on the 70px sizes. Let's start a new section either here or the shields page so it's easier to follow. --MPD T / C 04:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
See Below Sswonk (talk) 06:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Archive thread and move to shields for any further thoughts

I am closing this thread. There is further, earlier material located in Archive 14. The consensus there appears to be in opposition to changing any existing generic shields to state shields, which is why I responded to Fredddie above. Please read that thread carefully before continuing at WP:USRD/S. Sswonk (talk) 06:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notability discussion regarding Alt US 40

See Talk:U.S. Route 40 Alternate (Keyser's Ridge – Cumberland, Maryland)#Notability discussion. --Polaron | Talk 16:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

State Specific Interstate Shields

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I noticed recently that someone changed the state specific interstate shields in the infobox junction lists. Can this be changed back? As it stands now it's inaccurate using the generic shields. I'd change it back myself but I don't have the knowledge of where and how the change was made. Gateman1997 (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Scroll up a few sections... the idea is that it's silly to worry about it at 20px. --NE2 23:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. And usually it was 25px if I'm not mistaken. Gateman1997 (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
It should not be 25px. The height for all US shields in infoboxes and exit lists is 20px. Width of wide shields is 25px, which maintains the 20px height. And it's not at all inaccurate. As NE2 said, scroll up a few sections and read the discussion. --MPD T / C 23:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I did read it. And it doesn't appear much discussion was done on the topic. But seeing as I just joined the discussion I'm reopening it and challenging the decision. I don't appear to be the only one objecting either from what I'm reading above. Gateman1997 (talk) 00:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Please go to the new "discussion". Any shields talk like this can continue there. The consensus is that only articles about state specific portions of an interstate should use state named shields, and only in states where they are the only type of shields currently being posted in that state, and only at the 70px height size, i.e. at the top of infoboxes. Several editors have already agreed to this. In case you missed it, there is also another archived discussion linked above near the bottom. Sswonk (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Virginia Route 817 –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

A discussion regarding the primary source or secondary source classification of highway maps

Wikipedia talk:No original research#Regarding maps being "primary sources" according to this policy --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

ACR and GAN changes

Currently ACR and GAN are backlogged. Articles are remaining there for too long. I am proposing a few changes needed to address this issue:

  1. Allowing editors to only send one article to ACR at a time. This ensures that all nominations are given ample time and all editors are given a fair amount of time.
  2. Objections that are not addressed or where efforts are not made to address for seven days at ACR can cause an ACR to fail.
  3. Each individual editor is discouraged from nominating more than 5 USRD articles at a time.

Notes: This would only apply to new nominations; nominations already made would be unaffected. Also, item #3 only carries the weight of a suggestion; an editor can nominate more than 5 USRD articles at a time, but it would not carry the blessing of the project. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't make sense. Your solution to getting rid of a backlog is to make people wait longer, thus creating a larger (hidden) backlog? --NE2 21:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
The problem with ACR is that there are too many articles there, way more than people can pay attention to. The problem with GAN is that there are too many articles there as well, and if they are all from one state, that's not fair to the other states / editors. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Seems somewhat self-perpetuating - if there are too many, they get done more slowly, thus increasing the number more. People taking articles to ACR should ideally be reviewing others. But even if they don't, and most of the articles are from one state, it would certainly seem like reviewers would give more attention to the other states. Maybe the problem is just too few reviewers, and too many article-writers. That's not really a bad thing. Now if only the article-writers could be satisfied with simply writing a good article without getting the green plus sign that says "Good Article" or black-on-white A, there might not be any issue. --NE2 22:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
But then why does WP:FAC state to only have one FAC at a time? FAC is having a similar problem if you look at their talk archives. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Because my comments apply to FAC too? --NE2 23:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Can you at least agree with #2? --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I thought that already was the practice. --NE2 00:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's a radical idea. NE2, maybe you should start reviewing some articles at both forums? Seriously though, there is one editor with almost a dozen current GANs. My personal experience is that when there are that many nominations in one category from one editor, I tend to skip ALL of them and do reviews for other editors. As much as I nominate at GAN, I try to review there too. Same with ACR, although my focus has been more GAN-oriented with the current county challenge. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion :-)

  • Hi. This... won't be a discussion, or if it is, I probably won't be involved. Nothing personal at all; I'm just going back into semi-retirement, at least for a while. I may check in, esp. if you feel a need to leave a message on my Talk.
  • You may also have already done what I'm about to suggest. :-) If so, please forgive me. I sorta don't have time to research it.
  • There have been discussions at FAC etc. about whether maps are primary or secondary sources, and perhaps whether using them might run into WP:OR problems... and if it would, then when/how would it do so. There was also a discussion at WT:OR.
  • If you haven't already done it, I would humbly suggest that when you come to a conclusion on both questions, you make a subpage of this Wikiproject (and isn't there another roads WP..?). The subpage would cover the question concisely but thoroughly, including links to some authoritative sources to buttress your conclusions.
  • That way if the issue comes up at GA or FA, you don't need to mumble "well, we agreed". You can point to a crisp, one-stop-shopping treatment of the issue(s).
  • I'm toddling off into my cave now. Best wishes Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 02:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Road 337 (Florida) --NE2 01:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding ACR

There were a few ACRs that were voided after NYSR left the project back in September. Now that they have returned, what should be done with these ACRs? In my opinion, they should not be subjected to a full ACR; but they never did meet the ACR qualifications, so there should be some form of review. Any comments? --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 November 26 - random images related to U.S. roads --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Using maps as sources

Per an ongoing discussion at WT:OR I have proposed an essay/policy on the appropriate usage of maps as sources in wikipedia articles. The draft is here User:Davemeistermoab/sandbox, please discuss any objections and could someone with more experience provide input on what is next? Dave (talk) 21:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with the second to last paragraph. I see no reason why this would be original research. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with that paragraph. In that case, even if we assume the map doesn't show anything that's not yet open, they could have been late, and it could have opened a year or two earlier. Or they could have jumped the gun. We can say that it opened within a few years of 1950, unless the map company is horrible. (It should also be noted that the absence of a shield or a minor road does not mean the route or road does not exist.)
I disagree with lumping notability in with the topic of reliable sourcing. --NE2 21:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
That would deal with the question of reliability, however, not original research. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I can change the page to state that is verifiability rather than original research. I do think the notability is appropriate, the guideline is for the use of maps, OR is just the discussion where the need for such a guideline was discussed. Dave (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I do see the point with mapmakers jumping the gun sometimes (I have seen it on my beloved Thomas Guides...) However, my concern is FAC getting upset if we are unable to pinpoint a specific year the road opened. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I have traditionally tried to find the date a road opened with a newspaper article search for the period. If no newspaper article exists I go with the copout and state "the road first appeared in maps in..."Dave (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah the problem (at least on my end) is I have to do a search with microfiche / microfilm, and I still need to learn how to use one of the two machines (I don't remember which is which...) --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Microfilm is on a spool like movie film. --NE2 23:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Elkhart County Road 17 and Elkhart County Road 38

Do we consider these notable enough for their own articles? --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Poorly written and undeserving of an article. The only link, only gives a small mention of the roads in a construction project. computerguy@Wikipedia.org 23:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd say yes on CR 17 - or at least merge with M-217 (though CR 17 is a lot longer than the 1.5-mile M-217). The part between US 20 and the Toll Road is on the National Highway System as a continuation of the US 20 bypass: [3] CR 38, on the other hand, looks like a typical one-a-mile section line road. --NE2 23:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I would recommend both be deleted, under my personal maxim that if they were really that important, they'd be state roads. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
If Indiana didn't impose a legislative cap on state road mileage, CR 17 probably would. --NE2 00:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The article should at least address how the road is notable (e.g. since CR 17 is on the National Highway System, its article should mention that). Currently it appears that all the articles bother to mention is that there is construction going on on those roads, which isn't particularly notable. - Algorerhythms (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Tagged 38 for prod. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
And 38 is gone. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scenic route --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Geo co-ordinates?

Q: There is a big push in Wikproject Utah to tag all articles with geo coordinates. I suspect this is a co-ordinated effort as wikiproject Nevada also seems to have a smaller push. Even some of the articles without literal co-ordinates are getting tagged, (i.e. mountain ranges are getting tagged with the co-ordinates of either the geographical center or alongside a prominent peak, etc.) Should road articles be geo-tagged? I.E. should we pick a bend in Logan Canyon and tag U.S. Route 89 in Utah or even U.S. Route 89 with those co-ordinates? or should roads be tagged by their southern/western termious? or not at all? Dave (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I think so. It's tremendously useful to have coordinates so map resources may display the road. It also provides another way of describing the location, enhancing the verbal version of where a road is, and provides additional verification of a feature's existence (not that is much problem for roads). Click on the numbers here 42°31′19″N 119°29′48″W / 42.521854°N 119.496703°W / 42.521854; -119.496703 to see map resources known to cover the point, including satellite imagery, or click on the globe icon to use Wikipedia's Mini Atlas. —EncMstr (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but what point do we use? Roads are linear features. Unlike a building that exists in a single location, or even a town/city whose center could be used for the geotag, roads are linear. Do we tag only the coordinates of the central milepost for the road? How about only the termini? For a road like M-28 that is 290.43 miles (467.40 km) long and exists in 9 counties in Michigan, using the central point would prompt Google Maps, among other mapping services, to put the link to the article somewhere in rural Marquette or Alger counties. The western terminus would be in Wakefield, the eastern terminus is in rural Chippewa County. I wouldn't object to tagging a short road like M-554 or M-212 as they are so short that the termini and the central points aren't going to be so far apart. Any highway of significant length though, well... where in the US should the pointer to US 66 be? Imzadi1979 (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I would say we should pick a standard and stay with it, I can see the southern/western terminus, or (preferred by me) a point on roughly at the center of the route. In other words US-66 would be tagged somewhere between Albequerque, NM and Tulsa, OK. Special cases should be allowed, such as where a road is defined or associated with a specific place. (I.E. Arizona State Route 64 is most associated with the Grand Canyon or the most famous landmark along U.S. Route 101 is the Golden Gate Bridge, etc.)
Another question is if we do it, should the co-ordinates be added to the infobox or at the top of the article?Dave (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
(ec) There's a proposal under development which addresses this, but any unambiguous point (that is, not near an intersection) uniquely specifies the road. Personally, I like the endpoints proposal, but there's also the "significant features" aspect as in List of crossings of the Willamette River which can be mapped like this. That technique may be more appropriate for a Route which may follow several unintuitive connecting highways. —EncMstr (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikiproject Nevada is not behind the changes in Nevada. There was a post on the talk page there from one of the editors who is involved in the effort. Having said that, I'm not sure this is good if the geo people expect other editors to research and add this information. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
(ec) What would we do about routes that have multiple, unconnected sections? Interstate 74 comes to mind, where there are four different sections separated by hundreds of miles at times, and no real "planned" route through the largest missing portion (between NC/VA line and Cincy). Also, responding to the ec from Vegaswikian, I do not plan to do geotagging. --MPD T / C 20:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying that some routes aren't connected? Doesn't that violate the definition of a route? If so, a short list of coordinates is needed at a minimum. —EncMstr (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Most roads articles have a list of junctions. An alternative might be to put coordinates for the more major (or even all for short routes) of these junctions. Then one can use the geogrouptemplate to show a map of all the coordinates. --Polaron | Talk 22:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the map of all the coordinates, I'd like to see that in action. I would go as far as putting coordinates for any intersection that's notable enough to be included on an exit/junction list. --Fredddie™ 04:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Try the "like this" url up above! —EncMstr (talk) 05:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
And how many such junctions do you believe would have to be tagged in USRD articles? --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Having them in an exit list would be obnoxious, which is why in an article the geotags are at the top right of the page. My thought is, we list the cities the roads go through, and those cities' pages (will/should) have the geotags on them. If you mean like just a link to a map that has a point for every intersection, maybe. But what about an Interstate like I-90? That's thousands of points. Maybe just the termini? We can try a few things, I'm always up for that. It's not life or death. So why don't we make a few examples using articles, and see what works best for us? --MPD T / C 05:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I would be fine with a few points of a highway being tagged. But tagging every freeway exit and every state highway junction is not possible - we don't even know how many of those there are in the U.S. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, no. CL — 05:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Mama mia, mama mia, mama mia let me go... --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Beelzebub has a devil put aside for me, for me, for meeeeeeeeeee—
God, you guys don't know how random it is to not check Wikipedia for a while and then come back and you're all singing Bohemian Rhapsody. Agreed that this is probably just a waste of time: too much effort, not enough benefit, and not really helpful since you can't represent a route with just its midpoint. Take a look at OK-74...its midpoint would be in the middle of an area where OK-74 doesn't actually exist... —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah every junction would be overkill. I think it's between the center of a route or the endpoints, my preference being the center.Dave (talk) 05:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point. There are two purposes for adding coordinates to articles:

  1. So a reader can find a place on a map
  2. So external services like Google Maps can harvest the data

The former is not generally helpful for linear features, at least those without well-defined division points (e.g. passenger railroads with stations, which have their own articles anyway; canals with locks; and possibly freeways with interchanges). Usually the reader would be better off picking a community the road passes through, going to its article, and then locating the road based on the route description. The main exception is for places related to the highway that won't have separate articles, such as Ridge Route#Description - but these are coordinates of locations mentioned, not of the road itself. I would make an exception for cases like New Jersey Route 59, where the road is essentially a railroad crossing.

The latter is completely and utterly useless for a road. If a service can display our coordinate data, it should be able to show a street map, which will actually show where the road goes and not just one point on it. If we could include and services would support full linear data, it would be a different issue entirely, but that's a different issue entirely and would probably be done top-down (I could probably convert the GIS data I created for several states, for instance). --NE2 05:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that is the point. For example the geotags used for the article California lead to a point near Madera, California, but for the purposes listed (google map harvisting and location) it works quite nice. Dave (talk) 07:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're saying; Google already knew where California is. I do agree that the California coordinates are good for the reader, since California is a two-dimensional feature. The coordinates are to the nearest degree; any more would be silly and probably false precision. --NE2 07:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
OK replace California in my above statement with Mississippi River, a linear feature with geotags (in the current iteration of the article). IMO it works fine for the two purposes listed in your original response.Dave (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

←The wider issue of coordinates for roads and other linear features is under discussion, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates/Linear. See also the table at M6 motorway#Junctions. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that table is noncompliant with WP:ELG. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Another

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 December 15#Category:Bannered Interstate Highways. — CharlotteWebb 11:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Another deletion discussion

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Future_road --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

CFD on Interstate highways concurrent with another numbered highway in its entirety

I just listed Category:Interstate highways concurrent with another numbered highway in its entirety at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 December 19#Category:Interstate highways concurrent with another numbered highway in its entirety. Feel free to comment -- KelleyCook (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

ACR and PR for California State Route 78

Currently there is an ACR and peer review open for California State Route 78. The ACR has been dormant for a while and needs some comments. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of routes into destinations column

Am I correct in saying this? [4] --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I've always thought that what's on the sign below the "Exit ###" sign (if there is one) was what goes into the destinations column. But since California replaces their guide signs every other millennium or so, I would say you are right. --Fredddie™ 17:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I always put routes that are not signed from the freeway in parentheses. This especially makes sense in states like Georgia, but I don't see the problem with applying it here. --NE2 18:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
However these routes are signed from the freeway - just not on the BGS. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of unsigned routes, should we italicize anything that's in parentheses? Here's an example for some destinations on I-5 (CA) explaining why:
Road 33 is not signed on the BGS, but Road 27 is. Can we italicize Road 33 to avoid amibuity? --Mgillfr (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it is necessary as the parentheses already indicate the same thing. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
SR 75 (Palm Avenue) - Palm Avenue is signed on BGS, while Road 33 is not. They are both in parentheses. Mgillfr (talk) 02:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
But Artois is not a route in this case, where SR 75 is. People can tell the difference. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Three TFDs

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 December 24 - {{Number roads}} and {{Roads in Alabama}} and {{Project U.S. Roads/Newsletter}}. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Bold title on articles about state sections of national roads IT'S BAAAAAAACK.......

Howdy, A couple of events with Interstate 70 in Utah appearing on the main page has brought this issue back into the spotlight.

Background (for those not familiar): Per WP:BOLDTITLE (explained in more detail at WP:Stop bolding everything), articles with a descriptive title, rather than a literal title, do not need to have the title repeated in bold in the lead sentence. The intent is to avoid having redundant wording in the lead sentence or having text which is both bolded and linked (which is a frequent violation of the WP:MOS). This has resulted in most articles about a single state section of a multi-state highway having no bold title, which has attracted attention at both WP:FAC and frequent reverts from people not understanding the policy or reasoning. Examples include the current iterations of Interstate 15 in Arizona (no bold title) or Interstate 15 in California (in violation of the MOS, with text both bolded and linked).

The Meat: While I-70 was on the main page, confusion by those not familiar with US highways resulted in a change in the lead, which may result in a compromise to end this controversy. Some readers left comments on the talk page explaining how they were confused, because I-70 is in Pennsylvania, etc. so what's this article saying about Utah. The result is the lead of the article now reads:

This is a sub-article to Interstate 70, which focuses on the highway in its entire length.

Interstate 70 (I-70) is a highway in the United States connecting Utah and Maryland. The Utah section runs east–west for.....

Interstate 70 no longer requires a link, because of the link in the disclaimer. And the lead could be changed to bold text, to satasfy those with an urgent need to bold something. I.E.

This is a sub-article to Interstate 70, which focuses on the highway in its entire length.

Interstate 70 (I-70) is a highway in the United States connecting Utah and Maryland. The Utah section runs east–west for.....

What say ye? Should this be our new standard? At a minimum I agree the disclaimer is appropriate and should be incorporated project wide on similar articles.Dave (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I like it so far. I imagine that this would apply to US Highways as well, so we could have:
This is a sub-article to U.S. Route 41, which focuses on the highway in its entire length.
U.S. Highway 41 (US 41) is a Michigan state trunkline highway that is a part of the larger U.S. Highway between Michigan and Florida. The highway enters the state via the Interstate Bridge between Marinette, Wisconsin and Menominee, Michigan. Along its 279.167-mile (449.276 km) route...
just to copy edit the current lead to add in the bolding and stuff. Any thoughts on this idea as well. If these examples work, I could easily see this clearing up an ambiguity on lead sentences before we get many more state-detail articles at FAC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imzadi1979 (talk • contribs)

No. --NE2 23:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Umm, besides using the BlogLink for your "no", that particular guideline is for "related articles". It is perfectly appropriate to hatnote subarticles, which is exactly what all of these I-xx in State articles are. -- KelleyCook (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
IMO this guideline says yes. It suggests to summarize related articles with a paragraph in the main article and use the main template to link them. USRD guidelines comply with this by stating the route description of the national article should have a summary of each state article with a link to the state article in that section.
IMO what this guideline is saying it would be inappropriate if the national I-70 article started out with a dozen hatnotes "for the Utah section see..., for the Colorado section see..., for the Kansas section see..." which is not what we are proposing to do.Dave (talk) 23:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
It sounds like we have an oppose and a few supports? Anybody else want to chime in? I'm gathering information for an article where this would apply, so I'd like to know if this is how we'd like to move forward.Dave (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the proposed change is fine. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

San Diego Freeway

Should San Diego Freeway be a disambiguation page, like [5]? I don't know why it links to I-405 when SD Freeway also includes the segment of I-5. Mgillfr (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It was sent to AFD and that was the result. Regardless, infoboxes never go on disambiguation pages. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't mean the result from the AfD can't be changed. And if infoboxes can't go in, then let's simply make a disambiguation page without one. --Mgillfr (talk) 20:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Beside the point, the infobox is also wrong? It states the south end as MX-1, but the dab page says it extends from downtown San Diego. Another reason for striking the Infobox. To that extent, on the I-405 page, it should state instead of "despite being 75 miles from San Diego" that the I-405 San Diego Freeway is a continuation of the I-5 San Diego Freeway, which is a logical explanation, no? Also, it would solve some issues? --MPD T / C 21:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Does anybody really refer to I-5 as the San Diego Freeway? I am only a frequent visitor to SoCal, not a resident, so I'm probably not the best to ask, but I am familiar at least with the area. Every time I've heard "San Diego Freeway" it is clearly referring to I-405. I've always heard I-5 called Santa Ana Freeway or Golden State Freeway. Doing the infamous "first 10 hits of googling a term" test yields the following for "San Diego Freeway": 5 refer to articles about I-405 and 405 only with no mention of I-5, the other 5 link to pages about freeways in general in the San Diego area. None refer to I-5 with the name of San Diego Freeway. Dave (talk) 21:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
But the segments of San Diego Freeway contain both I-5 and I-405. And no part of I-405 is nowhere near San Diego, not even San Diego County, contrary to I-5. So again, SD Freeway also includes I-5. --Mgillfr (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I live in the San Diego area, and nobody calls I-5 the San Diego Freeway. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I voted re-direct on the AfD for San Diego Freeway. I stand by that vote. IF someone were to write a solid B class article about the San Diego Freeway that was not redundant with the I-405 article, I would probably vote to keep it. However, every iteration of the article so far, has been redundant to, or directly lifted from, the I-405 article. I don't see much value in a disambiguation page, as the first paragraph of I-405 clears up any ambiguity pretty well. My advice, if you feel passionately that San Diego Freeway deserves its own article, develop the article in a sandbox, then move it over. If it was well written, sourced, and not redundant with I-405, it would not be deleted. That would be quite a challenge.Dave (talk) 01:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Dave on this one, and I would even go as far as to extend it to all the other articles on the named freeways in Southern California. Those articles are absolutely horrible. One of my goals is to get rid of them. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
The articles aren't horrible; they're just not organized. I thought on Wikipedia you shouldn't sound POV-ish. --Mgillfr (talk) 04:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
NPOV only applies to article prose - users are free to be as opinionated as they want outside of articles - CL — 04:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Style guidelines only apply to articles. Of course, WP:CIVIL and stuff like that always apply. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Ahem... --NE2 04:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I would say that that is the only one that should exist, as that one is a split of Route 110. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I could see others being expanded in similar ways, like Santa Ana Freeway and San Bernardino Freeway. --NE2 05:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Possibly. I suppose the main problem is similar to the problem with WP:IH - if the state-detail articles are horrible, then the main article will be horrible too! My opinion is that the main article should be done first, and then if there is substantial information for a detail article, then go ahead. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The Special/Auxiliary/Bannered Route Discussion

Yes, I'm going to start it to get it over with (since I don't think its been covered here yet). I've been doing a lot of work on the what is now the Special route page, and I think this term should be applied as the preferred term (unless it just wont fit) throughout the Wikipedia articles dealing with the topic for a variety of reasons that I will cover. So, you're asking, what is the problem? Well, everyone knows that there is something in common with Business routes, Bypass routes, Temporary routes, Alternate routes, Scenic routes, Connector routes, etc, etc, but it is rare to find a source that gives the exact term. So, after much research, though not Original Research, I've determined that SPECIAL ROUTE is current correct term. The unfinished discussion at Talk:Special route provided the starting point. Here are my points:

1. Special Route is used by AASHTO[6] for US highways and has been adopted by various state DOT's (WV as example: [7]).
2. NCDOT has adopted the term "Special Route" for its US and state highway systems[8].
3. Bannered Route or Highway is a Neologism and should be avoided, no matter the meaning of "banner". An argument against this can be found at: User:Rschen7754/Bannered.
This is exemplified by the comments:

"Bannered" is a neologism, popularized by Robert Droz on his website: Alternate U S Highways: Bannered Routes... Mapsax (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to add my two cents... I have to agree with Mapsax that "Bannered Highway" is a neologism. I have maintained my own highways-related websites for more than a decade, have been a "student" of transportation systems for three decades and work alongside transportation planners on a daily basis, and the only place I have ever seen "Bannered Highway" is in conjunction with Robert Droz' website, as noted above... CBessert (talk) 04:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

4. Auxiliary route is ONLY used for 3-digit Interstates and one or two roadfan websites who confuse them with the Interstates. Auxiliary should thus not be used, no matter the definition of "auxiliary".
5. The reason "auxiliary" has been applied to routes other than Interstates by some is that to sign a special route, you use "AUXILIARY SIGNS" or "AUXILIARY BANNERS", which say things like "Alternate" or "By-Pass". Auxiliary Signs may also point left or right or say "EAST", "SOUTH", "TO", "JCT", "DETOUR", etc so application of the term is incorrect. This is further proved as incorrect when letter suffixes are used as in US 74A, where there are no auxiliary signs.
6. Also note that Business Interstates are not technically "auxiliary routes" of Interstates (only highways like I-440 and I-365 are), so that term doesn't quite fit.
7. Alternate route, which has been suggested as an appropriate title, does not have official government body citing and is an ambiguous term that includes but is not exclusive to special routes. In other words, "alternate route" (with lower case "a") can mean a Business route or a Detour route or a set of roads not regularly traveled (doesn't even have to be a numbered road); it has many meanings instead of the one we are looking for.
8. Alternate route can't be applied uniformly to Wikipedia. Sure, we can put all special routes under the article "Alternate route", but we can't say "Alternate Routes in Wisconsin" because there are more than "Alternate" alternate routes listed there. Besides, that hardly makes sense.

So, there's my case to WP:USRD. Go to Talk:Special route to see full comments from others. Post new comments here. Hopefully, there won't be much fuss on this. --Triadian (talk) 08:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

FT2 said something that changed the way we approach stuff like this. I'm not sure where it is, but if you dig around the second arbitration case you should find it. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a link to that arb case? It's the one I missed and I'm having trouble finding it after digging through old WP:SRNC stuff. --Triadian (talk) 01:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2 --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
You mean someone actually said something in that case? --NE2 01:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
It was one of the side discussions on some evidence talk page or whatever. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Gee, thanks, that really helps me find what you're talking about. --NE2 01:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Proposed decision. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Well after skimming over that case, I think starting a discussion on it the subject couldn't hurt. Those at that case seem to think that we should avoid insulating the issue to just this WikiProject, so I think putting notices on some of the affected pages could satisfy that. Either way, I just want to clarify, I don't think I'm aiming for a clear decision among us here, just to see what we can agree on. As long as the pages will hold up to the guidelines of Wikipedia and can be clearly understood, I don't think we should make a fuss over it. I think so far, everything has been content using all three words in the article, backed up with the sources: roadfan, AASHTO, and DOTs alike. I just think "special route", with the evidence I've given, seem to be the safest preferred term with respect to notability and understanding and general acceptance. I would actually suggest keeping "[[List of bannered U.S. highways" the way it is because the word "special" in that regard seems too ambiguous. --Triadian (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

UKRD deletion discussion

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/L3121_road - might be interesting. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What do we equate L3121 to - an unnotable county road here in the US? CL — 05:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

USRD/CRWP Cup contest

This is an announcement for the USRD/CRWP Cup contest, which aims to improve USRD/CRWP article quality and participation. All editors are welcome to participate. See User:Rschen7754/USRDCRWPCup for more info. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Could this be widened to those who work on USRD in general, rather than making the participants select a state? In my case, I'm prepping 2 articles for GAC, and one for ACR. However, they are scattered across the western US. You saying that if I'm to compete, I should drop work on these articles, and focus exclusively on one state?Dave (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. The state I'd drop would be the 3 road articles in California I'm currently working on (2 to GA, 1 is a GA but could improvement), does that affect your decision =-)

The selection of a state is just for decoration. It doesn't affect the contest otherwise. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The contest will be starting this Saturday at 00:00 UTC. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

News verses Blog

Now that the newsletter is no more, and has been replaced with a blog that is updated as needed, is there still a purpose to the News section of the portal? I observe that the news is not updated as frequently as the blog, and when it is, the news item is also listed on the blog. Should we redirect this section?Dave (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The news section is for the reader; our blog is more or less an internal report. Therefore I still see a need for both. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi,just checking in. I am inclined to support merging. I don't believe that there is a such thing as an "internal report." Therefore, it should just be merged. --Son (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
WP:ANI, WP:AN, WP:POST? --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how any of those support your argument that there's a need for both news and a blog. Seeing as how the news item is listed on the blog, I see it as redundant. In what means does the blog serve as an "internal report?" How does the news serve as an "external report?" --Son (talk) 05:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The portal namespace is meant for the reader (not editor; just reader) to view. The wikipedia namespace is for the wikipedia editor. The two do not mix. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Rschen, the standard reader doesn't want to hear about what is going on at USRD, unless they join; we must keep the blog and portal seperated. –RoadGuy wuz here 18:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Synonyms for "route"

While editing recently, I noticed I used the word "route" four times in one sentence. It's hard to use the common synonym "highway", so anyone know of some words that might help out? --Triadian (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You might check out WP:USSH for some ideas, this page lists the "official" terms used by each of the 50 states. Nice to see this document put to a good use for a change (project joke).Dave (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Well never mind, out of 50 states, we have route, highway and road. I tried =-) Dave (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
In recent editing, I've been trying to vary use of the few available terms. For example, in an article on State Route 266, you can use the terms "the road", "the highway", "the route", "State Route 266", "route 266", or "SR 266" (or your state's approved abbreviation)—substitute "County/CR", "Farm to Market/FM" and other designators as appropriate. I think as long as the terms somewhat vary throughout the article, you're fine. --Ljthefro (talk) 02:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and if the route in question has an alternate name or designated street name, you might use that as well. However, this might require trickier writing in the prose so that the sentence doesn't sound too awkward. --Ljthefro (talk) 02:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Oklahoma City road meet/USRD meetup

The idea of a USRD meetup has been floated a few times, and nobody really came to a consensus on a location, but after the Chicago meet (which several USRD members attended) I have been kicking around the idea of a road meet in Oklahoma City. Since several members of the project have expressed interest in attending such a meet to me on IRC, what I'm planning on doing is running a "normal" road meet, then after dinner do a USRD workshop. This will have the benefit of attracting normal roadgeeks to the meet so we can possibly "recruit" them (hey, more editors would always be a help!)

OKC has never had a road meet before, so this will be a great opportunity to take a look at several of the interesting things around the city (by "interesting" I will usually mean "of a level of quality that will make most roadgeeks phone MoDOT and apologize for all the nasty things they said about them" ;) ) In addition, there is an opportunity to explore the I-40 realignment south of downtown OKC (which will be handled in a style similar to the I-64 tour at the St. Louis meet) and the first stages of the I-35 widening project in Norman set to kick off in March.

So as to attract more people from around the country, the meet will take place over two days. If you attended the Chicago meet, you'll be familiar with what I'm planning. So far the tentative dates are June 26th and 27th, a Friday and Saturday. I will probably stick with these dates unless there is a huge number of people who would want to attend but couldn't because of the dates.

I will be maintaining a webpage containing the most recent plans for the meet. It's at [9]—this page contains the dates and also the basic list of things we will be taking a look at. If you're interested in attending the meet, it makes for a handy bookmark. For those of you who like clinching interstates and counting counties, attending both days of the meet will clinch you two interstates (I-235 and I-240) and five counties. If you have suggestions as to stuff you'd like to have added to the tour, feel free to make suggestions and I'll see how we can fit it in.

Thanks for your interest! —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Edits to exit lists

Are edits such as this compliant with WP:ELG? --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Who cares - they're silly edits (and not compliant with capitalization style, though that's a red herring). --NE2 08:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
We used to have termini, both national and and the state border, listed similar to that, some states still do. I think it's fine. Of all the edits I've seen in the past two months, this is the least troublesome. --MPD T / C 13:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
It certainly would not pass FAC like that. With that said this isn't even close to the most outrageous use of bolded and linked text I've seen. I see 2 problems. First, as written this implies the freeway first crosses time zones, then some distance later, crosses state boundaries. If the timezone is to be mentioned in the exit list (unless there's an exit marked time zone boundary) this should be in the notes column, and it shouldn't need to be bolded and linked, per the WP:MOS only table heading should have bold text. I'll admit I've slipped in a few of those myself, but still it's against the MOS. As for state boundaries, the lone precedents so far is still Interstate 70 in Utah and Interstate 15 in Arizona, where in both cases the state boundaries were in the exit list, but were stripped off at one of the review stages (I think ACR, not sure). I could be convinced either way on that. Dave (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

See County Road 337 (Florida) (2nd nomination). --Son (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Route 97 (Rockland County, New York) --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

NYCR page move

[10] Any thoughts? --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose if one creates another CR 41 article/redirect it would solve this problem. --Polaron | Talk 13:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I've fixed it. --NE2 13:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

What is appropriate in a major intersections table besides major intersections?

The WP:USRD/ELG says that service areas and bodies of water are acceptable within reason. Other items seen in USRD article are named bridges, tunnels, freeway/non-freeway boundaries, and state lines. What else is acceptable? mountain passes? At issue is the A Class Review for U.S. Route 50 in Nevada. In the current iteration of the article, there is a separate table listing the named mountain passes crossed by the highway, as there are 17, too many to detail in prose. The suggestion has been made to merge this table with the major intersections table. A crude mock up of what this table would look like is at User:Davemeistermoab/sandbox. It needs work, it was a quick merge of the two tables. Please compare this with the article and provide feedback. Dave (talk) 03:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I took a look at the table in your sandbox. If you do integrate these, I think the most elegant way of presenting the summits would be through a 2-column rowspan (spanning the "junction" and "notes" columns), leaving the milepost box free in case a source of NDOT mileposts becomes available. Text in the 2-column span cells would read something like:
  • Spooner Summit in the Carson Range, elevation 7,146 feet (2,178 m)
  • Connors Pass through the Schell Creek Range, elevation 7,729 feet (2,356 m) — Highest point along US 50 in Nevada
I would be interested to hear others' thoughts on this issue, though. —LJ (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

When does a database error merit inclusion?

County Route 35 (Warren County, New York) contains the following:

The United States Department of Transportation, who maintains a "National Bridge Inventory" has a listing of County Route 35's former bridge over the Northway. However, instead of marking it as County Road 35, the USDOT marked it as Old State Road 35.

Now, if you look at our National Bridge Inventory article, "many records within the NBI were inaccurate or out of date". In addition to being a large government database, and therefore already presumed to have typos and other such errors, we have a reliable source stating that these errors are common. I removed this sentence, and was reverted. So I'm taking it here for more input. Do we want to go down the road of listing errors in databases, maps, or other products that refer to the road? --NE2 16:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now you are just forum shopping, because of this article. Its one article for pete's sake, and I would wish that you would just put it behind you. It is getting out of hand.Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 16:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Please discuss the issue itself or don't discuss at all. Thank you. --NE2 16:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Do you know what the letters GTH mean? I am sure you do. Anyway, with Warren 35, its a rather rare error especially by the federal government. I don't believe that map errors should be included because they are all so common.Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 16:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Go to hell, I presume? You obviously didn't read my original comment, or you wouldn't be saying that an error in the NBI is rare. (But even if it were, why would it be worth including?) --NE2 16:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
*raises eyebrows* --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it notable, NO. Is it worth fighting about, NO. I casually suggest that both editors show a bit more maturity here.Dave (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where I've been immature, but sure. --NE2 17:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Eh, just leave it alone. Wikipedia prefers credibility over facts anyway. Not like it matters... Elm-39 - T/C 13:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think an apparent error in the NBI database is worth noting unless CR 35 actually is old NY 35. Either way it's still kinda trivia and not really important to note. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Map tutorial written

(moved from WT:USRD/MTF)

See User:Xenon54/Map tutorial. If it's possible, I'd like someone to check over it before I add it to WP:USRD/MTF. Thanks. Xenon54 (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Leaderboard bot

I wrote a program that generates the leaderboard automatically; it will now update every week. Please look over the leaderboard and make sure there are no errors. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

AADT?

I was discussing Wikipedia off-wiki and someone brought up that he'd like to see our articles include AADT data. While a few of our articles (usually FA-caliber) include this information, it's missing from the vast majority of our articles. I certainly think it's on-topic and could be included in articles, but the question is whether we should have a big push to get this included in the majority of articles (i.e. make it a requirement or at least a very strong suggestion for ascension up the class ladder).

If we are going to include it, question is, what do we do with it? Traffic counts vary at different locations along the route, of course. We could add two lines to the infobox to denote the high and low AADT and their locations. We could try working into the route description (possibly difficult to do since it would tend to make the writing formulaic). Or we could use a table and put it in its own section. Something like this...

Location AADT
Vistafield 12,000
Blagojeville 9,200
Lupupsenburg 10,100
Hoosin 4,200
Saxeton 950

Additions could include highlighting the low and high AADT in different colors. We could also float the table in the route description in place of the mileage table that's around in the national route articles instead of putting in its own section.

Another idea is to add an AADT column to the junction list. This would be less flexible because AADTs are not always collected at junctions.

What do you guys think? More work than it's worth? Or is it a good idea? Which one of these ideas is best, or do you have better ones of your own? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's too "technical" to include, and doesn't mean anything to most readers; what might be more interesting is the level of service - is it generally free-flowing, or is there major congestion? --NE2 13:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Two concerns, one AADT data changes every year, so it will be a lot of work to keep the articles up to date. Second, AADT data is more valuable for freeways and busy roads. For low traffic rural roads, AADT is more of a formality than providing useful information. So I'd approach it on a case by case basis. For specifics, AADT data would be of great use to show how congested Interstate 405 (California) is, or what a porkbarrel piece of crap Interstate 180 (Illinois) is. But I would defend it provides no value on a rural drive like Utah State Route 128. An interesting case would be U.S. Route 50 in Nevada. It would surely be a waste to provide that at every junction, a 30 entry table of almost nothing, but maybe it would provide value to include AADT for one rural section and the section between Carson City and Lake Tahoe (which is VERY busy) for comparison purposes.Dave (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I would argue that AADT data is mostly useless. For I-405 it might be worth mentioning briefly the AADT at a few points, but that's really it. I think having a table is overkill. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think if the AADT data is widespread, the reader could glean something from it (i.e. if they learn some familiar road's AADT, then they can use that as a yardstick to determine what a particular number on some other road means). Also, traffic counts in rural areas can still be useful to gauge how remote/useful the road is... OK 39 has an average in rural areas of about 1,900 while OK 87 only has an average AADT of 190 or so. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've put AADT data in 2 articles, Interstate 70 in Utah, and Interstate 80 in Nevada, both as passing comments in the route description. Of the two I guess it does add some value. I'm working on 2 articles currently U.S. Route 50 in Nevada, which needs one more review at ACR (hint hint wink wink), and California State Route 14. I'll try the same as an experiment on those two and see how it goes.Dave (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Added to those two articles. Looking back, I think it was a worthwhile addition to those articles, primarily because both routes have the two extremes of a congested portion at one end, and lonely desolate portion at the other, AADT data helped quantify that contrast. The biggest challenge was finding a way to include it, without being a distraction.Dave (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Right. The reason I was advocating a table or independent section is because AADT data is difficult to work into the RD without it sounding like a random tangent. I think one idea might be to have an independent section with prose describing and analyzing the data. I may add this to an Oklahoma article and link it here to serve as a proof of concept. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Milestone Announcements

Announcements
  • All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page.
  • Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project.
  • No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work.
Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 (t, c) 10:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this would be cool: what do you all say? --Rschen7754 (T C) 09:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Failure of California State Route 78

For the last few months it seems that I have been the person behind trying to make sure GANs and ACRs are passed in a timely manner and that we don't get creamed at FAC. I have reviewed dozens of GANs over the last few months and was the primary person reviewing them before the Cup challenge. I was the one who made sure ACR kept moving and that it remained effective over the last few months when people just ignored it.

But when I try to get my own article reviewed through ACR people won't even tell me what the problems are with it. That stupid ACR has been open since OCTOBER 27. That is INEXCUSABLE. Furthermore, because of this and because few USRD people have commented on its FACs or peer reviews, it has failed FAC twice due to inactivity. On the second review, people didn't even fully review the article.

Therefore, effective immediately, I am withdrawing my participation in all GAN reviews, ACR reviews, and FAC reviews. I see no reason why I should work to review articles when I can't even get my own articles reviewed. As I have been the one propping up ACR for the last few months and reviewing a large percentage of GAN articles, ACR will probably collapse and GAN will get extremely backlogged. I'll leave it to you guys to figure out how to fix it. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a sad day for USRD right now. We are entering a lull in activity slightly abetted by your WikiCup but still very inactive, especially compared to several months ago, where getting on the top spot in the leaderboard was crucial for each individual Wikiproject. Something happened in between then, and slowly MTF started getting more and more backlogged, ACR was gathering dust, and the leaderboard remained stationary (in fact, Utah got two new stub articles that I don't even know about). Some editing is going on but when you have only a few editors running 10,000 articles things get hectic and frustrating. Mainly all I do now is check in and fix any problems with the Salt Lake City article, see if any of my watchlisted UTSH articles have changed, and maybe make a random edit here or there. I made an article back in the beginning of January (SR-79) just so I could get something going for the project and not enter our task-force days, but to no avail. I just have become disillusioned with editing Wikipedia and its roads articles (and not to mention busy as well). A lot of editors have seemed to have taken the same path and one by one, we're losing our last dedicated people. A byproduct of this is backlog, and we tried making ACR more speedy and efficient with the "two weeks to comment" thing. That didn't work. And because of that, we have more side effects such as SR 78 failing its FAC due to ACR inactivity, which should be the last thing happening. NYSR is still producing GAs and FAs as far as I know and they're basically operating as if they are their own project (which is quite ironic that they thrive after we force them back under our jurisdiction while the rest of the project falls apart). Don't worry though, as with the economy USRD will come back in full force. One of these days... CL — 05:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I share Rschen's frustration with ACR. I've all but begged people to give my articles a review. But by the same token, that's how I started doing ACR's, somebody asked me to. Sometimes that's what it takes. Rschen, seriously, go to the talk pages of the poeople you have helped and be blunt. Say "Look, I've reviewed your article XXX, now I have one that is rotting on the vine, could you please take a look?" I know it shouldn't come to that, but sigh, it is what it is.
However, the news isn't all bad. I'm amazed at the progress made in the last 4 months on Nevada road articles. Just 6 months ago it would have been a waste of your time to click a link to a Nevada State Route article, cause they almost all looked like this, Nevada State Route 121. And BTW, I'm not knocking those that worked hard to at least get the shields drawn, and a route box with the termini up. It is a start. While there are still a lot of articles like that, if you watch the quality bot's update, you are seeing a lot of stubs get promoted to C and B class lately, and the efforts of those involved should not be underestimated. The Nevada DOT website does have some golden nuggets of into not available on other state's DOT websites. However, the website is lacking in some of the basic information, that those of you who work on other states take for granted. I can crank out a B class article on most Utah, California, Colorado, or New Mexico highways in an hour (It will suck but meet B class standards =-) ), I've spent DAYS researching just to get Nevada highway articles up to C class. Yet the work is getting done. Again, the news isn't all bad.Dave (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The merit of documenting roads

I've always liked the idea of the articles you guys create about roads and highways, but it's taken me a long time to fit that sort of documentation in to my idea of what an encyclopedia is.

And what I've finally come up with surprised me a little bit. The sort of work you're doing here is actually in my estimation a form of what may be the most ancient type of encyclopedia in human history: the periplus or way-guide, which was a type of record created by the Phoenicians, Hellenic Greeks, and Romans that would contain a description of what was to be found if a traveller followed a particular road or coastline.

In particular, an article that lists out the highway exits or towns and cities a road passes through is especially similar to a periplus. If you'd care to see an example, I transcribed The Periplus of the Euxine Sea at Wikisource a while back.

Way to go, ladies and gentlemen. Kudos to you for linking Wikipedia in to one of the oldest human endeavors! --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 09:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Maps, GA

If putting a highway article up for GA review,....are maps necessary or just nice to have? Can an article missing a map fail? Or is it the same as images just good to have if available Kind Regardsn SriMesh | talk 03:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

They're nice to have, but are by no means required. See the GA criteria for an explanation of what is expected of an article. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the second opinion. The GA is very general for any article type, and the US Roads WP is more active than the CA roads WP, so was just checking to see what guidelines you'se were using as a hwy base. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 17:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Category hierarchy

Recently, Hmains did an AWB run that removed the categories "U.S. Highways in X" and "Interstate Highways in X" from the category "State highways in X" and placed all three in "Roads in X". Looking at the original state of the category hierarchy, it appears that there was no universal usage across all states of placing the U.S. Highway and Interstate Highway categories under the state highway category. I have undone the changes for the Northeastern states. We probably need to make a collective decision as to whether the Interstate and U.S. Highway categories should be subcategories of the state highway category or should all three be equal under the "Roads in X" category. Note that one category talk page already has a comment agreeing with the change by Hmains. --Polaron | Talk 21:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

California state law does not differentiate between the three types of highways. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
The definition of a state highway is a road maintained by the state. This applies to almost all Interstate and U.S. Highways; exceptions are, for instance, toll roads, which are similarly sometimes given state highway numbers. --NE2 03:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

My restorations of the original category structure were reverted by User:Hmains. I have undone the reverts but we probably need more people to comment on what an appropriate category struture would be for articles under the scope of USRD. --Polaron | Talk 22:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

On another note

Some chump who is probably the 75 IP is messing with the thumbnail shields. CL — 18:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Interstate_74_in_Iowa --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Apology

Without going into great detail, because alot of what happened is based on a private matter at home (a few admins have been filled in with more detail), I do want to apologize for my brother-in-law's actions over the last couple weeks and anything that might have happened months ago. Please disregard any points he may have made in this discussion that no one has found applicable to NY 382 or anywhere else for that matter. I take full responsibility for being stupid and not paying closer attention to his online activity. Please understand though that he has a mental illness that causes more problems than some out of bounds editing on Wikipedia. I extend an apology to User:Mitchazenia for his actions hurting this article's FA discussion, and also to User:Rschen7754 for his comments to you. I'm sure there are others that deserve and apology, and if I find out anything else, I definitely pass one along to you.

Personally, I am here in good faith and have been actively working on NY route pages for over 2 years. I created pages for Rockland County Routes and been helping to construct articles for NY State Routes. I have also uploaded a ton of various pictures from my travels and have assigned them to their appropriate pages.

If you have further questions, feel free to drop a comment on my talk page or hit the email function. --Airtuna08 (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for letting us know. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Junction Lists - Do we REQUIRE THEM at all times?

I know they're necessary, but This is over the edge. If the route's short, and doesn't cross anything more than Interstate, US, State, or a major county route - meaning the only relavent junctions are the termini - I suggest we leave the list off altogether.  — master sonT - C 01:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Depends. If I were writing the PA 652 article, I'd try to get the cities listed on signs for US 6, and any other junctions that have such signs. I'd remove any that don't have any or are otherwise minor. --NE2 01:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Well from my knowledge, all of WP:CASH articles now have junction lists, regardless of the amount of junctions each route has. All the junction lists also have control cities. California people are nit-picky about these junction lists anyways. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 03:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I have a sliding standard. There are types of junctions listed on Utah State Route 279, such as campgrounds, that I would not list on most routes. The reason is for what you list above, if I wrote the major intersections list with the same standard I'm using for U.S. Route 50 in Nevada, a 400 mile route, the major intersections table would be empty.
I can get away with this in a state like Utah, where the route articles are mostly maintained by a handful of mature editors. I'm afraid we do need more detailed standards on what goes in this table, for California's sake. The situation with the road articles in that state is frankly somewhere between sad and pathetic. I cannot believe the amount of edit warring by frankly immature editors over nit-pick trivial crap in the major intersections table. Although I'd like to have a flexible standard. I think the situation in CA will force a rigid standard sooner or later.Dave (talk) 04:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Washington has some articles that has junction lists, but most others don't require them, like SR 519, a small route through a Seattle neighborhood. I say that the route has to have at least one intersection with any route (county, state, US, Interstate) other than the termini to have a junction list. – CG 17:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
My only concern with having an intersection requirement outside of the termini is that our USRD project standards mandate a junction list as part of the article rating process. You could have the best route article in the world, but if the table is omitted because the route only has intersections at the termini, the article would never be rated higher than C-Class. If we don't require the list, then the article rating standard needs changing. --LJ (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Not necessarily - that would simply be an exception. I believe that the table says that if a section does not make sense / is not required for an article, it does not factor into the system. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd require them, simply because we can include any relevant street names, control cities, etc in the junction box that shouldn't be there in the infobox - even if the route has only two junctions, the termini. CL — 18:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

On another note, CASH is becoming a mess - I do think tightening down ELG may be necessary to stop this. Does anyone like or dislike that solution, or have any others to put on the table? --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

How is CASH becoming a mess? (other than inclusion of county columns, mainly to show county abbreviations and end postmiles at state lines such as I-40 (CA)) -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 21:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Constant edit warring over exit lists - mainly the destinations column and the {{jct}} template. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Mgillfr, the irony is the one you picked (I-40) isn't half bad. But still, it does have problems. For example, US 66 is wikilinked in every single freaking mention (OK we get it, this road follows former US 66, now move on for Jimminy's sake) but US 95 is never wikilinked in that column, despite also being similarly mentioned multiple times. Then there's the fact that the county column is completely unnecessary, and better served by being added to the hat-note. A classic example is what's going on with U.S. Route 395 in California there are about 3 intersections that are constantly getting inserted and removed in a 1+ year long rather slow moving edit war, to the point that the GA status of the article is in jeopardy. I don't care anymore, they can stay, they can go, it's not worth fighting over. But if we had a more detailed standard as to what is a major intersection, we could stop the edit war that way. Then there's articles where the major intersections table is a total mess, such as U.S. Route 101, I just want to cry seeing that one. Dave (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
US 95 isn't linked because it's in the destinations column... --NE2 01:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

To shields with jct template

Is there any way to integrate use of a to shield with the jct template to make the current, untemplated process a bit less tedious? CL — 20:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably, may be a complicated process though, but I will take a look when I get some time. Although, my free time is rather limited right now. --Holderca1 talk 08:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Probably not, since you have to deal with other plates. You can always leave out the "TO" plate. --NE2 08:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
True, to plates aren't required, and a to plate with a business plate would cause additional problems. It would be very difficult to make this functional. --Holderca1 talk 09:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I know TO plates aren't required, but I thought they would be nice in articles like Utah State Route 126, where at first glance it appears we have state routes cosigned to interstates. CL — 00:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The "To" portion could always be put in the notes column instead... --LJ (talk) 00:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I've always found the "first glance" thing to be a problem. --MPD T / C 01:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

User:I-210

Could I have some comments on the following edit histories: [11], [12], [13]. This user is not listening to comments on his talk page and is automatically revert-warring with anyone who reverts his edits, even if his own edits go against Wikipedia guidelines. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You are wasting your time when your answer is irrelevant, same goes with NE2 and Mgillfr, Don't bother it's just a waste of your time & mine trying to accuse each other. --I-210 (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Rschen, I haven't examined all of this yet, so there may be deeper issues here (especially in light of the response from I-210 above) -- but focusing purely on content, the first edit you specify above seems to be largely about avoiding redirects. For example, one involved making a link directly to California State Route 103 instead of to the redirect page SR 103 (CA). Same with Mexico – United States border versus Mexican border (US), and with California Department of Transportation versus Caltrans. Both methods work, but why do you prefer linking via redirects? Omnedon (talk) 22:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:USSH and WP:R2D. (For the record, I don't care about the Mexican border ones, but I don't have the time to just revert some of the changes but not all of them). --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Dispute resolution is the only way to end this nonsense issue. --I-210 (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not taking sides with anyone here, but just because I-210 fixed nonbroken redirects, why is that worth reverting? This does no benefit (except that when readers hover the link a yellow caption shows the full title of the article they're about to go into), but it does no gain either. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 00:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
It's been the operating practice across USRD to use the format [[State Route 60 (California)|SR 60]] because of the Pipe trick. Polaron's made similar reverts over the last few days. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but you have been using [[SR 60 (CA)|SR 60]] instead, and no standard naming convention on WP:USSH used the abbreviated version. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 02:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
The abbreviated version is considered to comply with WP:USSH. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not convinced. Where on WP:USSH did it say that? -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 02:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
It shouldn't matter. As long as it goes to the right place, who cares? People don't see the redirect, only the pipe. There's a good rule of thumb: "Don't fix links that aren't broken." In this case, they go to the right spot, it's clear what the pipe means, so it shouldn't matter. Whether it's Rschen or myself or I-210, we should follow that guideline. --MPD T / C 02:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough - as long as the link text itself isn't changed. The larger issue at hand (this user's conduct) still remains, however. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't see the problem with the first example given, other than it adds no value. I agree the 2nd and 3rd are inappropriate. I have had similar issues with edits from this user resulting in incorrect usage of the conversion templates, for example, 1,000 miles (1,609.34 km). (False precision). I've similarly reverted several times with notes in the history explaining why that is inappropriate, but the editor is still making this same inappropriate change.Dave (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Sadly you will always get people like this on Wikipedia, convinced they are right, I have to deal with a repeat offender on an unrelated article who keeps coming back every few days. Best thing to do is to get a wider comment (which I guess you have done here!) Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
While you all are at it, can you look at Interstate 15 in California and the like? Some of the edits to namely the exit list LOOK okay, but some are also wrong (Exit 116 is just signed as Summit Ave, not Summit Ave/Beech Ave, for example). I don't have the time or knowledge to do it myself. Sorry :( --MPD T / C 23:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I think we need to tighten down WP:ELG to determine what exactly should be listed to prevent revert warring over trivial nonsense. Don't worry, it's next on my bucket list... --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

IMO, writing [[Utah State Route 67|SR-67]] rather than [[SR-67 (UT)|SR-67]] is unnecessary and inflates the byte count of the article. I see no reason why redirects shouldn't be used when wikilinking other articles - it's simply more convenient. Seriously, people must have OCD to worry about trivial matters such as unredirecting the redirects. Oh brother - CL — 01:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I do occasionally "fix redirects" however only when I'm making major changes to the article. Usually it's the result of doing a global search and replace as part of the larger change tot he article, and is more a result of the word processing than intentional. I agree it is mind boggling that someone would go searching for and fixing redirects and having a dozen edits a day just fixing stuff that isn't broken. Mind boggling. Dave (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and added myself; feel free to add yourself if you are heavily involved in the workings of USRD. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me I did not just see this.

Interstate 95 in Baltimore, Maryland. We need to stop this now. Please let this be a dream... —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh good gracious God, it's existed since mid-'07. So I guess we've had a while to stop this eh? But yes, let's stop this now. :) CL — 04:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
The irony is this article is in better shape then most interstate articles.Dave (talk) 04:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
There was a whole discussion about it, too. I think we need to sit and have a talk about subarticles. --MPD T / C 04:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
In all seriousness, where this article nominated for GAC before trivia sections were discouraged, it would have a descent shot at passing.Dave (talk) 05:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record the author did discuss this before creating the article [14] Dave (talk) 05:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It has good content, yes, but it sets a bad precedent. Far be it from me to suggest a slippery slope but... we're already having a hard enough time maintaining national articles and state detail articles to be venturing into city-detail articles. This should be merged into I-95 in Maryland; this should make that into a great article worth having. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
We do also have Interstate 80 around Sacramento, California. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Now a redirect...must have been too bletcherous to have a light shined on it? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with this? It's no different from Cross Bronx Expressway, Oklahoma City Crosstown Expressway, and so on... --NE2 07:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, those are about the same as the articles on a portion of a highway with a name, like, say, San Diego Freeway or Lake Hefner Parkway. The Crosstown Expressway is also an elevated structure and notable for frequently falling apart. That said, I've always been a bit leery about those types of articles too. I think we should have just the main route (I-40) and state-detail (I-40 in Oklahoma) types of articles only at the very most, and I somewhat opposed the state-detail articles when they first came into being.
The problem here is you get more refined articles with more information on tinier parts of the route, and then maintenance gets out of hand because you have multiple articles with small (potentially poorly-defined) scopes instead of one big one with a large scope. Yes, we should write things in summary style, but that doesn't seem to work around here; USRD editors seem to start articles on snippets of route with no regard to whether the equivalent section of route has reached the point in the main article to require splitting out, and more into something like "well, I live in Kansas, and I-70 in Kansas doesn't exist yet, so..." The result is that the information gets fragmented across several articles; to get a complete picture in your mind about I-35, you may have to read as many as seven articles. One comment that was recently left on the I-74 in Iowa article said thus: After looking at Interstate 74 and its sub articles, if they were all to be merged into the single article and copyedited, it'd make a great article. As it is, the information is scattered and hard to follow...Until today I didn't really know anything about I-74, and after reading these articles that situation hasn't really changed! I'll invite the author of that comment (User:Jenuk1985) to comment on this discussion; perhaps she will offer some more insights into how she feels about the way our articles are set up.
User:Fredddie floated an idea on IRC one night about splitting articles the other way—namely, instead of splitting I-35 into articles by state, splitting it by topic, so you would have Route of I-35, History of I-35, etc. That method is a lot more in line with the way non-road article systems on Wikipedia are set up. On the whole, I think it makes a lot more sense.
The problem with any such reorganization of articles is what happens with the exit lists. We could always ditch them of course, gifting them to gribblenation or canhighways or AARoads or any of the other big roadgeek sites (good lord, wouldn't it cause a stir if we gave them to Carl Rogers?), or even start an off-site wiki for them, but throwing them out would likely cause a ruckus. If all subarticles would be merged to the main article, you'd end up with a giant massive exit list, which you would need to split out if you were following the Fredddie method described above, but having nought but an exit list is politically unpalatable, as we saw when I-95's exit list had its own article (which was eventually split up and stuck into state-detail articles). So once we determine where we're going, we'll have to see how the exit lists work into it.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
What's confusing about the scope? The subarticles cover exactly what's in their title. The "next article up" covers everything in its title, but only summarizes its subarticles. --NE2 10:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's not confusing right now, but it potentially could be. Baltimore, as an independent city, has clearly defined boundaries; if I were to do an I-35 in Oklahoma City article, that would be a problem. Do I do it for the whole metro area, or just Oklahoma City proper? (Note that the boundaries of Oklahoma City extend way out into the hinterland where there's nothing resembling anything urban.) Where does the Oklahoma City Crosstown end? Are we talking about the elevated structure, or also the segments of highway of the same vintage connecting it to I-44 and I-35? Fortunately this is currently a minor issue, and one really not worth worrying about unless we were to habitually get into splitting articles below the state level. However, as it stands now you have some confusion, or to be more accurate, incohesion, as to what should go in which article. Yes, "summarize the article" is a nice sentiment, but it's not what actually happens; the subarticles' content becomes divorced from the parent article's content by virtue of the subarticles being newer and in many cases worked on by different editors as the main article's content. Whenever you have new content to add to a subarticle, you have to determine whether it's of appropriate enough scope to be copied into the parent article. Many times this doesn't happen, though, out of plain forgetfulness or ineptness (by new users).—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we do need to sit and talk about subarticles. I'll start the discussion when I return. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like we may have ended up starting that discussion without you. ;) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You need to see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstate 74 in Iowa as a sign of things to come. The whole route of an interstate is notable, there is no question of that really, but the notability of individual sections is questionable. I made the following comment in that debate...

"Just a few comments from across the pond, if I make any incorrect comparisons, feel free to bring me up on this. I'd like to compare this to our M4 motorway, despite going through two countries (For this I'm treating England and Wales as equivalent to US states), the article is more coherent and easy to follow on a single page, rather than "M4 motorway in England" and "M4 motorway in Wales". After looking at Interstate 74 and its sub articles, if they were all to be merged into the single article and copyedited, it'd make a great article. As it is, the information is scattered and hard to follow. I also notice a couple of the sub articles are redirects to different roads entirely, this just adds to the confusion. Until today I didn't really know anything about I-74, and after reading these articles that situation hasn't really changed! An unwritten rule we have over here seems to be that a single route has a single article. Just thought a few comments from an uninvolved user may be beneficial."

The above comment fits nicely into this discussion, just substitute I-74 for any other interstate. As a collective group I urge you to all pull together and bring these articles into one, then (and only then), consider creating sub articles for notable sections (not necessarily states).

The subject of exit lists was bought up above, and in my opinion, in both UK and US road articles they are far too large, and possibly fall into the Travel Guide section of WP:NOT. I'm currently working on a much simplified version for UK motorways (see User:Jenuk1985/Junctions, very much a work in progress) which you could possibly modify for US usage when I am done. Somebody also mentioned about setting up an external wiki for information like that... go for it! That's what we did, and now we have http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki, only a couple of months old, but filling up fast! Jenuk1985 | Talk 15:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

An exit list is similar to a list of stations on a rail line, in that it shows where one can access the road/railway. And for the UK, how about A1 road (London)? --NE2 15:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Re exit list: As you will see in my revised exit list I am working on, it is more like what is used on railway lines.
Re A1 road (London): Yes that is an anomaly that probably shouldn't exist, and if I had my way, it probably wouldn't exist, but WP isn't "my way" and London wikipedians are a law unto themselves, its difficult to tell them any differently! But looking at the detail of the A1 London article, that should probably be considered to be the standard needed before splitting of into a sub article really. There will always be exceptions to a given rule, but the way US road articles are going it looks like you are going to end up with loads of sub articles that aren't really worthy of an article. Jenuk1985 | Talk 15:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
It's more like what's used on some railway lines. Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra railway line, Sydney#Stations is a featured article and has more detail. --NE2 15:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I experimented by merging all the I-44 pages (I-44, I-44 (TX), I-44 (OK), I-44 (MO)) together. The result is User:Scott5114/I-44, which is a halfway decent article, except for the massive exit lists. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

IMO it should depend on the quality and size of the article. If an interstate highway article is a solid B class and getting huge (as the I-95 and I-95 in MD articles were), IMO it's ok to split into sub articles, if there's more notable info to write. IMO under no circumstances should a stub article be broken up into sub articles. That's why I'm not crying that the I-74 sub articles were deleted. Both the main I-74 and state sub articles all needed help. I don't see a problem with a city or state level article, per say. For example, I could easily write an FA about the 12 mile stretch of I-70 through Glenwood Canyon. There's already an encyclopedia of information on the internet about those amazing 12 miles of freeway. (In fact I'm working on it now via Interstate 70 in Colorado). While on the other hand I could see a situation where a freeway 800 miles long traversing 3 states could be of little interest and stay a single B class article for the entire freeway.Dave (talk) 07:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

My view on the matter

I looked for the diff for about half an hour, but I think I made this comment over two years ago when WP:SRNC was taking place. (Wow, it's really creeping me out that it's been that long since SRNC! And that I'm coming up on my four-year anniversary of joining Wikipedia! Anyway...) Basically, I said back in 2006 when the state-detail articles started to appear that they should be used when the main interstate article cannot reasonably hold the information. In other words, something like Interstate 95 could be split into sub-articles, but something like Interstate 8 could not. The running joke was having an article for Interstate 95 in the District of Columbia... for an 0.11 mile segment of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge.

Two and a half years later, we have several state-detail articles. Until very recently, we even had Interstate 74 in Iowa, an article for a 5.36 mile segment of Interstate. Really? Do we actually need an article for such a short segment when it can be merged with something else?

In the back of my mind over the last two years, I have noticed that we have been getting more and more state-detail articles. I-74 IA finally brought this to the forefront of my attention.

If all of the main Interstate articles were B-class, I would be okay with the proliferation of state-detail articles. But that is not the case. Look at Interstate 80 - a "B-class article" that is basically a glorified route description. No history whatsoever. Granted, there is no need for a junctions table - but could we ever send this to FA?

My view is that we should start merging some of our state-detail articles back into the main Interstate articles. I don't agree with Route description of Interstate 80 and History of Interstate 80 because it makes it seriously harder for somebody to bring such articles to GA or FA or even B-class - they have to know / find information about all the states on the Interstates' path. We also risk destroying a few of Dave's GAs and FAs to do this as well.

The system we currently have is not entirely broken. We have had some of these state-detail articles on the Main Page. - I see no reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget Interstate 72 in Missouri, too. :) -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 01:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I-72 in Missouri is mostly a future interstate page. Right now, it's only a few miles, but it's supposed to be extended to I-35 on the opposite side of the state. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I do not feel that a blanket guideline would work very well at all. I think mergers/deletions should be done on a case-by-case basis as we go along. I still feel combining states is the way to go in many instances. --MPD T / C 07:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Right. I think we need to go through the list and determine which articles should exist and which should not. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
So I'm guessing... that we need somebody to compile a list? --Rschen7754 (T C) 09:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh, wait a second!!!

Where's the rationale in mergine U.S. Route 151's sub articles together? The WI one was big as it is, and I can surely find a good chunk of information to turn Iowa's into a decent B-class article.  — master sonT - C 04:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Another case in point. As stated above, my current goal is to get Interstate 70 in Colorado up to A class. The feedback I've gotten so far from others is stuff that's missing that should be included (history is absent anything east of the Rockies, etc.). While just doing the requested expansions, the article is about 39k and there's LOTS more to do. So again, here's an example where it may be appropriate to break down a sub article into a yet more subs. Again, IMO it should be based on article size and quality, stubs should be combined, large B or higher articles should be split.Dave (talk)

Being Bold and taking action

Seeing that the USRD notability standard was both terrible outdated, and missing any guidance on the subject, I did some moderate changes to Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Notability. Although I recognize that some may be opposed to the changes I made, these are more or less the prevailing wisdom I've seen at the AfD and similar debates I've seen up to this point. Dave (talk) 02:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That is a good idea. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Portal needs updating

We have no support votes for the selected article or selected picture for Portal:U.S. Roads. Please send in your votes quickly so the portal can be updated! --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I think maybe dropping and deleting the portal would be an option because...

A) No one maintains it.
B) Not a lot (less than 1000) of views (876 views in February)
C) No one really cares for it anymore. –CG 02:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

... what? --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
to CG: {{sofixit}} Juliancolton (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to Algorerhythms for his input. I'll update the portal within 24 hours if there are no objections. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
CG- I've thought the same thing myself. Yet, no matter how inactive the Portal (and Blog) are they both limp along, we do always manage to get the sections updated, usually in at least the first week of the month. That is thanks to the efforts of editors such as yourself and Rschen who manage to throw at least something together. On a similar note, the Featured editor for the last 3 months has been my nomination. Nobody else is nominating. Surely some of you out there have seen all your watch-list articles updated, and to your surprise the edits are constructive, No? Dave (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I am updating the portal now. Are we still planning on doing something different for April 1? --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me I did not just see this. (2)

Business routes of Interstate 5. We need to stop this now. Please let this be a dream... --NE2 01:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

There is actually content that should be merged to that page: Interstate_5_in_California#Business_routes. However, I don't get why somebody made that pointless page. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Someone actually made a separate page for two business routes? Wow... —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Rschen7754 "made" the page - check the history --NE2 06:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Because the I-5 (CA) article was getting too long. But why would Rschen7754 (talk · contribs) support merging his own creations? -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 00:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I did not create the article - somebody else did, but it was empty. (For the record, WP:USRD, WP:IH, and WP:USH are all my creations and I am supporting merging them :) ) --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
You didn't create the article Rschen7754, but you did add most of it to the page, so might as well say you "made" most of the page. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 03:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Eh, whatever. Staying up until 8 AM does not do any good at all... --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Merger of WP:IH and WP:USH

Resolved
 – Done. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I am proposing that these two projects be merged into WP:USRD. Currently, their standards are incorporated into USRD, and those project pages are inactive. (I am NOT suggesting that state projects be merged into USRD). Are there objections? --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I would support a merger. Those projects are falling back. –CG 00:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
At this point, it really seems that these two projects are redundant with USRD. The only question I would ask is whether these projects are needed to collaborate on the national articles that need improving, or can that be dealt with through USRD? In any event, I support the merger. --LJ (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
They are both essentially dead projects. As such I have no objections one way or the other. Most of the article improvements are taking place at the state level these days anyways.Dave (talk) 03:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Having fewer pages helps new users find their way around our projects easier. It makes much more sense for us to have all national-level collaboration take place at this project. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll do it soon. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Still supportive of the changes. Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I know this is resolved now, but I'm just throwing in my approval. Originally it seemed the projects were grouped by highway type, with USRD's only purpose being to serve as the parent project. Over time, as the state highway projects evolved into projects covering all roads in their states, the grouping has become more per-jurisdiction. So this seems to be the logical conclusion of this trend, and also USRD can now serve its expected purpose of covering all roads on a national level.-Jeff (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Redirect lists...

Resolved
 – Question answered. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The last couple days, I've been working on WP:USRD/R, and have a couple questions... First, is there a difference between redirect lists and completion lists? and Second, should the lists under USDR/R only have those roads which the redirects have not yet been completed?

I've been removing each route from it's list once the article and all redirects created, and it is listed on the "highways numbered XXX" list... I assumed this was what should be done, because (I assumed) the states that are redlinked on USRD/R have already been done... am I correct in doing so? should I be removing a road from the list once all redirects are finished, so that the list only shows those roads that still need redirects? - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No, since a new form may be added to the template, thus creating another column of redlinks. --NE2 19:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

New York State Route 931F

Resolved
 – GAN failed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

While we are discussing New Jersey Route 180, I have to bring to attention another article that has its notability questioned, New York State Route 931F. This article is currently a GAN, and a previous editor who reviewed this article questioned its notability, placing a {{notability}} tag at the top of this article and suggesting that it be merged into New York State Route 321. There are many well-written articles for New York reference routes that have reached GA status. I was just wondering if this article meets the requirements for notabiilty. It is well-referenced and uses historical maps and newspaper articles as sources rather than personal websites. I just want feedback so I can make a decision in whether to promote this article to GA or to possibly merge it into NY 321. Dough4872 (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Dough4872, since the nobility issue still arises, I would suggest failing the GAN.  — master sonT - C 16:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Rescue effort needed at FAC

Resolved
 – Unfortunately, it failed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Everybody, Interstate 68 is about to fall off the end of the FAC queue, yet it has had no thorough review. Most of the votes are members of the USRD project that have just rubber-stamped a support vote. I think we need to get some real feedback and critiques up there fast or this might fail due to only having rubber-stamp approves. And yes, this is somewhat self-serving as I have a nomination behind this one =-) Dave (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved templates

Resolved
 – We didn't start the fire... --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm just using these templates as it's easier to tell when an issue has been resolved. This does *not* mean that a discussion is archived or terminated; people can still comment. These templates are used at WP:ANI. Are there any objections to people adding them to sections here? --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No, in my opinion, it makes it easier to track which issues have been solved and which have been unsolved. Dough4872 (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

CA 78 ACR

Resolved
 – Done. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Would someone be willing to close out the CA 78 ACR? --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Purpose of the Articles section

Resolved
 – Done. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The Articles section of this project page is out of date. We have FA's A's and GA's being made by project members at a rate now that this list is getting increasingly harder to maintain, and keep up to date. Should this section be pruned or eliminated entirely? Here's some random thoughts on the subject:

  • Most of this content is redundant with the links to categories, which would be updated automatically
  • There are also categories for FT's FL's and GT's, but not currently linked on this page.
  • By just linking to the categories we would loose the dates articles have appeared on the main page.
  • We would lose the Featured pictures if we deleted this section entirely, as to the best of my knowledge no pictures are tagged as part of the project.

Dave (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the GAs could be removed off the page. I see some value in keeping the FAs and A-class articles on the page, however. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I should take a look before I say that. :| --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your third point, we could simply keep the FAs that have been featured on the main page there and remove the rest that haven't. That way the list is easier to maintain but the main page feature dates are kept. - Algorerhythms (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Nobody yelled stop, so I pruned it, and made what updates I was aware of.Dave (talk) 02:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Resolved
 – Survey closed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=aPTg2lwsQB7ZCT6P1YhqZA_3d_3d - This is entirely anonymous. This is just to see how we are doing as a project. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I will be posting the objective results by the weekend. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Map update request

Resolved
 – Done. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Would someone be willing to take care of this? --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the easiest things to do with Inkscape - I'll take care of it. --NE2 22:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Quick question from an outsider

Just curious, is there a policy or agreement that says any numbered state route can get an article? I saw an article (New Jersey Route 180), and I was surprised it existed, given how short it is (both the length of the actual route, and actual article). I was surprised, since the USRD notability policy said 

Highways that have very little to say about them 
(i.e. those that are extremely short and have no historical significance) 
may be better suited to a list

Is it common to have an article like that? Just as an outsider, I thought it'd be logical to have something like that as part of New Jersey Route 72, of which a former alignment became 180. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the guideline was more intended to refer to articles that have just an infobox, one paragraph that pretty much says "State Route X is a route in this State that goes from this place to this place." and then also have a relatively short junction list, and that's it. NJ 180 and NJ 72 IMO are okay to have articles because a list of 50 routes with that much information would be a big article. I believe in practice we've tried to avoid merging entirely different routes into one article, and IMO that could get weird. But I didn't have much invested in the notability guideline (again, guideline, not steadfast rule), so this is just my interpretation of it. --MPD T / C 23:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
As I see it, the purpose of lists such as List of minor Maryland state highways is to hold articles that would otherwise be doomed to an eternity as stubs.-Jeff (talk) 01:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
But on that list of Maryland state highways, I see a few roads of equal or longer length than NJ Route 180. Does that mean any road 3 miles in length and that has a straight line diagram can get an article? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
A lot depends on the road, which state, etc. BUS M-28 has an article, totally separate from its parent highway's article. Of course it doesn't hurt that the almost 5-mile highway has an article that was written to A-Class specs. The quality and availability of source material is the real determining factor. There are several former highways in Michigan from the 1920s and 1930s that will likely never have separate articles because they were all minor spurs into small towns. These would be business spurs if created now, or just plain turned over to the county or city for maintenance. These highways were merged into a single list, and the other business loops were either merged into lists by parent highway, or merged into the parent highways' articles. So yeah, if the sources allow a separate article, then we've typically created a separate article. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that NJ 180 would fit better with NJ 72. The route description is too detailed, and the first two paragraphs of the history are about NJ 72. --NE2 06:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

And it's a "Good Article", when the main source is a personal site? Give me a break... --NE2 06:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Yea, that's what I was thinking. Shouldn't a GA have info on traffic conditions, a history of the road since it was designated (re-paving, closures)? --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Traffic stats would be nice, but minor events like closures and construction projects are generally excluded intentionally. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

New Jersey Route 180 has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --NE2 19:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Per the instructions at the GAR page "It is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for an article which has not had a proper review: simply renominate it." Dave (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I think that's if the article failed the first time. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the instructions are pretty clear. The community review process (verses the individual process) is to be used if individual reviewers cannot agree or the individual process has broken down. I see no evidence that the original reviewer was asked in good faith if he would be willing to reconsider his review or the individual review process was attempted. Dave (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I started following the instructions on the left, then realized the right side probably would have been better. However, given my history of conflict with Mitchazenia, the "community review" might in fact be preferable. --NE2 21:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm - apparently concerns aren't there. Try Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/New Jersey Route 180/1. --NE2 05:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I left a message on Doug's talk page asking if he would be willing to reconsider or retract his review. I agree that this article should not have passed. I also think that Mitch should have known better by now than nominate an article with these issues. However, I think we should assume good faith on the reviewer, a relatively new editor, and not go on a witch hunt.Dave (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
If I may go on a rant, I do think we have lowered our project standards as to what counts as a GA. I think this lowering of standards is showing with the number of blanket opposes we see at WP:FAC because it's "another boring road article" and also the reason why we have very few GAC reviewers from outside the project these days. IMO, an article about a 3 mile highway better dang well show notability, and fast, or I'm going to ask, why does this deserve its own article? I'm not saying a 3-mile highway isn't notable. It might be the very road where Patrick Henry stood and yelled, "Give me liberty or give me death," but the article needs to show that. The fact that we've got GA's on a 5 mile highway, where the Route description is nothing more than a prose listing of the named features on Google or USGS Maps (half red-links as the author was too lazy to check for alternate titles which do have articles) and a history that is nothing more than the dates of the re-alignments and formations is SAD, SAD, SAD. SHOW NOTABILITY PEOPLE! There's a reason why taxpayers were asked to pay millions to build this sucker, what is that reason? If the article doesn't answer that question, it's not a GA, and you should answer that question before nominating. If the info doesn't exist, it shouldn't be nominated, period. There's a reason why roads like Nevada State Route 14 redirect to another article.

OK off that soapbox.Dave (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well said. I've had a similar issue in the tropical cyclone project lately. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I decided to join the project, as I do have an interest in roads, and I think I can help out. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yay! --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to seem like I'm bashing Mitchazenia, and I'm only bringing these articles up because I know him from the WP:WPTC, but it seems like these articles fall into the same bin. New Jersey Route 413 (could be merged with Pennsylvania equivalent?), New Jersey Route 184 (could be merged with NJ 440), New Jersey Route 159 (only uses a map, straight line diagram, and Alps), New Jersey Route 182 (same as last one), and New Jersey Route 161 (same). FWIW, they're all GA's, and they're all less than 1.5 miles long. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

182 and 161 have no merge target. 413 can be merged with PA 413 and become State Route 413 (New Jersey – Pennsylvania). Bash me all you want. I am an idiotic loser anyway.Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 10:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
List of minor state routes in New Jersey would seem like a natural article, like the New York equivalent. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I may have to agree with Hurricanehink in creating a list for minor routes in New Jersey. There are several routes that are probably too short to have their own article and improved to GA status, such as New Jersey Route 59, which consists of a 0.15 mile (792 foot) long railroad underpass. I really do not think it is appropriate for a railroad underpass to have a stand-alone article, there are many examples of these along minor roads. There are also many other routes that simply consist of a bridge over a railroad or body of water, such as New Jersey Route 13, New Jersey Route 64, and New Jersey Route 162. It may also be possible to create List of former state routes in New Jersey for formerly designated and unbuilt roads that do not have a lot to say about them, as is the case with New Jersey Route 180. This may be a smart consideration to eliminate articles about roads that truly do not have a lot to say about them, past or present. Dough4872 (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I proposed both lists over 12 months ago, no one commented. Also, we's getting rid of NY's, unless there's a few that just don't work. I support both then, and I support both now.Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 19:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean by "we's getting rid of NY's, unless there's a few that just don't work."? There's no discussion on the talk page of NY's of getting rid of it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I know we had a discussion, check WT:NYSR's archives. I don't remember the month. I will start progressing the merging of 13, 59, 62, 64, 162, 163, 167, 185, 324 into a minor list. 180, 151, 155, 39, 11, 14, and a few others will go in the former list. (there's more for both, my memory isn't on target, even for my 18th birthday.)Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 20:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
If the discussion was that long ago, isn't it rendered moot since it never happened? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Minor/former lists are silly; it's just a bunch of standalone articles plopped together. The point of merging is to eliminate duplication, as in the case of 72/180 (where most of the history is identical). If there's nowhere to merge, it's better as its own article, despite the short length. If you want an example of breaking up a "minor state highway" list, see Utah. (The page with its discussion seems to have been deleted has been undeleted.) --NE2 05:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

[De-indent]Disagree. I think lists of minor highways serves a great purpose, the problem with that one is it was incomplete and had an undefined scope (just a hodgepodge list with no definition of what minor means). That page was essentially redone under the title of List of state highways serving Utah state parks and institutions, by you nonetheless. I think this does have a purpose as the scope is defined, and it would be more silly to have stub articles on these. I have it on my get around to list essentially implement this on a county wide basis for Nevada where there are dozens of secondary and tertiary routes, each with their own stub article currently. I.E. Minor state routes in Washoe County, etc. Dave (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The state parks list make sense combined, since those routes all serve the same purpose, and ideally there would be an explanation of why such routes exist. But grouping by "minor" gives no benefit, and is literally just a bunch of standalone articles separated by section headings. --NE2 15:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
But something needs to be done with articles on short routes, such as NJ 59, which would otherwise always remain short articles. Maybe a more specific target for what constitutes a "minor" route, such as a fixed length, would make the idea of a minor page more viable. The list can have a title like List of state routes in New Jersey under three miles long or something. Dough4872 (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
You're not paying attention - concatenating these articles with section headings improves nothing. There's nothing inherently wrong with a short article; the problem is when people start adding unnecessary detail because they see a problem with it being short. --NE2 02:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Right, everybody who disagrees with NE2 is not paying attention, got it. =-) Dave (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Along these lines there is a discussion at Talk:New Jersey Route 158 concerning whether that article should be moved back to Centre Street Bridge (Newark) as NJ 158 is the former designation for the now-demolished bridge. Dough4872 (talk) 14:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I see Dave's comment in a few ways. However, trolling isn't one of them. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Trolling is leaving an inflammatory or irrelevant reply to disrupt discussion. The only way it may not be trolling is if it wasn't intentional - that is, if it was meant as a serious reply to help the discussion. --NE2 06:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
"You're not paying attention" is the inflammatory statement in the above discussion. It implies "I'm right, you're wrong, get with the program you retard" and is inappropriate. While I do appreciate how resourceful you've are at researching history, and the improvement to wikipedia as a whole that resourcefulness has been, many of your statements come across with that "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude. I feel this is an area where you could improve. My comment was a sarcastic attempt point that out, nothing more. Feel free to read more into into it if you must.Dave (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I would agree with Dave in that it would be much better to have minor state routes in a list format, but only for certain instances. The List of state highways serving Utah state parks and institutions is a good example, where the reason why such highways are "minor" is clearly understood. I think that such lists are only beneficial when a state has a considerable number of routes whose articles are destined to be "perma-stubs"--which the Utah state park/institution list appears to be. Combining route articles to a list solely to decrease the number of stubs is not something I think we should be doing. I'm fine with leaving the stubs out there, if there is information available to expand it beyond a stub--someone will do it eventually. Just my 2¢... --LJ (talk) 05:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Well said. In Nevada's case it's easy, as the state uses 2 clusters of numbers for each county, and it's easy to guess which is the minor cluster. Same for Utah, per above. It gets tricker in states where there is no clear definition of "minor". However, I would make exception, even in a state where there is no definition of minor. If an article has been a stub for years (as you said perma-stub), chances are that's because the article's subject just isn't notable and the info just isn't there. I'd prefer it be merged or combined with something else, if something else is available. Should the information magically appear, the article can always be re-created.Dave (talk) 05:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
If something's not notable, then it's not worth covering in our encyclopedia. Plopping it as-is into a list won't help that. PS: a short article is not necessarily a stub; a stub is an article that doesn't fully cover the subject. A list of merged stubs is still a stub when merging gives no extra coverage. --NE2 06:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
That's my view too. It's like a corporate merger; you merge to eliminate overhead (duplicate management or general discussion of why the route and others like it exist). Merging two unrelated corporations or articles gives no benefit, and may in fact confuse the investor or reader. --NE2 06:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I guess it is okay to keep the short articles on New Jersey state routes, as long as they have a route description, history, and major intersections table. In some instances, articles about short routes can possibly merged with a longer article about a related route, as is the example with merging NJ 180 with NJ 72. This discussion leaves me with one question, what are we going to do with the lists of "minor" routes for other states such as MD, NY, and PA? Should they remain or be broken up back into individual articles? Dough4872 (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Ideally, split them up (and merge many to closely related routes). Pragmatically, nothing --NE2 14:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Splitting would work for many of the routes, but what about some of the very short routes that constitute the Maryland list? As mentioned earlier in this discussion, many of the routes on that list, which are well under a mile long, would be "perma-stubs". Dough4872 (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
If there are articles that are so short and non-notable that they can't possibly be expanded, especially for short former routes, there's always AFD. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
That's always a consideration, but I feel our encyclopedia would be incomplete without mentioning these routes, even in passing (i.e., a list). Many county routes, which are good examples of non-notable roads, are simply presented in a list format for that individual county. Dough4872 (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Can somebody who's been following this sum up the various ideas and who supports what for me please and put it on my talk page? This is way too much for me to take in and read- it's spiralled to a crazy discussion. I'd really appreciate it. Thanks, --MPD T / C 15:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Summary

OK Here's stab one of a summary. I think we're all mostly in agreement, just bickering over some minor differences.

  1. We need to get back to the basic of GA is a quality step not a quantity metric. By the time an article reaches a GA nomination the prose must clearly show the road's notability, not just assume others will understand that if it's got a number, it must be notable for some reason.
  2. The fact that the highway has or had a number is not sufficient to justify notability and worthiness for a separate article.
  3. Short articles of highways related by number, name or history should be combined to a single article. A single prose article is preferred to a list of mini-articles.
  4. Lists of mini-articles have their place, but should be limited to situations where several otherwise short unnotable highways, with a common thread, collectively forms a notable block of highways. Lists of "miscellaneous" highways are not generally helpful.
  5. A short article should remain a standalone article if the route is not related to other routes, article at least shows some claim of notability, and cannot be merged into another article unless the scope of the article is made generic. If the article does not show any notability consider WP:AFD or redirecting to a list only page.

Did I miss anything?Dave (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

PS I'll amend the Notability guidelines to include this, once the summary is agreed upon. Dave (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree on number 1 and 2. The inclusion of 3 and 4 leaves the potential for a route to be excluded from Wikipedia entirely. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I feel that every route should be included in Wikipedia somehow, but don't agree with merging many articles into one article (NJ 180 includes NJ 74 and NJ 21, for example). So....Number 1 and 2. But not number 3 or 4. I support lists. I've remained largely quiet, and can't bring anything new to the table. I echo Rschen's opinion. --MPD T / C 05:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I think that we can merge articles together when it's instantly clear how the routes are related. Like in Oklahoma's case: we merge lettered state highways (11A) to the article parent routes (11) except when there's a lot that can be said about the lettered highways. A reader can instantly understand the relationship in this case because of the way the routes are designated. Likewise with a route that crosses the state line and keeps the same number, or the hyphenated Louisiana routes. We should be a lot more careful with merging articles in cases where it's not immediately obvious how routes are related (routes crossing the state line and changing numbers, routes related via history, short routes in the same vicinity but not numbered as a group). Infoboxes (or at least the data within them) should be provided for both routes, not just totals, to emphasize that while they are treated together in the article, they're really separate routes. (If you're just interested in the length or termini of one route of the family, that should be instantly accessible. Put the burden of extra work on the reader who wants totals—it's simpler to add two or three mileages together on a calculator than try to figure it out starting with the total.) In other words we should approach this like highway signing engineers—be absurdly clear about everything and communicate in every way possible—THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT ROUTE 22 AND ROUTE 95. THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT HIGHWAYS EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE THEM TOGETHER HERE.
Oklahoma will most likely not utilize the merged article concept any further than we currently do with our lettered routes. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

[de-indent] added a 5th point to address these concerns. Also, amended text on points 3 and 4. Dave (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is what I feel about each point in the summary: For the first point, we do need to put more effort into making sure GA's have quailty information rather than just rush to get GA's for a competition, as was the case with the USRD-CRWP WikiCup. For the second point, only highways that have demonstrated notability to the general public should have a stand-alone article; short non-notable routes are not sufficent to have their own article as it will probably always be short with little room for improvement. For the third point, regarding short highways, they should be merged with a related highway if possible, as NJ 180 should be combined with NJ 72 as it is the former number for a former alignment of that route. For the fourth point, lists of mini-articles should exist only for related highways and not just a bunch of "minor" routes, like the list of Utah highways serving state facilities or a list of bannered routes of a U.S. highway. For the fifth point, it may be alright in some cases to leave the article by itself it it cannot be combined with a related route or group of routes. However, some of these roads may be extremely short roads that would look silly having their own article, as with many of the short, unsigned Maryland routes. If the route is too short to have its own article, it may just be better to redirect that route to the main list of routes to that state with the length, termini, name, and a little bit of history presented in table format for that route and all the routes in that state. Dough4872 (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
clarified point 5. Dave (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
And clarified point 5 again.Dave (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess people think it's okay? --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going for it. For those interested, please read the page, and note any objections you have to how I changed it here, so we can discuss further. Dave (talk) 05:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it's about to be tested - see below. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement regarding the USRD-CRWP WikiCup

Claims have been raised that the USRD-CRWP WikiCup resulted in editors creating articles on low-importance routes just to get them to GA and get the 20 points. While this may have been a side effect of the result, this was not the intention of the WikiCup. The purpose of the contest was to increase editor activity and to get people editing USRD articles again, and improving quality (for, these low-importance articles as GAs are better than the same articles as stubs, at least). The USRD-CRWP Cup did increase editor activity and it did improve article quality (several articles that were Stub going to C or B) and did get people editing again, and therefore it was largely successful.

However, I do see the point regarding low-importance articles being raised to GA when we should be putting more of an emphasis on higher-importance articles. To that end, next year I will be putting some sort of a multiplier into effect so that these low-importance articles do not generate as many points as a mid- or high-importance article would. The results of this years' contest will not be changed, as that would result in my trying to change the rules after the contest ended (which would be... awkward). --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

My comments are not intended to address the larger issue at hand. I hope to make some comments about that later today. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
That's one of the consequences of contests. They are good because the motivate people, but unfortunately they can motivate people to take shortcuts. I wouldn't take the critisims personally, the contest was intended to re-invigrorate a sagging project, and while not perfectly, it seems to have worked. This is the most activity this page has seen in a while. Dave (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody with the time and abilities look into a request to improve the map on this article left at Talk:Utah State Route 128. I cannot right now. It is only a suggestion for improvement, not a defect or anything. Many thanks in advance.Dave (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Route 31 (Suffolk County, New York) --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

ELG clarification #1

Resolved
 – Done, and nobody complained. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to settle this issue once and for all as there are users edit warring: [15]. Personally, I prefer this way, but users have been edit warring up and down WP:CASH articles to enforce their own standard. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. The way that Utah does it is if the route is entirely in one county then we exclude the county column and say above the major intersections table that it's entirely in so-and-so county. Allow me to say Rschen, you have some people at the California project that unnecessarily cause problems - but I digress. Have you thought about drafting a standard for the CA project (if we already don't have one for USRD) concerning this particular issue so it doesn't arise again? Just a thought, albeit late at night - CL — 04:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking of just changing ELG to explicitly specify a standard to use. Right now ELG is a bit ambiguous about this. This would go to stop the dispute I would think. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
My personal take is a column (or row) in a table that spans the entire table, is a wasted column (or row). The whole point of a table is to organize otherwise disorganized data. If a single item applies to the subject of the entire table, it can be more effectively mentioned outside the table. Don't put rows and columns in the table for the sake of rows and columns in the table. My $.02. Also my $.02 is to ban all bridges, tunnels, etc and other non-junctions in the junction list. (if it's notable enough to mention, then it should be mentioned in the article). The only possible exception is state lines and similar features where the mileposts are affected. I wouldn't have a problem with an occasional bridge or tunnel in the major intersections guide but on some articles (read a lot) it's getting out of hand, to the point the major intersections table isn't a major intersections table anymore, it's a miscellaneous list of crap thrown in by whoever feels like it. Dave (talk) 05:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Amending my previous response, I also think there should be guidance to urge restraint on listing things in the junctions table, that aren't junctions. A couple of notable features is fine, but on some articles the major intersections section is out of control with half the entries being unsightly bolded wikilinked lists of stuff.Dave (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Like CA SR 255? -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 04:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the rule should be "if the bridge is notable enough to have its own article, it should be mentioned in the list." That would throw out the majority of bridges. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I generally use the method CL described when editing Nevada route articles that are entirely within one county (although, I waver between leaving the location column in and using the note above the table for single-city routes). I think I followed this after seeing it on some CA or UT articles. A case can be argued for either method, though. It comes down to whether all exit/junction list should have the same columns regardless, or whether having a table with one column spanning all rows is viewed as unnecessary like Dave mentions. I have no preference to either method, but would suggest that some uniformity be implemented at least at the state project level, if not at ELG. Have any state projects (or non-U.S. projects) adopted a particular method or specifically mentioned a specific standard in their project guidelines? --LJ (talk) 05:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, with the type of editors in California, I don't want to have a discussion at the CASH level regarding this matter. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Rschen7754 (talk · contribs), you were the one who originally brought up this discussion (you made the first post). Anyways, for my opinion, I prefer to be consistent. If the CASH articles are practicing county abbreviations, I would like to see that all the CASH articles do that, even if it means having the county column span all the rows in the table. Basically, we are now searching for any errors or any additions to make to the table, by adding or correcting control cities, update them if it changed on green signs, etc. I know that may seem a bit pointless to you guys, but once again, Wikipedia is a hobby, not a commitment. We like to edit the things we want to edit (provided that they assume good faith, of course). Also, seriously, I do see some pointlessness when, according to I-210 (talk · contribs)'s contributions, that I-210 spent 6 hours to change all single-county spans to the little county note at the top. I unfortunately can't say that would be wrong (as I support county columns for consistency purposes), but I do understand that it's disruptive. But, hey ... the articles were originally a mess to start with. The only good thing about CASH articles are the junction lists, which every single CASH article has. The only thing that isn't really done yet is CA SR 72, where the deleted portion junctions are not listed yet. I'll fix that if it hasn't been listed already. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 04:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not something you do to entertain yourself. What I meant by my remark about not having this discussion at the CASH level was that I wanted this discussion to take place among nationwide editors. Otherwise, the discussion would be between you, me, and I-210; we know how friendly I-210 is. This is also spreading across all USRD articles - the saying "As California goes, so goes the nation" definitely applies here (after all, SRNC started in California, and CASH was the first highways WikiProject). There are truly some good CASH articles; however, there are several bad ones. That being said, we are #11th in the nation for article quality. Good for us but bad for USRD... --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, but you do entertain yourself along with it (which is why wiki-addiction exists). If you don't entertain yourself, then why are you here in the first place? Also, last I checked, I-210 is not friendly, because I don't know about you, but I-210 aggravates me a lot. And California being ranked #11 is bad for USRD? How? -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 04:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
To build an encyclopedia. I have definitely been here on days when editing Wikipedia was definitely not fun. If California is as bad as you say and we're ranked #11, what does that say about the rest of USRD? --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, you didn't have to be here on those days if you didn't want to. I'm not implying don't; I'm just saying you should do whatever you want to do as long as your method is productive in any way, even if it means fixing a typo or adding an extra space when necessary. And for California being ranked #11, I think I was a bit contradictory in my statements. It's just I don't really have hope for CASH getting any better except junction lists. Oh, and, if your purpose of staying here is solely to build an exncyclopedia and you're not having fun in the process, then that certainly would be a waste of time in your life. It's like trying to play a videogame for 30 hours just solely to earn $30 dollars. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 05:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
It's not that I don't think that this is a productive tangent; I'm just moving on because this is a tangent. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

So I'm guessing that it is okay to adjust ELG per the above discussion? --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with the proposed change. However, since the ELG is a Wikipedia-wide standard, shouldn't this be discussed there before the change is made? Other projects besides USRD could be affected by a change to the ELG... --LJ (talk) 06:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Linked from WT:ELG. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

I post this here because this could have some implications for USRD articles: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of exits on Highway 401 (Ontario) (2nd nomination) --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion 2

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Route 174A (Sullivan County, New York) --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


GAR

Interstate 40 in Arizona has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Interstate 40 in Arizona/1. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Three new ACRs

The remaining three articles that were grandfathered in under the old A-Class system have been sent to ACR to ensure that they are really A-Class quality. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

These three ACR's need to be taken care of, they have been sitting dormant for about a week. Dough4872 (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I would advise giving extra time. Between all of the GAR's, ACR's, FAC's going on right now all of the wikipedians willing to review road articles are stretched thin. In my case, I'm way behind on what I'd hoped to do with my wikitime. However, this is temporary and I fully expect things to calm down eventually. Thanks for stirring up a hornets nest Rschen =-), even though I fully agree that it needed to be stirred up. With that said this is an excellent opportunity for anybody whose debated reviewing articles, but not sure how, to try one out.Dave (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

B-Class audit

This won't be as involved as the GA one was (I hope). I'll just note things in the edit summary on the talk page if the article gets demoted. Now that we have a C-class not as many articles will be demoted as were in the past. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

List of articles that may not be notable:

Why not? - perhaps read the lead of the article, the two are intertwined. nothing more obvious to that  — master sonT - C 19:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't see how the article is "cursed", though it is messy (but I'm used to their messiness). Anyways, if you merge the articles together, most of the info in the merged page will most likely be conentrated with I-15 stuff and the reader may have a hard time finding the SR 15 stuff. And I don't know about this SRNC thing, so I don't know if that's a benefit or something to stay away from. And also, last I checked, both the leads had different things to say so therefore both leads are different. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 21:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I-210 and SR 210 has a different case as SR 210 might merge into I-210. I don't see why I-15 and SR 15 should be merged, and I still don't even know why I-110 and SR 110 are merged together when SR 110 will not likely become part of I-110. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 00:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten about this - I hope to continue it soon. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

GAR of I-155 IL

Interstate 155 (Illinois) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You're not at all worried about what amounts to information duplication between route description and exit list? If there were anything at all notable about the route besides its intersections, I would have mentioned it. :-) Maybe I can add a sentence about the short Mackinac Bridge crossing. —Rob (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Please read the recent FAs of USRD such as California State Route 78: A route description is more than three sentences and also discusses information that can and cannot be represented in the junction list. Also see WP:USRD/MOS. It is possible to write a good route description for an article. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

GA audit for USRD

I will be auditing the USRD GAs. I will take a brief look and make sure that a) the article meets USRD / MOS guidelines and that b) the article is of importance. If an article fails this, I will list it below. If the article is not improved within one week, I will send it to WP:GAR (which is a slow process, so you will still have time to fix it). Articles here may not follow WP:LEAD, may have sourcing issues, may not be comprehensive, may have notability issues, prose issues, etc. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The general rule is this: All the NJ ones have mileages that need to be removed from the lead; the rest need a better WP:LEAD; if there are other problems, I will say so. List:

What's wrong with Bayshore Freeway and Interstate 35E (Minnesota)? --NE2 03:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
What about Interstate 194 (Michigan)? What's wrong with it? Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Lead issues. The lead does not talk about the history. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
"The road was originally built as a surface road, the Bayshore Highway, and later upgraded to freeway standards." --NE2 04:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
With this one, the lead is too short. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Then expand it, or let it be. I don't have time for these guessing games. --NE2 04:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be helpful if each article listed had a short sentence explaining why it failed this audit (either following it on this list, or preferably with the notice message on the talk page). This would give interested editors a clear direction on how to resolve the problem(s), removing the guesswork and improving the efficiency of this endeavor. --LJ (talk) 05:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
It's just basically the same thing over and over again - the lead, notability, or mileages in the prose. All the NJ ones have the mileage issues; the rest have lead issues. I'll explain otherwise. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Notability is more-or-less irrelevant to GA, so I'm not sure what to do about the county routes. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Just curious, what's wrong with US-89 in Utah or UT 101? CL — 16:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Longer leads. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, makes sense. I'm guessing all GAs have been audited by now? CL — 17:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I've moved on to B-Class. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This is why I would prefer that people who both nominate and review Good Article candidates work with articles outside the project. It does give some perspective that only staying in one project will not. I once proposed that nobody should review an article from a wikiproject they participate in. That was shot down, but it was encouraged to go slow and be a little tougher if reviewing an article in a project you participate in. It's easy for a roadgeek to miss flaws in a road article, such as neologisms, or inadequately explained ideas that to make sense to somebody familiar with the genre.Dave (talk) 20:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

That is an interesting point. I will admit that a lot of the articles above I passed myself - I should not have let the NJ ones go without removal of the mileages. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Moving all (State Y/State Z Route X) to State Route X (State Y - State Z) format

I have a proposal to make. Articles like Delaware/Maryland Route 54 or Massachusetts/Rhode Island Route 114A seem to be outdated in the format of their title. Recently, New York & Vermont state crosses have been following a new format, seen at State Route 74 (New York – Vermont), which is a Featured Article, and State Route 346 (New York – Vermont), a good article. I think this format would be more encyclopedic, and it would help the name of the articles when it comes time to review them. Examples include:

Anyway, opinions are opened, and I am sure there are more that could be done.Mitchazenia :  Chat  Trained for the pen 15:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Florida/Georgia Route 123 is more in line with the conventions at WP:SRNC. For the record, were I king of the world, I'd re-open that debate as I don't agree with the conclusion. But, I'm not that opinionated and can live with the convention as is, being just a lowly schmuck. =-) Dave (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I had the same concern of the title come to my mind when looking at Delaware/Maryland Route 54. I support the idea of moving all the listed articles to the same format in order to make naming conventions consistient. Dough4872 (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
We should use the same convention for this type of article across USRD. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The atop were just examples. Yeah, I would like to use that conventions.Mitchazenia :  Chat  Trained for the pen 19:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't include State Highway 41 (Washington – Idaho), WA uses State Route, ID uses State Highway; also Idaho is the southern terminus and WA/ID is northern, switch the name around! –CG 22:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

41 shouldn't be moved, period, since Washington's portion is signed with Idaho shields. --NE2 02:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:MOSDASH, there should be spaces between the state name and the en dash only if there is a space within one or both of the names. Thus, "(Delaware – Maryland)" should be "(Delaware–Maryland)" while "(Massachusetts – New Hampshire)" is correct. – TMF 02:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

So... --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's my 3¢ on the ideas. I'm not in full support of merging together articles on highway designations in more than one state, unless the designation is the same across state lines, and one side of the line is very short or historically intertwined. So if Connecticut has a highway with the same number as a Rhode Island highway, and CT's roadway only serves to connect the longer RI highway to CT's system, then yes, merge. (Note, Michigan only has one common-numbered trunkline, M-49 and SR-49 in Ohio connect, but I'd say they don't have the same number since the M- is legally part of the number in Michigan. The other trunklines connect with different numbers or even county roads across the border.)
Second part of my opinion is that if we have these merged highways, use the parenthetical convention to be consistent. Like Dave, I'd be using parentheticals for all article titles, so it would be State Highway 41 (Idaho) instead of Idaho State Highway 41. I didn't participate in SRNC at all because Michigan's naming convention was settled outside of it. Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sold on the concept of merging different state's highways to say the least. It just doesn't seem right for whatever reason. – TMF 06:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I will go on record saying that I do not believe that SRNC should be revisited. The project nearly went belly up during SRNC, and I am very reluctant to go there again. Yes, my reasoning is primarily political on this one, but sometimes political reasons outweigh other concerns, as they do in this case. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying we revisit it, just expressing a preference. Most of the parentheticals probably exist as redirects by now anyway. Imzadi1979 (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Related note: Talk:State Route 314 (New York–Vermont)/GA1 - should highways on two routes that do not form one continuous highway be merged? While NY 314 is a single highway, terminating at the ferry to VT 314, VT 314 is a loop off of US 2 that intersects the ferry during its routing. Neither endpoint of VT 314 is at the ferry leading to NY 314; thus I don't see this as a single, continuous highway as the title implies. – TMF 19:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

My $.02 if they are truly related, better to have one decent article than two short ones.Dave (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps, but as the article is now it presents the two routes as one continuous highway with common endpoints, which they do not have. – TMF 20:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The VT/NY 314 merge is not a good one is it is not a continuous route and the histories are not really in sync. For me, the only reason to merge would be that the routes are: (a) continuous, (b) have a common history, (c) the route in one state is very short. --Polaron | Talk 21:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with all of those points, and I'm tempted to unmerge both articles. – TMF 22:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Here is my opinion on the whole matter. Articles about state routes that keep their number across state lines should generally have their own separate articles, such as with Maryland Route 404 and Delaware Route 404, as they are two distinct routes in different state highway numbering systems that just happen to keep the number across the state line. However, if the two routes are intertwined, then the two state routes should be one article, such as with Delaware/Maryland Route 54, which runs through MD, DE, along the MD/DE border, and into DE again. In the case of these such articles, we need to agree on a uniform convention concerning the titles as discussed above. Dough4872 (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree, routes that straddle state lines are really the only ones that should be merged. For those, I think "Route X (state1-state2)" works fine. – TMF 06:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Refocusing the discussion

I think this discussion has been split into two parts: one debating what the naming convention should be for multi-state routes and one debating when routes should be merged. Although I will take part of the blame for the split, I do feel that both points need to be discussed to prevent what happened with NY-VT 314 (which shouldn't have been merged and I really don't know how to disassemble it). For that reason, I'll launch a new discussion in this section about when they should be merged and leave the original section for the original topic (the naming convention).

Ideas I have and others have posted above for merging:

  • Routes that straddle the state line, cross it multiple times, and are signed as different highways on each side (DE-MD 54)
  • Routes that that have the same number, form one continuous highway, have a common history, and have one significantly short segment in one state (most of these, however, will just take the name of the longer highway, which I feel is 100% fine and proper) (CT 159 seems to be a good example of one that has all four traits)

As for these other multi-state ones that have been proposed for a merge, if a decent article can be made for both of them (and decent ≠ Good Article), then they shouldn't be merged. Feel free to discuss. – TMF 06:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

There's also stuff that exists such as North Carolina Highway 106 - Georgia State Route 246. – TMF 06:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

New York State Route 912Q merge

I proposed a merge for it; discussion is at Talk:Interstate 87. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to modify {{USRD}}

See Template talk:U.S. Roads WikiProject - one user wants to convert the template to {{WPBannerMeta}}. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

List of bridges on U.S. Route 101 in Oregon

Resolved
 – Ignore. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

So... what do we do with this? --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This seems really unnecessary, as it is much longer than the junction list in U.S. Route 101 in Oregon. Perhaps the bridges with designated names and notable history could be either (a) incorporated into the route description of US 101 OR, (b) put into a separate table in that article, or (c) left at this page with the superfluous bridges removed? I lean towards 'a' or 'b' myself, but I don't really have a vested interest. --LJ (talk) 09:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I support (a), but only bridges with articles (i.e. on the NRHP) should be merged. Xenon54 (talk) 10:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep it? What's the problem? It's certainly a notable topic. --NE2 18:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


I could be convinced either way.

Argument to keep: This highway has a fair number of bridges that are clearly notable by any standard.

Argument to delete: The article, as written, has an arbitrary definition of notability (>100 ft.) with no source justifying that arbitrary decision. (We just decided this was a bad thing for list of minor highways articles, so I'm assuming it's the same with bridges.) If switched to a non-arbitrary standard of notability, such as inclusion in the National Register of Historic places, this table gets shortened to about 10 entries. If the standard is bridges by Conde McCullough, this is redundant, as the article about him already lists these.

If someone wants to clean up and keep this article, here is a quick observation of other issues:

  • no metric conversion
  • acronym NRHP is used a dozen times but never explained
  • confusing formatting of notes that requires prior knowledge to understand. For example, "137 feet (1990) on northbound side)" Does that mean southbound bridge is shorter, in a slightly different location or doesn't exist at all? Is the "1990", the year built, or a conversion to different units? For the record, I'd advise to use a 2 row spanned entry for this bridge with 172ft (northbound) on the first row and 137 ft (Southbound) on the second.
  • Mileposts are in reverse order in this list, why?
  • The table references specific alignment changes (i.e. THE old alignment of US 101, not just AN older alignment of US 101) which implies the alignment change is further notable aside from replacing the bridge, yet no further information is given.

Dave (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This is what it used to look like. I think the current list is better than that. If you have a better idea for which bridges to include, go for it, but there are some notable ones like the Brush Creek Bridge, Necarney Creek (Sam Reed) Bridge, and New Youngs Bay Bridge that don't satisfy your criteria. There's also a WikiProject Bridges. --NE2 21:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't know about "my criteria", I just offered suggestions. I must admit, the concept of half viaduct was educational. Now I know what to call those things on Interstate 70 in Glenwood Canyon (slowly working on getting that to A class, so timely too). There's also a pretty big one on US-6 in Price canyon on the eastern approach to Soldier Summit, Utah, but I doubt those will get articles. With all the grandiose features in Gleenwood Canyon most people don't get around to realizing they're on a half viaduct the first few drives through the canyon, and the one in Price Canyon has architectural styling only an mechanical engineer could love.Dave (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, to expand on my mention of WikiProject Bridges, I'm not sure why "we" as a project would do anything with this. --NE2 23:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

What do we do about the article: nothing. It's not tagged under USRD, so we as a project don't need to do anything with it. Suggested improvements are all valid, but they should be passed along to one of the projects that has tagged it, unless we as a project decide that the US 101 in the name is enough to warrant tossing a USRD/ORSH tag on it too. Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Resolved
 – Article kept. Dough4872 (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of roads in Baltimore County, Maryland - Dough4872 (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects?

Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 01:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion #2

Deletion discussion 3

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Road 17 (Elkhart County, Indiana) --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion (disambiguation)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York State Route 399 (disambiguation) --NE2 23:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Peer review

Resolved
 – Userfied. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

List of numbered highways in Monroe, Washington is up for peer review. Link. –CG 16:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No offence, but this seems highly redundant and unnecessary. Why do we need a list for three individual routes? –Juliancolton | Talk 16:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
There is an FL that has a similar format (List of numbered highways in Amenia (CDP), New York). It also has a featured topic, which I would like to eventually gain through GAs for US 2, SR 203 and SR 522. –CG 16:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh. My only other valid reason is that the article focuses on each of their routes within the city limits. US 2 is 300+ mi long, so searching through would be tough without this page. –CG 18:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
For a city of 13,795??? I don't think so. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Article has been sent to AFD. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Latest deletion discussion

See List of numbered highways in Amenia (CDP), New York for details. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of numbered highways in Amenia (CDP), New York/archive1. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Merging of some county routes in Suffolk County (NY)

Several county route merges have been proposed at WT:NYSR#Open merge proposals. One specific discussion is ongoing at Talk:County Route 48 (Suffolk County, New York)#Merge. Whether to merge or not is apparently contentious. It would be greatly appreciated if we can get a wider opinion on whether these proposed merges are reasonable or not. Any alternative suggestions are also welcome. --Polaron | Talk 01:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

A broader discussion relating to all county route articles in New York has been started at WT:NYSR#County route articles. – TMF 04:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Second and third opinions are requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York State routes#Discussion, where a former Long Island resident has gone on a campaign to keep all Suffolk county route articles. – TMF 16:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Assessing articles

Earlier this evening, I finished working on an expansion of Nevada State Route 376. Prior to my first edit of the article in April, this article was clearly a stub and was rated as such. With my expansion, the current version is probably "C" or "B" class.

Knowing that I have improved the article, I could easily go in and reassess the article to "C" class. However, since I was the primary editor behind improving the article's status, couldn't that technically be perceived as a conflict of interest? Alternately, I could tag the talk banner with "reassess=yes". The one time I recall doing that for another NV SR article, it was several days before someone looked at it. I've never seen any articles listed at Category:U.S. Roads project articles needing reassessment any time I've checked, and wonder whether other editors actually use this feature. (I should note that I have reassessed my own articles in the past, mainly before I was aware of the "reassess=yes" tag.)

So I guess I'm looking for some clarification on what other road editors do once they've improved an article, and what other peoples' thoughts are on how articles (below GA-class) are/should be assessed. --LJ (talk) 06:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I have just reassessed your article to C-Class. –CG 15:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I do make an effort to check the category from time to time, but I'll freely admit I've forgotten and let it sit for weeks. I'd just ping somebody and ask them to re-assess. If you use IRC, this is one of the reasons for the wikipedia channels on IRCDave (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I typically just reassess my own articles. As long as you're reassessing it based on the outlined assessment criteria, I don't think reassessing your own article is a problem. – TMF 04:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I would disagree, only because I'm terrible at catching mistakes in my own work, that I would easily detect reading someone else's. As such, IMO, another set of eyes is always a good thing, even if the effort is to get an article from C to B class. It isn't a big deal, I get asked to re-assess articles all the time, via talkpage, email, IM, or IRC. To LJ's point, we should either agree to get more vigilant about monitoring the category (the "official" method to request 3rd party re-assessment) or close this category down and find another method that works more efficiently.Dave (talk) 21:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Peer review (2) and new contest!

Washington State Route 203 is up for peer review. I am also here to annouce a new contest: The Good Articles Across America Challenge (GAAA Challenge), where you write a road article for each of the 50 states and get it to GA standards! Sign up by June 15 and the contest will begin on the 20th! –CG 21:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

We already have that... :) –Juliancolton | Talk 21:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes...but this one is strickly roads and has partners. Scott's doesn't. –CG 21:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
If you're going to run a contest... I have a question. Why did you do such a strange job of dividing the country? California and Michigan in the NW?!? If you're doing to do a quadrant division, MI should be the NE (along with all of the Great Lakes states, and California should be part of the SW. Otherwise consider making divisions for the South(east), Northeast (New England and Mid-Atlantic states), Midwest (Great Lakes plus northern Plains states), Northwest, Southwest, etc. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't really see a need for another contest, especially one very similar to an existing one. Also, the more conventional way of splitting the U.S. into four regions is shown in this map. --Polaron | Talk 00:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. We don't need contests in order to work on articles. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I actually think the contests are good ideas as they provide motivation for improving articles. For example, both the County Challenge and the USRDCRWPCup have motivated me to get many road articles to GA status and become more active in helping the project. Regarding the new contest idea, it could work despite being redundant to another contest, but it needs some improvements. For example, deadlines may be a problem in a drive to improve articles, as there were issues in the USRDCRWPCup regarding the rush to get articles about short, unnotable roads (e.g. New Jersey Route 180) to GA status. Dough4872 (talk) 01:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The contest is horribly structured. We have too many contests open; please wait to start a new one and in the meantime, restructure your own. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I will; maybe around 2010 I could start it. –CG 21:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Where can one find these contests? Is there a list somewhere? --Holderca1 talk 15:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me just point out that I'm not against contests, but we don't need to spend time setting up and running contests all the time when we could use that time to improve articles. I'll admit that I'm frustrated that I have an article at FAC for a second time, that has all of the "issues" fixed from the first FAC, and there are editors pushing small articles through GAN for the sake of a contest. That doesn't mean that getting GAs is a bad thing. Getting editors to flex their editing muscle and write quality articles in other areas of the country is also a very good thing as well. I guess we should channel the enthusiasm and energy into getting as many articles up to as good of quality as possible. USRD has tagged some 10,000 articles and it would be nice to get them destubbed, expanded and revised to good quality. For every U.S. Route 50 in Nevada article out there, there are several articles like South Carolina Highway 363. Imzadi1979 (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting survey of route numbering practice

[16] There appears to be some useful information in here for the states that responded, including New York (pp. 36-69). --NE2 13:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Good find. Page 39 seems to give a definite reason why NY 31C was renumbered to NY 317 instead of simply being rerouted. It's a question I've had for a while, so I'm grateful to find an answer. – TMF 01:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Portal!

Could someone take care of updating the portal for June? Unfortunately I think I'm getting sick, otherwise I would do it. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll get to it later tonight. – TMF 04:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reviews

As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps, a project devoted to re-reviewing Good Articles listed before August 26, 2007, the articles Interstate 95 in Pennsylvania and Interstate 476 have been re-reviewed against current GA standards. The articles will be placed on hold until issues can be addressed. If an editor does not express interest in addressing these issues within seven days, the articles will be delisted. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 00:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

In addition, Interstate 295 (Delaware-New Jersey), U.S. Route 50, and United States Numbered Highways are up for GA reassessment. These articles need to be fixed fast, or they will be delisted. Dough4872 (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Template {{jct}} issue

I was just attempting to amend the wikitable on Washington State Route 542 to include Abbotsford, British Columbia as a city2= entry following Sumas, Washington (Abbotsford is just across the border with Sumas, which is a border crossing). What comes out is Abbotsford, British Columbia, Washington which clearly won't work. Then I realized that in the same table, and no doubt in other Washington state tables attempting to target Vancouver (which is an undisambiguated article-title for the BC city) winds up being the target for Vancouver, Washington, which is at the other end of I-5 and far from teh areas where Vancouver will be targeted. So I puzzled on how to amend it - because if I take out the state=WA switch then "542" will not have a state attached to it. There are numerous highway articles with this table that are in range of the Canadian border, not just in t Vancouver - Lower Mainland area, all along the Canada-US border. So how can this table be improved or adapted to deal with cross-border locations; and in this case to prevent mention of "Vancouver" to directing to the wrong city?Skookum1 (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The junction template only works for cities in the same state/province as the highway article. For cities in a different state/province, they must be manually added. For examples on how to do this see Interstate 70 in Utah or many other articles.Dave (talk) 21:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Implementing this would require an additional set of parameters, this template is complicated enough as it is, it can simply be tacked on to the end {{jct|state=WA|WA|542}} – [[Abbotsford, British Columbia]]. There is nothing you can do fix the Vancouver issue, the template doesn't know if you want Vancouver, WA or Vancouver, BC. --Holderca1 talk 23:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Right, now its only set for Manitoba, I believe, which we figured out :) -3 1/2 years of Mitch32 00:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
What if the Vancouver link were {{jct|state=WA|WA|542}} – [[Vancouver, British Columbia]] - because Vancouver, British Columbia will direct to the proper Vancouver. And I don't understand what you mean by "tack it on at the end? Can I tack it on within the current 547 junction, i.e. after Sumas, or do I tack it on as a separate section? Maybe easiest if you could just do it, adn then I'll get the idea and can look into other WA articles with the same issue.Skookum1 (talk) 00:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
See this diff, I believe these are the changes you are attempting to make. Ignore my first edit, which was done to avoid overlinking, I think in this case and per WP:USRD/ELG examples that is OK and makes it easier for you to fix the rest. Sswonk (talk) 01:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, so just outside the template-row...I think it might be worthwhile not having the comma before BC, as otherwise it gives the impression that Sumas is in BC, too....now to start looking at other WA highways and see what else needs fixing. Thanks mucho.Skookum1 (talk) 01:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Re: commas, strictly speaking the commas should stay. If Sumas were in British Columbia, it would be "Sumas, BC, Abbotsford, BC". See other exit lists where destinations are in other states. Sswonk (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, if it is a well known city that doesn't have a city by that name within the state, I would drove the state/province name. For example, for a exit list in Indiana, I would just put Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, Cincinnati, etc... and not put the state name behind it. --Holderca1 talk 13:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Comma-less, period-less forms like "Vancouver BC" and "Abbotsford BC" are common conventions in Canada, and are also seen on highway signs in Washington if not elsewhere - though the I-5 signs as i recall do tend to use "Vancouver, B.C." with both commas and periods. As far as inter-state/infra-United States places, I see your point, but given the "blank white space" north of the US border in the US mentality (no offence), it also seems a necessary convention to indicate that a destination is another country rather than in a state of the Union. "BC" is understood in Washington to be Canada, although I wonder if signs leading north from Minneapolis or Fargo say "Winnipeg, Manitoba" or "Winnipeg, Canada"...Skookum1 (talk) 13:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
This is loosely related to the control cities discussion below, as signage can often indicate what is used in exit lists, as it should. I think Skookum and Holderca1, you're both right. I didn't know about the two Vancouvers related to I-5 before this thread. Here in New England, on the Mass Pike#Exit list and Interstate 495 (Massachusetts)#Exit list you can see destinations like "Providence, RI", "Albany, NY" and "Hartford, CT" which I personally think could do without the state abbreviation. I also see a lot of merit in what Skookum says about the comma, that where a state abbreviation is clearly needed a comma can nevertheless be left out. So there's my unofficial opinion: if the destination is within the state the article subject resides (Interstate 80 in Iowa, no states at all!), no state abbr., use discretion with an eye toward leaving it out unless it is absolutely necessary/unclear, and if so the comma is optional. Sswonk (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and for Canadian destination my unofficial opinion amended is: use the province two letter abbreviation. They were set up by the two postal systems not to overlap, uncited in Canadian subnational postal abbreviations also see List of U.S. state abbreviations. Looks like Mexico "opted-out" of that agreement. Sswonk (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't the cities listed in a junction list be spelled out similar to what is actually seen on road signs? For example, a sign on southbound Maryland Route 313 at the intersection with Maryland Route 302 in Barclay lists Dover, Delaware as a destination and spells it "Dover, Del.". In the junction list for MD 313, I displayed the destination as Dover, Del. as that matches what is seen on signs. Should all out-of-state destinations in junction lists use the two-letter postal abbreviation (i.e. Dover, DE) discussed above or be displayed as seen on signs? Dough4872 (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I personally hardly abbreviate anything on here. I would spell out all states. I definitelly wouldn't use what is on a guide sign as my method of determining how to abbreviate. They are limited to the size of a sign; we do not have such limitations. --Holderca1 talk 14:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
So in the case here, would it be better to list it as "Dover, Delaware", "Dover, DE", or just Dover as it is a recognizable location? Dough4872 (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Tough call, fairly well known city if you are familiar with your state capitals, it is a small city though. On a borderline call, I would err on the side of including the state and since just Dover doesn't redirect to it, that seals the deal. --Holderca1 talk 15:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I have changed it to read "Dover, DE". Dough4872 (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Interstate Highway control city boxes

As part of the efforts over the past couple of days to improve I-476, the control city box that was on the page was removed. This is probably one of the few parts of the early USRD standard that's still in existence today. I know we came to a consensus a year or so ago that "communities" and "major cities" boxes should be removed from articles; however, I believe (and this is going from memory) that Interstate Highway control cities boxes were omitted from the discussion because they seemed to serve a purpose (indicating the control cities along the route). Since consensus can change, and since it was removed on I-476, I figured I'd bring the issue back up for discussion. – TMF 05:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The previous discussion referenced above: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 10#Major cities box. – TMF 06:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is, we need to better define what a major city is. I looked at the list of cities of U.S. Route 59 and it has Wharton, Texas (pop 9,237), Beeville, Texas (pop 13,129) and Mena, Arkansas (pop 5,637) listed as major cities. Now I know the definition of city is a pretty loose one and changes from state to state, but does anyone really consider any of these to be "major" cities? What I had done awhile back on the box on Interstate 10 in Texas was drop the word "major" since that means different things to different people and right under "Cities" in the box, I showed what the minimum population was for the list. Much more encyclopedic in my opinion. Now the only reason I set it at 2,000 was so I could include all of the control cities in the list as well. --Holderca1 talk 13:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Point taken, but per the old discussion US 59 shouldn't have a list. – TMF 23:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
One simple method would be to use (in addition to official control cities, which is only valid for Interstate Highways) cities that are the central city of a metropolitan area. More specifically, if the city is part of the official title of a metropolitan statistical area, then it could be listed as a major city. --Polaron | Talk 15:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems like something that should be in the introduction to the article, as a sentence describing what major cities are on the road. As for control cities, many states don't strictly follow the AASHTO list, and others flood it with insignificant towns (Interstate 80 in Pennsylvania). --NE2 15:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The whole major cities box has been a royal pain in the butt. I got lucky with the two sections of Interstate 70 I've worked on, only because Scott found where MoDot republished the official AASHTO list for all interstates that passed through Missouri. However, for all other articles I've tried to get to to GA or higher, this box has been more trouble that it's worth. Frankly I wouldn't shed a tear if we just obliterated it, or at least say don't put one unless you have an official source.Dave (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Although the more I think about it, Polaron's idea isn't bad either, restrict the list cities that are on the US census list of MSA's. I could be convinced either way.Dave (talk) 17:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I removed the control city box from I-476 because I remember hearing that it was deprecated, even though I did not know there was an exemption for Interstate highways. In my opinion, the major cities boxes are too subjective, as there is no set definition to what a "major city". For example, the box formerly used in Garden State Parkway [17] seemed to mention almost every town it served in South Jersey but only a few from North Jersey. If we do want to keep these boxes in articles about Interstates, they need to only include official control cities designated by the AASHTO. Otherwise, they should be removed as they would be too subjective. Cities served by a route can easily be mentioned in the route description. Dough4872 (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that you have to pay $$$ to get the AASHTO list, or know someone who has a copy, or convince the relevent state DOT to follow Missouri's lead and publish the portion of the list that applies to them. I'm warming to the idea of MSA's as that list is more easily available or no list at all. From what I've seen this major cities list is prone to rogue editors calling their hometown of 50 people, major. But by that logic, we'd obliterate the exit list too. So I'm still not convinced one way or the other.Dave (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
In that case, I believe it is better to get rid of the cities box altogether. Communties along the route can simply be mentioned in the route description. Dough4872 (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I still like the control cities box, because it's quick and easy reference. I don't want to have to sort through a route description to quickly see if a route passes through Atlanta. I'm using an experimental Major Cities box to address some issues, it's in use on a a few articles, one of which is Interstate 81. I have a copy of the AASHTO list, but it hasn't been updated since 2001, which leaves out quite a few Interstates. I think it's fine as is on Interstates, we just have to be vigilant to remove those small towns, and if the CC list is long, leave not but the control cities. Control cities and cities on signs should get priority, then other major cities, then if the list still isn't long, smaller cities of interest. --MPD T / C 19:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Location field on exit/junction lists

I was under the impression that we limited this field to incorporated places since unincorporated places don't have set boundaries, therefore it would be impossible to determine (or source) whether an interchange was located within that particular place. See the discussion here: User talk:Holderca1#I-75 in Florida. --Holderca1 talk 17:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. You can't use the "next X exits" signs, both because they don't always match the city limits, and because an exit might be covered by more than one of those signs. As for unincorporated areas, I can see the point in including them, but CDP boundaries and names are often arbitrarily chosen, and any major unincorporated area should appear on signs. Unincorporated communities that grew up around the intersection might be an exception. --NE2 17:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I was mainly referring to unincorporated places that aren't part of a CDP. If someone wants to include CDPs in this column, I won't argue with them over it. It is a concentration of population large enough that the Census Bureau determines is significant enough, they have set boundaries, whether arbitrary or not. My issue is with the unincorporated places that aren't CDPs and have no defined boundaries. --Holderca1 talk 17:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The locations may be unincorporated, but they're accurate. Even if they're only in some little hick town that only a handful of people know about, it's better to have those locations than the nearest cities, towns, villages, etc., just because they're known a little better. Also, I wasn't too pleased with the elimination of the river crossings and toll plazas either. ----DanTD (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean by accurate? What are you using to determine whether the interchange is located in these places or not? We shouldn't include every river crossing, just major ones or if the bridge itself is notable (i.e. has an article). I didn't remove the toll plazas, they are still there at mile 26 and 100. --Holderca1 talk 18:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I mean like being in Pasco, rather than being in San Antonio, or being in Ridge Manor West, rather than being in Ridge Manor or Brooksville. And I agree about not including every river crossing, but the ones I added were major ones. As for the toll plazas for Alligator Alley, what was so wrong with the way they were formatted before? ----DanTD (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, that still doesn't answer the question of how you know it is in Pasco. I didn't realize they were major river crossings. I believe they used a "colspan" and used ! notation which caused it to be bold and shaded. I don't really see the point in drawing special attention to a toll plaza. Look, I am going through Category:U.S. road articles with an exit list needing attention and cleaning it out. I-75 in Florida had been tagged for over a year, indicating to me that it needed work, so I went through and cleaned it up per how I interpret the guideline. I wouldn't of thought anyone would take so much exception to me cleaning up a long neglected exit list. My apologies for offending you. --Holderca1 talk 20:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Various maps covering the region prove that it is, not to mention my own experiences driving down Florida State Road 52 and seeing the border of San Antonio, Florida further east from the vicinity of the interchange. Oh, BTW, I never thought you were offending me. ----DanTD (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this is being taken way to seriously. I don't see how we could agree to a non-Orwellian rule that could cover all the bases. Even in incorporated metropolitan areas, I've seen situations where an exit is technically within one city, but is near the city limits with little or no access to that city and for all practical purposes is in a neighboring city. (Interstate 215 (Utah) is an example where mild edit-warring has occurred over this). Combining this with the example you list, with unincorporated areas, that do not have strictly defined limits, and at some point common sense has to reigh. My advice is to list what is usefull, even if not 100% technically accurate. IMO we should place article utility over listing every podunkvile that nobody's ever heard of and/or omitting Miami as a location, as the intersection is technically 300 feet from the city limits and in reality in a different city. Dave (talk) 19:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

When I do the lists for Michigan highways, I have the advantage that all land in Michigan is incorporated. A person is always within a township, charter township, village or city, and that's what I list. Now, in some cases, I will list the unincorporated place name over the township name if MDOT uses the place name on the map. In other words, on the US 41 article i have at FAC, I used Harvey over Chocolay Township since MDOT has signs for Harvey on the roadside and put Harvey on the map. We just need to use our best judgement, and in the case of the infobox, "round" a bit. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, in that case, Miami should be listed in the destinations column. How I have always interpreted the guideline is, the location column is where the interchange is physically located, and the destination column is where you list what cities can be accessed from the exit. --Holderca1 talk 19:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
That's how I've always interpreted it as well. – TMF 23:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm definitely against using unincorporated locations as locations in an exit or junction list. I've been replacing them with the incorporated towns that they're located in as I clean up New York articles. However, since some are "notable", what I usually do is indicate the unincorporated location in the notes column. – TMF 23:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

So if an interchange is in a town, and neither of those towns are the destinations of the crossroad, you just eliminate the town that exit is in? ----DanTD (talk) 00:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't follow completely, so I'll use analogies: if an interchange is in an incorporated entity (town/city/village) and the highway it intersects connects to two areas that are not listed on guide signs, I would list the incorporated entity in the location column and not have any mention of the connecting towns. If the interchange is in an unincorporated area and the rest is the same, I would leave the location column blank if there is no incorporated entity that can be used instead. – TMF 01:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Recently, I have been working a lot on articles about roads in Maryland, a state with vast areas that are unincorporated. In pinpointing locations in unincorporated areas for the junction list, I try to find a recoginzable community (a CDP or ZIP code) that is near an exit or intersection. If there is none, I just leave the field blank. Dough4872 (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I've been using ZIP codes for some areas (link to map). But ZIP codes don't cover the entire country, and sometimes the ZIP code for one city covers another city or unincorporated area (CDP). I just know that my GPS uses my location and ZIP code information to tell me which town I'm in so that's more or less logical to use for exits, since if people use exits and the info on their GPS they'll see that town and ZIP code. --MPD T / C 19:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
ZIP codes really don't work well, since they're not meant to be used that way (they're essentially the area served from a particular post office) and sometimes don't match up with reality. --NE2 19:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, ZIP code boundaries are sometimes drawn to look like gerrymandered congressional districts to comply with postal regulations that state the post office building must be inside zip code boundaries, amongst many other quirks. Zip code boundaries often have little to no resemblance to city limits.Dave (talk) 20:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
In states with large incorporated areas, such as Maryland, what would be the logical way of saying where an intersection is located? If ZIP codes do not work, is it okay to look at a map and use a community within close proximity of the intersection for the junction list? Dough4872 (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Use this: [18] --Holderca1 talk 20:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Dough4872 (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Beltway article conventions

Recently, I have been improving the article Interstate 695 (Maryland), which is the Baltimore Beltway. Looking at both Wikipedia:WikiProject Roads in Maryland/Editing guide and Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Standards, they do not provide for how the route description of a beltway should be ordered. I am assuming that it is to start from milepost zero and continue clockwise, in accordance with AASHTO guidelines. However, there are exceptions with other beltways, such as Interstate 495 (Capital Beltway) where mileposts and exit numbers are organized counterclockwise (this is due to the concurrency with I-95). I feel that the ordering of the route description in beltway articles is an important convention that has been overlooked and am opening a discussion to see if we can establish one. Dough4872 (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Start at milepost zero and work your way towards increasing mileposts. That way it is consistent with the exit list. This should be the same format for all route descriptions, start at zero and work your way up. --Holderca1 talk 16:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Does it matter if the mileposts go clockwise, like in Baltimore, or counterclockwise, like in Washington? Also, not all articles route descriptions nessecarily conform to mileposts. For example, the Atlantic City Expressway has mileposts that increase from east to west, presumably to make Atlantic City milepost zero. However, the route description and exit list go from west to east, with decreasing mileposts, as that is what is called for at WP:USRD/STDS. Dough4872 (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I would say go with mileposts in ascending order, even if the highway is not compliant with other conventions. I know of two examples where a GA or higher article has not adhered to exit list conventions, U.S. Route 491 and Nevada State Route 375, each for different reasons. My point in bringing this up, is if you decide to keep clockwise convention and ignore mileposts in ascending order convention, your exit list will look something like the latter, albeit significantly more complicated than either one of these.Dave (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I am starting to think that ascending mileposts should be the set convention for articles about beltways, as both the articles about the Baltimore and Washington beltways are already written in this fashion. Should we clarify this at WP:USRD/STDS? Dough4872 (talk) 17:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Even then, though, we'll have issues. Interstate 820 would have been a good example but Google Maps is wrong. The Greensboro Urban Loop will be a difficult one once it's finished because its exit numbers will go in clockwise order 1-21, 131-121, 97-103. For now exits 3-20 aren't built so whatever. But anyway we'll have exceptions, but I can't think of any right now, so sure, mileposts ascending is good and logical. --MPD T / C 18:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's a minor example, and it's not a beltway, but there's the example of US 82 in Sherman, TX. The short freeway section there has five exits, numbered (in order from west to east): 640, 19, 20A, 20B, and 21. Exit 640 makes no sense (US 82 only goes 504 miles through Texas), until you realize that that particular exit number is apparently in kilometers (Sherman is about 640 km from the New Mexico border). - Algorerhythms (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
No, it is in miles. Mile markers in Texas (although they aren't posted on the roads come to think of it, I think they are, just never realized what they were at the time since the numbers didn't make since) are based on the westernmost (near El Paso) and northernmost (top of the panhandle) points in the state. US 82 starts out at the New Mexico border at 222 already. Sherman is just over 400 miles down the road from the border. --Holderca1 talk 21:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
They are posted. They are very small, can't read the numbers at freeway speeds. Not posted every mile, maybe every two miles. Haven't seen any independently mounted, usually mounted with a reassurance shield. They may not be posted on both sides of the roadway. Didn't realize that was what they were when I first saw them, wouldn't of thought that a marker with 543 on a 20-mile road would be a mile marker. --Holderca1 talk 22:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I would generally agree with the ascending milepost argument when describing beltways, as it seems to be pretty logical. But there are going to be exceptions, especially if more than one highway number is involved. For example, say the beltway carries two routes and milepost 0 is at the same point for each (effectively having increasing mileposts in two directions)--do you go clockwise? Should priority in the route description begin with any particular route, in the case of multiple routes on a beltway or overlapped routes? Should a historical perspective be considered? I don't have any particular examples for any of these, but they are things to think about should such examples crop up. --LJ (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think I have ever seen two sets of mileposts posted, usually one is dropped through the concurrency. --Holderca1 talk 22:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
There is such an instance, along the US 13/US 50 concurrency on the Salisbury Bypass, a 3/4 beltway, in Maryland. With the Capital Beltway around Washington, mile marker zero is at the Woodrow Wilson Bridge over the Potomac River, and they increase counterclockwise (north) in Maryland along the I-95/I-495 concurrency, confomring to the south-to-north convention for I-95 within that state. Upon I-95 splitting from the Beltway, the mile markers continue to increase along I-495, looping west then south into Virginia, where they continue to increase across the state line to the Springfield Interchange. Between here and the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, I-95 joins the Beltway and the mile markers along this portion conform to the distance from the Virginia-North Carolina border on I-95. Dough4872 (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
But the I-95/495 concurrency in Virginia use just the I-95 mile markers, not both. --Holderca1 talk 02:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I know, I was just providing an example of a beltway that changes its set of mileposts. Dough4872 (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

One example

Here's an actual example of the first hypothetical case in my comment above. Say I was to write an article about McCarran Boulevard in Reno, NV. McCarran isn't a beltway/freeway, but it is a major arterial forming a full-circle belt route through the Reno-Sparks area. The northeast quarter of the loop consists of the entirety of SR 650, the northwest quarter is the entirety of SR 651, and the south half is locally maintained (and was previously part of the two routes). Mileposts of SR 650 and SR 651 begin at the US 395 interchange on the north end, with SR 650 mileposts increasing clockwise and SR 651 mileposts increasing counterclockwise. So where would I begin with the route description in this case? This is an article I've actually thought about creating (merging two related articles into one more comprehensive article), so responses and suggestions might be helpful both for me and in the overall discussion. --LJ (talk) 02:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

That is a no win situation. I think I'd start with the origin of 650 go clockwise, and have the 651 portion with the mileposts in reverse order. Dave (talk) 02:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
This appears to be an interesting case of a beltway where the order (clockwise/counterclockwise) of the mileposts changes. As discussed above, there are articles such as the Atlantic City Expressway, U.S. Route 491, and Nevada State Route 375 that bend the rules with mileposts, having them decrease instead of increase. This hypothetical example happpens to be one that also bends the rules, but it is even more complex because you could write is as clockwise from NV 650's mileposts or counterclockwise from NV 651's mileposts. Despite this oddity, the vast majority of beltways consist of one route with one set of mileposts. While at first we seemed to thought increasing mileposts was a good benchmark, this case makes us have to think twice. Another option is for beltway articles to be written clockwise from the zero milepost, as called for by AASHTO. However, this would require articles like Interstate 495 (Capital Beltway) (which has counterclockwise mileposts due to the oddities described above) to be totally flipped and would result in decreasing mileposts (even though this can be seen in the three examples I mentioned above). Dough4872 (talk) 03:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean "Another option is for beltway articles to be written clockwise from the zero milepost, as called for by AASHTO." There is nothing wrong with a route description that goes counterclockwise. It makes more sense for the exit/junction list to count up then it does down. Remember, these are guidelines, there are exceptions, if it makes more sense to do it a different way, then do it a different way. --Holderca1 talk 03:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree, if it is impossible to go ascending order completely around, then go clockwise and pick the starting point of the one that ascends clockwise, which I think is what Dave said. --Holderca1 talk 03:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
(ec) The Beltway's fine. It seems consensus is to start at 0 and increase, no matter which direction the numbers increase. Of course we will have the strange ones such as McCarran Bd and the Greensboro Urban Loop (the latter being at least semi-logical). So as with everything else that tries to follow a standard, we will have exceptions because not every standard can be applied to every thing. --MPD T / C 03:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
At this point, I am starting to think of a logical conclusion. For a normal beltway with one set of mileposts, such as around Baltimore or Washington, the article should use ascending mileposts, regardless of if it is clockwise or counterclockwise. For the more complex examples discussed above with multiple mileposts for different stretches, the article should use ascending mileposts based on the set that ascends clockwise, as Dave said. Dough4872 (talk) 03:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Shield upload issue at Commons fixed!

A bit of good news to report - an exemption has been added to the Commons whitelist that once again allows shields that use the "<state abbreviation>-<number>.svg" convention to be uploaded to commons. These shields had been blocked since sometime in the winter because their names were getting caught in the regex of the new Commons blacklist. Everything should be good now. – TMF 20:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Small NJ shield proposal

Among my travels, and going through the photos I have, I have noticed a strange dysfunction in terms of what shields we are using (Image:Circle sign x.svg) and the shields that the New Jersey Department of Transportation use.

Here is an example situation:

NJ Route 184

The shields we use on Wikipedia currently:

The shields that I have seen in real life:

Now, if you look carefully, specifically on this one, can you see the difference in the two shields? If you look here, you should be able to find more examples.

Now, we have the New Jersey shields still that we originally used, which I think is a little better to standards than what we have, seen by this example:

File:New Jersey 184.svg

If we adjust the NJ 184 shield above this comment, we should have a perfect rendition of the shields seen. I am proposing that for Jersey, we stop using the Circle sign shields and revert back to the original.3 1/2 years of Mitch32 20:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The circle sign is closer, the original New Jersey shields used have a flattened out section on the top and bottom that the actual shields do not have. --Holderca1 talk 21:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, the backup plan is to adjust the NJ shields, because bolding and digit size are off.3 1/2 years of Mitch32 21:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
First, Welcome back Mitch, haven't heard from you in a while. Meanwhile back at the ranch... The question I would ask is, Is there a formal published specification for NJ route shields? and How well is the standard (be it written or just informal) followed? In the states I'm most familiar with, there are a couple of "incorrect" variants that are used, in some states quite frequently. The extreme is California where the "official" standard is so badly diluted with incorrect designs to the point of impossible for an average person to know which is correct. So where this California I would ask, why try to make the wikipedia shields match the field, as there's just to many variants in the field. However in a state like Arizona, where there are enough signs in compliance that it's easy to tell the non-compliant standards, I would argue they should match.Dave (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
For the record last year when we were discussing state designated interstate shields, I looked long and far for the NJ equivalent of a MUTCD standard PDF or other document on the web and couldn't find anything official. Sswonk (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


While we are discussing New Jersey shields, here is a similar case I noticed with Delaware:

The shield currently used for Delaware Route 15:

Three examples of DE 15 shields in the field:

The original shield used for DE 15:

File:Delaware 15.svg

Notice from the pictures how the font on the DE 15 shields match closer to the original Delaware-specific shield used rather than the newer one used. Many state route shields I have seen throughout Delaware closer match the original style used and I feel it might be better to switch back to this design to closer match what is seen in the field. Dough4872 (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Could just tweak some code to make DE use the circle signs for two-digit routes since they use Series D... – TMF 02:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
That could work for the two-digit routes, but what to do with three-digit shields? Some shields, like this one for Delaware Route 273, use an elongated circle with Series D font while this image shows shields for DE 261 of both the elongated circle and oval designs with Series C font. The current and former shields used for both routes on Wikipedia are elongated circles with Series C fonts. Also, despite the example I provided above with DE 15, there are also two-digit shields, such as this one for DE 92, that use Series C, which we currently use for all state routes in Delaware. There seem to be all kinds of variations, we should use the one that appears most commonly along Delaware roads. Dough4872 (talk) 03:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Since there doesn't seem to be a consistent style (there was also a three-digit shield with small Series D numerals in one of the DE 15 pictures above), perhaps it would be better to look for some standards published by the state. – TMF 04:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
In the DelDOT MUTCD, the images appear to show that both two- and three-digit routes use circular signs (not elongated circles), with Series D font. While I can believe this standard for most of the two-digit routes I have seen, I have seen many three-digit routes that use the elongated circle. However, we should really look at the newer route shields that have been installed (such as these cutouts for DE 141 and DE 261 after a recent construction project), and they reveal the oval being used for three-digit state routes. Coupled with the use of this design in DelDOT's MUTCD, I think we should switch to the circular sign design for Delaware state routes as that appears to be the current design being used for new installations. Dough4872 (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I was just down in Delaware today and witnessed shields for Delaware Route 896 Alternate, a route signed last year. I saw both elongated circles and oval shields with Series C font. This shows that there is still inconsistiency in signing state routes today. It is possible that they could have reused older shields for the route. Dough4872 (talk) 01:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

St. Louis Signer

The guy may have moved onto a new IP by now, but it looks like he's trying to make a comeback: Special:Contributions/99.53.195.153. If anyone here follows Missouri, be sure to keep an eye out for suspicious edits. – TMF 21:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reviews Update

These reviews are part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps, a project devoted to re-reviewing Good Articles listed before August 26, 2007.

Thanks to User:Dough4872, Interstate 95 in Pennsylvania and U.S. Route 50 have been improved and kept. Interstate 295 (Delaware-New Jersey) still has 3 days left, and should be easy enough for anyone willing and knowledgeable about the sources needed for this article. United States Numbered Highways still has one day left, if an editor is willing to at least start working on it then I'm willing to extend the hold time an extra seven days. But if no action is taken then it will likely be delisted tomorrow. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 14:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion "discussions"

Both of these should be automatic deletes but here they are: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 June 7#Template:Jctint/noaccess and Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 June 7#Template:Jctint/deleted. All uses of both have been phased out. – TMF 22:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Nergaal has nominated List of state highways in Marquette County, Michigan for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

Pittsburgh Belt images

File:Orange_Belt.gif is currently slated to be deleted (and may be by the time this gets read) for a lack of copyright information. However, wouldn't the design of the Orange Belt shield (and all the other Pittsburgh belts excluding the newer Purple one) fall under the "lack of originality" category, putting it in the public domain? If so, I'll look into making SVGs for the original belts. – TMF 04:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm pretty sure those (including the Purple Belt) qualify for {{PD-textlogo}}. --NE2 23:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, I uploaded SVG images for all six belts to Commons with {{PD-textlogo}} for a license. They might need a bit more refining, but based on pictures they're definitely more accurate than what we currently have. – TMF 07:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
A comment completely unrelated to the images: Is there any particular reason why all the Pittsburgh Belt routes are in separate articles? It seems they could all be combined into the Pittsburgh/Allegheny County Belt System article, making the coverage more comprehensive. --LJ (talk) 08:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
There's probably no reason other than whoever made the central article thought that each belt deserved their own article. I'm not opposed to merging them all together as part of an expansion of the central article; at the moment, all of the belt articles are stubby articles. – TMF 07:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

National Park Service Routes (not Forest Routes)

I have run, now, into 2 states to where routes maintained by the National Park Service have been given designations. The first I know, is National Park Service Route 615, which is signed, but covered in County Route 615 (Sussex County, New Jersey). Here's my question, are these routes notable as they are run by the feds? So far I know of 4 - 3 in NY, and 1 in NJ:

  1. NPS 615 - The signed one in the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area.
  2. NPS Route 401 - Also on the Library of Congress, 401 is a road in the Eleanor Roosevelt National Historic Site
  3. NPS Routes 13 & 400 - listed in NYSDOT logs and will check later

What's the notability on these?3 1/2 years of Mitch32 20:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it's a case by case basis. There are thousands of USFS, NPS and BLM routes, and near as I can tell no consistent or nationwide numbering scheme. In the western US, many were built by mining, oil exploration and similar companies, and the US Government assumed maintenance after the companies packed up and left. As such most are not notable. However, some have been declared National Scenic Byways and would gain notability that way. Of the ones I'm familiar with, I could only name 2 in Utah, 1 in Nevada and 2 or 3 in California that merit articles, out of hundreds in each of those states.Dave (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
To expound a little further, and give specifics, Nobody cares what the access roads are numbered within Grand Canyon National Park. I think a road has to connect or traverse notable features itsself for the road to be considered notable. In the case of the examples I'm thinking of, the roads themselves are mentioned in literature, not just the National Parks, or other protected areas they serve.Dave (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
There are multiple factors that should be considered in looking at NPS routes. I agree with Dave that the roads do have to serve notable features in order to have an article. Also, are any of these routes actually signed? I know NPS 615 in New Jersey is, and it is sufficient to cover that route in the article about Sussex CR 615, which it is related to. As for the remainder of the routes, if they are not signed, they may not be notable enough for an article as they are only internal numbers for roads maintained by the NPS. If nessecary, they could be mentioned in the article about the park they serve. Dough4872 (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Odd editing in NJ

See Special:Contributions/67.85.77.39. The last few edits seem odd, I don't know how active the state project is so I posted it here. Sswonk (talk) 00:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like standard date-changing vandalism. --NE2 00:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Route 236 (Onondaga County, New York) – TMF 16:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Route 35 (Warren County, New York) --NE2 19:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hybrid major intersections table

I have a concern that needs to be brought up with junction lists used in roads that consist of both freeway and non-freeway segments. In the GA review for New York State Route 104, I was concerned with the Major intersections section consisting of three tables, with one covering a freeway portion of the route as an exit list and two covering non-freeway portions of the route as a junction list. While this was done to be compliant with ELG standards, as exit lists are not allowed to have the colors used for concurrencies, I do not like this format. In the article New Jersey Route 29, which also consists of both freeway and non-freeway portions, I used an exit list that listed all the exits along the freeway portion and only major junctions along the non-freeway portion. A column span was used to indicate where the freeway portion ended. No colors were used to highlight concurrencies, such as the one with NJ 179. I feel the ELG should be changed to both deprecate colors used in junction lists for concurrencies as well as call for routes with both freeway and non-freeway portions to be merged into one list and am opening a discussion to see what should be done. Dough4872 (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Route 31 in Michigan has a hybrid format, although the list needs a bit of cleanup. The mile column is used for all junctions, and the exit number column is used to denote all the exits along the highway's different freeway alignments. It follows sections of I-94 and I-196, and takes their exit numbers as a result, which is indicated in the notes column. I'm not in favor of deprecating the colors. I think the biggest issue against them is that the color key isn't used in most states leading to confusion about their meaning. Personally, any time we can add something of visual interest to an article to break up blocks of text, I'm all for it. That's why I like to make sure every section of an article has a photo, for instance. The colors in a table help to keep it from being a monotone block of text, with the only possibility for color being any Interstate shields. Plus the color serves as an additional visual identifier of information (concurrency termini, etc) if the key is included at the bottom. (P.S. Any discussion about changing ELG should take place at WT:ELG not here.) Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
A legend, like the one used in Michigan articles, could help to indicate colors for concurrencies. However, it we want colors in exit lists, we need to amend the ELG to allow for it in exit lists. I will move the discussion to WT:ELG as suggested. Dough4872 (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't see the need of multiple formats, use the ELG format for all junction tables. --Holderca1 talk 17:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur; see many of the California articles for examples. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a poll at WT:ELG to attempt to resolve this issue. Dough4872 (talk) 02:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Reproposing the PA article rename

I have brought this up before, but more of PennDOT is using the SR (State Route) name for the roads. Other than in real life and on sign evidence, its really time we do two things. The first - something I want done - a change of the SRNC decision for Pennsylvania, and second - the rename of the project back to its original name - Pennsylvania State Highways (it was moved by Son in 2008 w/o consensus). I note NE2's opinion from last time, but I refuse to let this dicussion end with just him. I want an actual valuable discussion.Mitch/HC32 16:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Only if you move Pennsylvania Route 380 to State Route 400... --NE2 19:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
There's that, and/or Pennsylvania Traffic Route 380 - which is the PennDOT definition last I checked.Mitch/HC32 19:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Better, but still seems pointless. It's almost unused outside PennDOT. --NE2 20:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I see numerous state documents and also contractor sites using it. PA Traffic 403 shows an outside PennDOT PA source. Also, we're using the traffic designation as redirects already, I don't see the difference in just moving the name.Mitch/HC32 20:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
You'll find many more sites calling it "Route 403". --NE2 21:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, for 380 and 283, this would prove to be better because obviously if someone reads Interstate 283 and Interstate 380 and gets confused, it sets a good definition.Mitch/HC32 20:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
What's confusing about Interstate 380 and Pennsylvania Route 380 that adding "Traffic" would solve? --NE2 21:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Addendum: Since we use both legislative levels for NY, so I don't see why we can't use traffic and quadrant for PA, I mean, at least there is a precedent.Mitch/HC32 19:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "both legislative levels for NY". --NE2 20:05, 21 June :::2009 (UTC)
Reference and touring routes is what I meant, sorry for not clarifying.Mitch/HC32 20:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Those have nothing to do with the legislature, and are both handled as New York State Route x, with no "touring" or "reference" in the article name. --NE2 21:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Back on topic here - I still believe, even though we run into the problem with 380 or 400 that the articles should follow PennDOT suit and be Pennsylvania State Route 380 or Pennsylvania Traffic Route 380 (I think for the former, 380 & 283 can be given exceptions). However, I want a consensus outside of NE2 and a discussion outside of NE2. Let's hear some other voices.Mitch/HC32 01:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how that's following "PennDOT's suit": [19] --NE2 01:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, I feel there is no need to move the articles. I live in Pennsylvania, and never hear the roads referred to as "traffic routes", they are usually referred to as just "routes". Dough4872 (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Another case of when are sub articles appropriate

Hello, Someone has created a (pretty good) article for Zion-Mount Carmel Highway. Problem, this is a section of Utah State Route 9, and in fact is the heart of the highway and what gives it notability. There is precedent for this with Pasadena Freeway and California State Route 110. However, in this case the two articles are significantly redundant (albeit IMO one is better written). I'm not sure what to do here, should they be combined, or improve the SR-9 article to not be redundant and link to this article for the portion in Zion National Park. I've not done a lot of research on this highway, but I do believe it would be possible to have two non-redundant articles.Dave (talk) 22:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't SR-9 technically end at the park border, and thus not include the Zion-Mount Carmel Highway? Even if it were part of it, however, I'd think it should remain separate; there's defintiely a lot more to say about that portion specifically. --NE2 22:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, technically speaking SR-9 has two segments on either side of Zion National Park boundaries. I believe this is closer to California State Route 120 where the part inside park boundaries is signed as if it were still part of the state highway, rather than Yellowstone National Park where U.S. highway signage stops at the park boundary, for what that's worth.Dave (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
From my quick glance at the two articles, it seems that the Zion-Mt. Carmel Highway may overlap with the eastern segment of SR-9. If that is the case, I would be in support of combining the articles. At the same time, the Zion-Mt. Carmel Highway appears to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places. As such, and given the fact that the highway runs through Zion National Park, there should be much more to say on that specific stretch, which might bloat the SR-9 article if included there. So I can see either way in this case. --LJ (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, how's this for a notability standard: if Google's autosuggest feature knows the name, it's probably notable --NE2 00:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

California State Route 78

Could I get a few comments on these edits? Revert warring to his particular version of the article - going against the FAC recommendations for the R mileposting, as well as reinstating the major cities box and using a partial mileage, after being told several times not to do so Changing the guideline to suit his own edits without consensus. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Oi Oi. Rschen, your version is better. This sounds like the CA budget crisis within USRD.Mitch/HC32 17:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Show me the document that these cities have been officially designated control cities. Until a source is provided for "officially" we can't claim it. Dave (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Dave, we need sources, people! –CG 21:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read my section on ANI; in short, there has been a lot of revert warring and crummy edits in CASH lately, and this needs to be stopped. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is he putting the major cities box in the history section? If you are going to add it in there, at least put it in the right place. --Holderca1 talk 12:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Another edit breaking ELG

This violates the recent change in ELG: [20]. Any comments? --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Mgillfr is certainly aware that his edit is contrary to the recently adopted change in the ELG, especially since he has recently tried to change that policy without consensus. If he feels that strongly about the previous formatting, he should reopen the dialog and discuss the change (while obstaining from such borderline-disruptive edits in the interim. --LJ (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
After promising to stop adding the unsourced "official" control cities box [21] this editor then proceeded to re-instate them after they had been deleted by consensus [22], see above section for debate. I had initially tried to be patient and work with Mgillfr, but after pulling this kind of crap, I'm just about out of patience. The justification so far seems to be "that's what other California highway articles do", the problem is this user is picking the wrong articles to use as a baseline. If we hold up a CA route article as a standard to make all others equal to, it should probably be the most recent FA, not one that violates every section of the WP:MOS.Dave (talk) 02:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

And [23] sums up his attitude. I'm considering filing a user RFC, but I don't have the time to write it up. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstate 50. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Table for traffic counts

Recently, I have added traffic counts to articles about roads in Maryland from the Highway Location Reference by the MDSHA as part of a drive to improve them to GA-class. However, concerns arose in both the GA review of Maryland Route 213 and in the A-class review of Baltimore-Washington Parkway about the apparent overuse of the traffic counts. Dave floated the idea of using a table to display these traffic counts. I am opening a discussion here to discuss what should be done with the usage of traffic counts in articles and to see if we can establish a USRD convention onto how traffic counts should be handled, whether it be through a table or some other means. Dough4872 (talk) 01:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I (so basically NY) personally don't put traffic counts in articles at all. I guess they can serve as an indicator of how well a road is used, but for the most part traffic counts have a simple correlation with how much an area is developed; urban highways will typically have high traffic volumes and rural roads will not. – TMF 02:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I personally don't favor the use of traffic counts in articles, but if we had to use 'em I think a table would present the information in a much more efficient manner - CL — 04:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that traffic counts should be in an article at all, except for maybe one or two numbers in prose in the RD. Definitely no for listing them in every road article; WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Traffic counts should be used occasionally, but the article shouldn't rely on them. –Juliancolton | Talk 06:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
If a route has several different sections with widely varying traffic counts, it may be helpful to illustrate these with a brief table to illustrate the disparity. However, I am of the opinion that this still probably better left within the route description.
A good example: U.S. Route 50 in Nevada#Route description (2nd paragraph) mentions two vastly-different AADT numbers in a comparative manner that emphasizes the "Loneliest Road in America" aspect of the highway. Used in this way, the mention of traffic counts are a valuable inclusion that serves to reinforce a major point without providing too much useless information. --LJ (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Based on the discussion here, I feel it is better to not include the traffic counts at all and I will remove them from the articles that have them. If a reader wants to know how many cars travel along a road, they can look at the HLR. Dough4872 (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
It might... might... be better served in exit lists. As far as I know, I've only used those when referring to the most traveled highway in Illinois, which is the Dan Ryan/Kennedy Expressways. Such counts may be notable when discussing notable congestion, though more context needs to be provided. —Rob (talk) 05:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
That's too much clutter for the exit list. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how including or excluding them is inherently bad or good. It's really going to depend on the situations in the various articles. I tend to only mention the highest and lowest counts in the route description. Especially in articles like M-28 (Michigan highway) where the entire trunkline is just over 290 miles in length, it's just another detail like the terrain along the highway, or the rivers crossed. Sometimes it can be overused though, and mentions should be pruned a bit. YMMV. 06:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Mitchazenia's edits

The recent edits that Mitchazenia (talk · contribs) made are a problem. [24] [25] This is not the notation that WP:CASH normally uses. NE2 (talk · contribs) originally set these guidelines, which I believe should be the polices of WP:ELG. Mgillfr (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine put a gun to my face, then I'll change it back. It works, its efficient, you keep complaining its ugly, which violates WP:PRETTY.Mitch/HC32 23:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Mitchazenia. Why should we argue on such minor things? It's as simple as looking up the guidelines to settle it. In this case, the guidelines are the ELG. –CG 00:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, so Mitchazenia (talk · contribs) plans to change it back? Thanks! :) And ComputerGuy (talk · contribs), your state uses the CASH notation too; NE2 (talk · contribs) also edited articles in your state. Mgillfr (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Standards change and evolve over time. What was once acceptable notation may not be anymore. Since there are over 10,000 articles tagged under USRD, it will understandably take some time to update them all. I haven't got all the map notes on all of the Michigan articles' infoboxes. I haven't even audited them all below the GA level to update them to the new ELG format for single-municipality or single-county highways. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Well at least Mitchazenia did not butt into your progress and ruin your goals, as he did to my progress and goals. Mgillfr (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Hit the road, I am not ruining your goals, and I am not going drive you away. I am not going to accept you accusing me of this. Humph. I am really pissed now.Mitch/HC32 00:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Juliancolton (talk · contribs) protected your revision of SR 78; I thought you would be the happy one here. Mgillfr (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Now I'm really ticked, now before I'm blocked for WP:ABF violations, end this childish argument.Mitch/HC32 00:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Both of you, grow up, and shut up. This isn't a school playground. Jenuk1985 | Talk 00:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Mitchazenia, you aren't the boss of me. I attempt to do whatever it takes to defend my positions. And why would you be blocked? I did WP:ABF as well for reverting you; therefore we'd both be blocked. But wait, you're the administrator, so I assume you can unblock yourself. Mgillfr (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I haven't had my admin powers since April, and I don't want them back till I am 21.Mitch/HC32 00:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Adminship is more based on your maturity than age, and I think you know that already considering you demonstrated maturity in your first request for adminship. Mgillfr (talk) 00:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Enough. Take this to your own talk pages if necessary. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I echo Jeni's thoughts. This argument has no place here. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
NE2 is just another editor. He's just as fallible as any of the rest of us. He doesn't own WP:CASH. Actually, no one person owns the project, and we all have equal right to opinions. Rschen founded the project as I understand, but he doesn't any greater vote in matters either. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Mitchazenia, WP:PRETTY just states that neatness is not the primary factor for any article. But that does not mean that editors cannot have the option of making an article look neat. Mgillfr (talk) 00:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This crap is why I'd prefer a universal ELG standard we can fall back on.... Dave (talk) 01:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

We have one. Mitchazenia is correct here (save for his attitude). Mgillfr, if you want it changed, take it to WT:ELG; we will keep reverting you otherwise. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC) (I assume that this is about the county column - if it isn't then my apologies). --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
That being said, if I read it correctly Mgillfr is correct about Vista Way - it continues WEST into DOWNTOWN Oceanside. (but you are already in Oceanside so it's redundant). --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
While that junction is located in Oceanside, the BGS listed Oceanside as a control city and therefore should be listed. And because Vista Way continues west into Oceanside, that's why it should be listed as a continuation junction with the corresponding note saying so. Mgillfr (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I have taken the step of opening Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mgillfr. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Mitch needs to watch his capitalization and spacing - "Interchange;Right-of-way continues as Araz Road"? This is really a case-by-case thing, as I don't think anyone would want to put the NJ 42 continuation of I-76 in the right column. --NE2 07:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: new task force for roads in New York

The title of the section describes my proposal fairly succinctly: I would like to create a task force of WP:NY that would deal with all roads in New York. This task force, as I envision it, would also be a subproject of USRD and a co-parent project of NYSR. This move is needed as right now, many items are tagged as being within the scope of the New York State Routes WikiProject that do not fall within the project's defined scope. And, no, this move is not to "game the system": in fact, many of the articles I speak of are fairly high up the assessment ladder, including many Good Articles. The details of my proposal are as follows:

  • Location and scope: The new task force would be set up at Wikipedia:WikiProject New York/Roads task force. It would cover all roads in New York, including all articles covered by NYSR. These articles would be dual-tagged as being part of the new task force and the NYSR wikiproject.
  • Assessment: The assessment categories for the new task force would be the existing "New York road transport" articles, which means that the "New York road transport" categories would essentially remain status quo. New assessment categories would be created for NYSR, which I would suggest be titled "New York state highway articles by quality" and so forth. Since two actual projects would exist, I see no reason that WP:1.0 would have any issues with the double categories. If this proposal is accepted, we'll have to figure out how to code this into the USRD template, although I don't believe it'd be difficult.
  • Effects: Articles not related to numbered state highways in New York and/or state-maintained highways in New York will no longer be within the scope of NYSR. This includes all county routes that were not former state highways as well as local streets and highways such as Gun Hill Road (Bronx) and Arden Valley Road.

Thoughts on this proposal are welcomed. – TMF 03:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds pointless. --NE2 03:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the opinion. I'll keep it in mind. – TMF 03:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
It might help if you said what benefit there would be. The only problem you specified is that "many items are tagged as being within the scope of the New York State Routes WikiProject that do not fall within the project's defined scope", and there's a much simpler method of solving that than creating another dead project. --NE2 03:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
And that is what? When I tried to detag them before, I was reverted by you. – TMF 03:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Change the scope, silly rabbit... --NE2 03:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I think we're done here. – TMF 03:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Me too. Shall I remove this section? --NE2 03:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
No, because there's no reason to alter the scope. – TMF 03:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
You gave a reason: "many items are tagged as being within the scope of the New York State Routes WikiProject that do not fall within the project's defined scope". You know what, I'll fix it right now. --NE2 03:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
You really don't understand what a "state highway" wikiproject is supposed to be, do you? – TMF 03:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
If it were a "state highway" project, it wouldn't include NY 439, since that road has always been locally maintained. You may be talking about a "state route" project, but there are several ways to interpret that phrase, none of which match the project's de facto scope. There's a reason NYCR was merged into NYSR, and you should learn from history so that we do not repeat our past mistakes. --NE2 03:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Why wouldn't it include NY 439. From state highway: "State highway, state road or state route can refer to one of three related concepts, two of them related to a state government in a country that is divided into states...A road numbered by the state, falling below numbered national highways (like U.S. Routes) in the hierarchy. Route numbers are used to aid navigation, and may or may not indicate ownership or maintenance." – TMF 03:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
That may be true in general, but NYSDOT uses the maintenance definition, and even assigns state highway numbers. --NE2 04:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Show some proof of the former. – TMF 04:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
"'Reference Markers'... are placed roughly every tenth of a mile along state highways." --NE2 04:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
And on comes the nit-picking... – TMF 04:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll stop and give you time to remember how NYCR used to be a separate project, but was merged into NYSR because of inactivity. --NE2 04:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
That wasn't the given reason. In any event, I'm not going to waste my time to attempt to "win" you over. If you had your way, all subprojects of USRD would be generic state-level road projects based on how you apply your tagging. Besides, you created this mess; after thinking about it, I don't expect you to support any proposal that has a resolution other than what you want. Since decisions on Wikipedia work by consensus, something you still haven't seemed to grasp after all these years, I'm noting your opinion and will wait for feedback from others. – TMF 16:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
And the internal state highway numbers are legislative, not assigned by NYSDOT. – TMF 04:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's pointless. NYSR should be just NY State Routes, like the name says. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment/questions I am a member of wp:NY and would be for having a roads task force. However i am not clear on: Why is wp:NYSR not already designated a Task Force of wp:NY (or is it?)? And why not change the scope of NYSR to cover all notable roads in New York (in which case the wikiproject should probably be renamed)? If there is opposition in wp:NYSR to broaden its scope, I am fine with supporting the wp:NY task force on roads. However, also, I would want to see a signup of members, to establish that at least five persons would be interested in being members and contributing actively. The rule of thumb for new wikiprojects is to get 5 interested members. doncram (talk) 09:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Why not just do the logical thing and expand the scope of the NY state routes project to include ALL roads? Infact, I notice somebody tried to do that, but TMF jumped in and reverted it. As an aside, shouldn't this discussion be on that project page, not here? Jenuk1985 | Talk 15:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, a scope discussion of NYSR should be on the talk page of that project; in fact, I am willing to have a discussion on that topic at WT:NYSR to allow the project as a whole to decide what it wants. What I don't like is when a certain editor tries to force feed his views upon others or an entire project, which is what has been going on for some time, and not just in New York. – TMF 16:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
      • So there would be no objections if I moved this discussion to the correct talk page? Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Well...this wasn't supposed to be a scope discussion, it was supposed to be a proposal for a new "sister subproject" under USRD and technically still is. – TMF 16:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
          • But surely you can see that trying to control articles in NY is going to create more conflicts between this project and the NY project? Surely it would be better to just expand the scope of the NY state routes project, and let them get on with it. Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
            • I have no issues with expanding the scope of NYSR if the project as a whole agrees to it. My issue with the change made last night is not necessarily the scope expansion itself; it is more the unilateral nature of it all. Like I said, I'm totally open to having a discussion on WT:NYSR to determine scope; however, I believe a new section should be made on WT:NYSR instead of moving this verbatim. – TMF 16:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
              • I have started said discussion here. I suggest putting this proposal on hold pending the outcome of the discussion on expanding the scope on the NYSR project (obviously you don't have to listen to me, its just a suggestion!) Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I like this totally. Btw, Arden Valley Road wasn't to be part of NYSR, dunno how it got included. Although this is questionable because of the PIPC is part state I think.Mitch/HC32 16:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
    • As for the former, look for a certain user name that contains two letters and a number a few paragraphs up. – TMF 16:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Alternate idea

While not as developed as TMF's idea, how about a task force under USRD for county roads, nationwide. Since most county roads aren't notable, this task force wouldn't/shouldn't be swamped with articles, but it would provide a consistent place for developing ideas on what county-maintained roads articles should be covered, any variations in formats and the like. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

That will generally vary state-by-state. The people who know about other roads in the state are best-equipped to deal with them. --NE2 03:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Let's delete all the non-notable county routes. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Scott5114, articles about non-notable topics of any type can be nominated for deletion by any user. You hardly need a task force for that. --JBC3 (talk) 10:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
The running joke though is that any time we try lately, AfD keeps the articles on flimsy grounds. Imzadi1979 (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Why not bring WP:NYSR back under P:USRD like it was before? Ngs61 (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

NYSR is under USRD. It has been for quite a while. Imzadi1979 (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Some notes

Technically, Arden Valley Road is considered a New York State Park Road, just like Bay Parkway (Jones Beach). Therefore this and other roads like it should be included. ----DanTD (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not why Bay Parkway is within the scope of NYSR. Bay Parkway carries a reference route designation; Arden Valley Road does not. – TMF 22:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Back to the proposal for a New York State roads Task Force

I read the above discussion as so far including two supporters for a Task Force of wp:NY that would address all notable roads in New York (User:TwinsMetsFan (the proposer) and User:Mitchazenia). And I support it too, so that it could focus on any notable County roads and other notable roads that do not fall within USRD's scope, and for other reasons. That makes three supporters. Although I don't have standing as a wp:USRD member to comment (I am not a USRD member, unless i have listed myself at NYSR and if that counts), but i am a wp:NY member. I don't want to fragment this discussion, but it would seem natural for this proposal to be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York, and/or for notice of discussion here to be posted at wp:NY, wp:SYR, wp:capdis, wp:LONGI, wp:NYC, and wp:hvny where many potentially interested editors would be reached. doncram (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Add my support to that list too :) Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
This is a bad idea. Please remember to include dissenters when you cherrypick the votes to tell people. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
How is it a bad idea?
Also, I don't mean to "cherrypick" for some bad purpose. I think it is customary in proposals for new wikiprojects or Task Forces to identify whether there is sufficient interest, by running a signup. This was done recently for a proposed Task Force within an unrelated, world-wide wikiproject to which i belong, in a discussion section at wt:HSITES, where it was decided, partly based on the too-short list of would-be participants, that the Task Force would not be created (there were other reasons, too, posed by others). Perhaps a clearer question should be stated: who would intend to participate, if the Task Force were created (as opposed to just supporting the idea that it should be created)? I would intend to participate. doncram (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
These are more road articles than NY articles and thus should follow USRD standards rather than whatever standards WP:NY has in place. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
WikiProjects don't own articles. Jeni (talk)(Jenuk1985) 01:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
You miss my point: What happens when WP:USRD and WP:NY standards conflict? --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
They should never conflict? Jeni (talk)(Jenuk1985) 01:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
"What happens if X happens?" "X should never happen." !? --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

CA-78... again

Can someone comment on the recent edits to CA 78? Mgillfr continues to revert to his preferred version, violating both the FAC recommendations as well as MOS regarding italics. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't see the issue with either version, surely this is an edit war for the sake of it? Jeni (talk)(Jenuk1985) 18:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the italicized 86 in the postmiles column is both unprofessional and confusing. The first time I saw this in the exit list I honestly though I was looking for mile 86X.XX. As I've already stated twice, IMO the better way to handle this is in the notes column (that's what that column is for) I would have reverted this, but I've already reverted this exact change twice before and don't want to be accused of WP:OWN.Dave (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I've put in an edit which should hopefully be clearer than both versions, though I won't edit war over it, its supposed to be a compromise. Jeni (talk)(Jenuk1985) 18:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Looks good, but can the "e" be removed? --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I concur, this works. Now can we please delete the "Old Highway 111 was former SR 111 south" I'm not a moron, I think I could have figured that out without the note. =-) Dave (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Um, Davemeistermoab (talk · contribs), why are you trying to get rid of the necessary note? Without the note, how are they supposed to figure out that Old Highway 111 was SR 111 south? They may confuse it with Best Road. Mgillfr (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
It even has the approval of Mgfillr [26] Jeni (talk)(Jenuk1985) 18:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Rschen, I don't think the e can be removed (though it can be changed), as the group of notes must have a name, if it was longer it may take up more space. I'm guessing it can't be just a number on its own, otherwise it would be confused with the refs. Jeni (talk)(Jenuk1985) 18:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Rschen, it's called a "refgroup". I first experimented with this on U.S. Route 50 in Nevada, and not claiming to be an expert, I couldn't get it to work with out a visible name either. But it doesn't have to be an "e" it is essentially a variable name and can be anything. Mgillfr: Please at least shorten it to "Former SR 111", any more is insultingly redundant, and IMO not appropriate on an FA.Dave (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The reason why we have "Old Highway 111 was former SR 111 south" is becaues we want to be specific. Just saying "Fomer SR 111" would imply that Best Road is also part of former SR 111, which Best Road is not. Mgillfr (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Again, I'm not an idiot, I could have figured that out. How about "Former SR-111 south"? Anything but what is there currently.Dave (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
No, you said that last time you're not a moron, not an idiot. You can figure it out, but other people may not be able to figure that out. And why include the hyphen? In California, there's no hyphen in "SR XX". Mgillfr (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Darn. Oh well. Regarding the note on SR 111 it needs to be changed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Rschen7754, are you just agreeing with Davemeistermoab (talk · contribs) for every single little suggestion he makes? You were fine with CASH how it was then until Davemeistermoab stepped in. I don't even know if he knows how the system works in California. Mgillfr (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I totally am. Before Dave enlightened me, I thought that "Old Highway 111 was former SR 111 south" meant that the Old Highway 111 was former Interstate 45 north. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Do you have references to existence of former I-45? Mgillfr (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe the batteries are broken on your sarcasm detector... Anyway, "Former SR 111 south" is specific enough for the note in question without redundancy. --LJ (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Since I can't seem to convey my message properly using SR 78, allow me to use an analogy from California State Route 160. On the junction list, you'll find one of the junctions have the note "Broadway east was former SR 99 south". Why can't we jsut say "Former SR 99 south"? Because the junction explicitly states "Broadway east, 21st Street – Stockton". Broadway east was former SR 99 south, but 21st street isn't. The note includes "Broadway east" in order to be specific. Otherwise, just saying "Former SR 99 south" might imply both junctions are both former SR 99. I believe we need to avoid that confusion. Mgillfr (talk) 01:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

(od)Mgillfr: Your new wording for the footnote is ok, but needs to be made singular, as the note applies to each postmile individually. I.E. it should say "Postmile is measured from State Route 86." or similar.Dave (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the note to your request. Mgillfr (talk) 01:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Back to the table note: I understand the intent of what you want to do. In the CA 160 example you just brought up, the clarification could be helpful. However, use of the note on CA 78 introduces an incredible amount of redundancy on that line of the table. If the junction is labeled as "Best Road, Old Highway 111" and the note reads "Old Highway 111 was former SR 111 south", any reasonable reader should be able to ascertain that "Old Highway 111" (and not Best Road) is the former alignment of SR 111 given the road's name of Old Highway 111. The note "Former SR 111 east" will get the point across and eliminate the third mention of 111 from this line of the table. Although, given that this road junction isn't in the freeway portion, is no longer a state highway and isn't a point where SR 78 turns, it probably shouldn't even be in the junction list in the first place. --LJ (talk) 07:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Well you're right, any reader should be able to figure out given just the note "Former SR 111 south". And regarding your second note, we in CASH list all former junctions (and I believe the rest of USRD should take that practice, too) in our junction lists. There aren't really that many former junctions of famous highways in the past, so I think it might be worth listing. Mgillfr (talk) 16:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
The standard for sometime has been to only list other state highways (Interstates and US Highways included) in at-grade junction lists. Now in Michigan we also include the County-Designated Highways since MDOT puts their numbers on the official state map. Sometimes in some counties, numbered county roads are listed to provide balance since the CDH system isn't mandatory and some counties haven't opted to participate. Former highways aren't always 1) famous (I've never heard of SR 111) or 2) a major intersection by other more subjective criteria. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I've generally included old highways only if there is no current alignment (of it or a replacement route) - thus the only junction that has existed with that highway is there. --NE2 18:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Exit list guide

Greetings! What is the consensus for listing postmiles in the county column in California? Is there consensus to do this? --Son (talk) 15:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

For California, Nevada, and I believe Ohio, I think it's a necessity. Otherwise maintenance of a statewide mile log in a state that doesn't use statewide miles becomes a nightmare scenario.Dave (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
The big problem in California is that we don't have a full record of the postmile equations, so we can't give the exact distance from the beginning. I believe Ohio's straight line diagrams show the equations (if there are any), so there shouldn't be a problem there. --NE2 16:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Q: Let's assume the Govenator orders Caltrans to release the postmile equations log (as the state of California has no more pressing matters to address =-) ). Is it more important that the wikipedia article makes a best effort to use the milepost closest to the actual feature being described? or is it important to have statewide miles to be consistent with "the rest of USRD". I opine for the former, IMO we should use the milepost that is actually there, if that is possible to determine.Dave (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
On the other hand, the exit numbers use mileage from the beginning (and some roads have numbered exits and unnumbered intersections). --NE2 18:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I see your point, and it's a valid one. I presumed that the reason for the separate exit number column was that many states do not use the same system for assigning exit numbers as mileposts. For the record, I am aware of at least one special case in California where this is not the case.Dave (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
California does not use exit 0 and calls anything 0.0 - 1.49 miles exit 1, 1.5-2.49 miles exit 2, etc. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Talk:Golden State Freeway --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

New infobox for road junctions

See WT:HWY. Dough4872 (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discssions

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.S. Route 199 in California Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.S. Route 199 in Oregon --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Julia Tuttle Causeway sex offender colony

Featured today on the main page in the "Did you know..." section, Julia Tuttle Causeway sex offender colony. This is not currently mentioned in the Interstate 195 (Florida) stub article if anyone wants to take a stab at including it. Me, I don't know if it fits in a stub, so I'm putting it as an FYI here. Sswonk (talk) 04:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, someone added it three hours ago as a "See also" at the bottom, I missed it. Sswonk (talk) 04:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Major Cities (part 1) - What is a "major" city?

I think there needs to be some kind of a rough guideline for what can be listed whenever a Major Cities box is used. For example, this (current) revision of Interstate 15 lists Shelby, Montana (2000 Census population: 3,217) in the Major Cities box, but does not list Mesquite, Nevada (2000 pop.: 9,389) or North Las Vegas, Nevada (2000 pop.: 115,488). That page also lists Baker, California, which isn't even an incorporated city. WP:USRD/STDS#Major cities doesn't provide any guidance on this issue. I think we'd all agree that only incorporated cities (or equivalents) should be listed in the box. But the main question is, what constitutes a "major" city? Do any of the state projects have guidelines they follow? Should we even worry about developing a threshold for this? --LJ (talk) 04:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Going by population is never a good idea, because of examples like the one you mention; Shelby may be smaller than North Las Vegas but it's not part of another metropolitan area. But why does this box exist at all, when we already have major cities in the list of junctions in the infobox? --NE2 04:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
If you did go by population, Urban clusters might be a good idea. The linked list cuts them at 40,000, more are at the source http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/uc2k.txt along with http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/ua2k.txt could constitute a minimum standard. Baker is not on the uc2k file, Shelby and Mesquite are. I also tend to side with NE2, however, that the box is prone to abuse, parochialism and misinformation and is somewhat redundant. If it is going to be used, those two text files could at least set a reliably sourced floor. Sswonk (talk) 05:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
From what I understand, the only reason that major cities boxes still exist is to display control cities on Interstate Highway articles. As such, I'd just remove any city that's not a control city. I'm not aware of any state-level project that uses major city boxes since a plain major city box is redundant to the route description. – TMF 05:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I am more than happy to say let's just cut this box out. From my work, it has been nothing but problems. The biggest one is what you state, it's subjective. A minor suburb of LA could have a higher population than a major junction city. Sigh.Dave (talk) 05:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

General question

Could someone please point me to a nice simple article (more than one would be fine) of good quality that we in Australia could look to as an example of how road articles should be constructed? Most of ours are frankly monstrosities for one reason or another (see Tullamarine Freeway, Ipswich Motorway, EastLink (Melbourne) and Hume Highway) and I'm interested in getting a project together to reform them. Orderinchaos 17:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

In the UK... M62 motorway is a FA, worth a look. Jeni (talk)(Jenuk1985) 17:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
for US articles... I'll recommend most of the ones that are FAs. Off the top of my head, there are three for Michigan, M-35 (Michigan highway), M-28 (Michigan highway) and U.S. Route 41 in Michigan. I'll also suggest Kansas Turnpike, Utah State Route 128, and U.S. Route 50 in Nevada as three others. The full list can be found at Category:FA-Class U.S. road transport articles. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Australia should try UK more than USbecause they have more similar practices than the US. Mgillfr (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Or, Australia can take a look at various road related FA articles from several worldwide highway articles, and develop their own standards based on what they like... --LJ (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
It's just that there are many more US FA's than worldwide FA's overall. Mgillfr (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Exactly - anywhere will have its own standards and be a bit different, but if we have a good model/range of models to start with, we can adapt them for our own needs. Thanks for all of the pointers, everyone :) Orderinchaos 11:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(od)Above are examples of articles that have passed a Featured Article Candidate review. Another idea is to participate in a review of an article that is currently nominated for a promotion in status. That may give you some ideas what stays and what gets cut out as articles are improved. The U.S. Roads Wikiproject maintains a list of nominated articles at the bottom of the project page (WP:USRD). There is a project for highways worldwide at WP:HWY, but I don't know how active it is, or if they maintain such a list.Dave (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

California postmile concurrency formatting

I've implemented new formatting for the postmile concurrencies on the California State Route 78 article. Does this look fine? There are still some things I'm not fully comfortable with in the current implementation. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It is terrible. My first instinct was to look for a note numbered 86, when in fact the note I should have been looking for is 1. Very misleading. Jeni (talk)(Jenuk1985) 23:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I would also not suggest using "86" as the number in the superscript, changing it to "1" to correlate with the note below the table. Also, the note should be rephrased to say "Indicates that the postmile represents the distance along SR 86 rather than SR 78." Dough4872 (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
If the number at the bottom was changed to 86, would that be any better? --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Could work, but notes usually start with "1". Dough4872 (talk) 23:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Another option is the current setup that California State Route 115 uses. Is this any better? --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

That works too, just fix the note so it is for the correct route. Dough4872 (talk) 23:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur that CA-115 is the better of the two. With that said, anything to just make this go away. We're on, what, year three of the California exit list edit wars? I'm surprised this hasn't made WP:LAME yet.Dave (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I just got back online right now. So you say SR 115 is the better of the two. What revision of that are you talking about? (And Davemeistermoab, I hope you realize that California is complicated. You obviously know we at CASH only have county-based postmiles (with realignment, temporary, spur connections symbols, etc.), we have to make sure we list every control city (and "to" routes) signed on BGS correctly, and we have to try to list all former routings. I feel sad for your state, Utah, which most of its articles lists only junctions and no directional control cities or former routings. Mgillfr (talk) 05:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
No we don't have to worry about control cities on BGS stuff. Honestly, considering that people waste their time edit warring over that sort of stuff, I wouldn't bother about it. We don't have to try to list all former routings either. This is stuff that you made up - I see no difference between California and the rest of the country on this matter. I would also assume that Dave is talking about the revision that was current when he saw the article, which is still the current revision. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Look at the example of New York State Route 23's junction list and see how it's so different from any CASH junction list. Mgillfr (talk) 06:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Because you made it that way? There's nothing in the CASH standards related to this. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Um, you might want to check NY 23's history, as I never touched that article or its junction list. My point is there are no control cities or "to" routes or former routings. I understand it's optional to list those, but to give the reader most useful information from a list, control cities, "to" routes, and former routings may be useful. Mgillfr (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe Rschen was trying to say that you made CA that way, with all of the cities and former routings. Now, here's why NY 23 has none of the items you talk about: "control cities" for junction lists are both unnecessary and WP:OR. The closest thing to control cities on at-grade highways are those on distance directional signs, and those really aren't control cities anyway - heck, I've seen intersections where the listed cities vary widely from one direction to the other. But, in any event, a city on a directional sign and a city on a freeway-grade "big green sign" are two totally different things to me. "To routes" are completely unnecessary; when a route is 150 miles long, there's no need for extra rows and besides, NY 23 intersects every signed route that it comes in the vicinity of. "Former routings"; same reason, when a route is 150 miles long, there's no need for extra rows since the table is so long already. There are at least two areas where NY 23 has been realigned, but in New York former routings typically aren't listed unless the route in question no longer exists at all. – TMF 23:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
TMF is correct - there is nothing in CASH or ELG or USRD that requires control cities or former routings or "to" routes in the major intersections table. Control cities aren't even sourceable to anything RS. I've noticed that the inclusion of control cities causes more edit warring, and I would even consider making a proposal at ELG to ban them altogether. As someone who has traveled extensively around the US, the only way that the CA interchange tables should be different from those of the rest of the US are in the postmile column. So don't go around saying "We at CASH have a much harder task than the rest of you when we make the major intersections table" - you're the one making it much harder for yourself. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not making it harder for myself; I do control cities because I enjoy doing so, much more than writing an actual article. And I never went around saying that quote; I just said it here at WT:USRD and nowhere else. Davemeistermoab seems to have a big problem with that, and whatever that problem is, I didn't mean to make it look like I should have the glory; no I do not. I only contributed to Wikipedia as a hobby. Mgillfr (talk) 23:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
What's with the "we at CASH"? Unless you can provide the link to a discussion where the project selected a spokesperson, no one editor's vote has more weight than the rest.Dave (talk) 09:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
We at CASH -> me, PhATxPnOY916 (talk · contribs), formerly I-10 (talk · contribs) and Freewayguy (talk · contribs). Mgillfr (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I think you're forgetting me. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
You contributed to CASH in all areas other than the junction lists. Mgillfr (talk) 22:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Mgillfr omitted many editors who have helped improve California Road articles, and listed 2 that were blocked for disruptive editing. However, that was not my point. My point is that nobody is authorized to dictate standards on behalf of a wikiproject, It's a leaderless project. Although the phrase was used "we at CASH", this was one person speaking for himself.Dave (talk) 05:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Why would I want to assume leadership? Rschen7754 would've definitely been first choice should CASH ever have a leader. I'm just saying that the majority of my contributions were towards junction lists, and when there's a problem, I especially take concern and want to look into it when it comes to junction lists. PhATxPnOY916 was the main contributor to the junction lists, and Freewayguy, I-10, and I chipped in a little. Mgillfr (talk) 06:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
The point that you're not picking up on, Mgillfr, is that you said "we at CASH..." do this and that. However, it appears that not everybody who works on CASH feels that such an emphasis on certain aspects of the junction list is overly important. You can't say "we" when there is no consensus behind it. (I disagree with the emphasis you mention above, but that discussion is for another thread.) --LJ (talk) 11:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems intuitive to place a "78" before those that have 78 on the physical postmile. Maybe it would be better to describe what an extra number means in the note? --NE2 02:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem I see is that 78 could be mistaken for a part of the distance. Even if this is mitigated by linking to a footnote, it needs to be clear to someone printing the article on paper, viewing on monochrome or low res-displays etc. Putting the 78 in super or subscript does help. I'm ok with that, but I prefer a footnote that is is non-numeric.Dave (talk) 02:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
So how are you guys going to work with California State Route 49 and California State Route 33, each with postmiles from four overlaps? Mgillfr (talk) 05:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
The same way, just using the same group= parameter for all of them. I know it's not ideal but it's the best we've got. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Can you please explain why is the "N" being used in the ref tag? Mgillfr (talk) 05:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
N for Note. It doesn't have to be a N (I think Caltrans uses N for something). It can't be a numeric designation though. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Highways with 4 or 5 overlaps is nothing new. Although I'm not aware of an elegant way of handling it, no matter what is done. I've looked a the example's I'm aware of, so far no two handle it exactly the same way.Dave (talk) 09:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

So has there been a consensus on this yet? Whatever comes out of this will likely be implemented elsewhere, and the preferred standard will need to be documented somewhere. --LJ (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be what California State Route 115 is now. It should probably be noted in ELG though. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If we're not getting the articles changed

Can we move Wikipedia:WikiProject Pennsylvania Roads back to its original name? Most of the project page was never changed to reflect it, and as a bonus, there was no consensus for this move back in early 2008. This was moved during the Arbitration Case, and I think its time, while the project is close to dead, that we move it back, because consensus and scope are the issue here. I've brought this up before, so I would like to see this actually discussed.Mitch/HC32 19:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Did this get cross posted to WT:PASH? --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, a little context here please? What was the project's original name? Why was the name changed? Why is this even a big deal? Most of us here were not around for the name change or didn't care enough to pay attention.Dave (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
It was Pennsylvania State Highways, and that's basically still what it is. During the Arbitration Case in 2008, the name was moved without consensus by a user who I will not mention for secrecy. It was a big deal at the time, and I'd rather make it a deal now.Mitch/HC32 20:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The current name is surely more logical? Jeni (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)\
One, the move was never finished, and nothing really changed since that moved except for a large amount of GAs.Mitch/HC32 21:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Are you proposing renaming actual articles or just the project pages?Dave (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The Project Pages. As shown, no one will agree on the articles.Mitch/HC32 21:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(od) To be honest, I could care less weather the project is titled PA Roads or PA Highways. IMO, we've got much bigger fish to fry.Dave (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This should really be up to the PASH editors... USRD doesn't need to give input as long as they don't rename their project to Wikipedia:WikiProject PA GHJKMHGYIOBGTFVNJKIUHNKLOUYGBJKIUGBJKOIHHKKLLLJH. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
If there was anyone else really interested in that- we have so few editors actually active consensus is hard.Mitch/HC32 22:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

So.... what's the point, exactly? - Algorerhythms (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

  1. Determine if there are any active PA editors
    1. If there are ask them on their talk page if they care if you move it
    2. If not go on to step 2
  2. Once you've talked to everyone, move it
  3. ???
  4. Profit! —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I have worked at PASH, as I live in Pennsylvania; however, I have been busy with NJSCR and MDRD. Either title could work as the project is intended to focus on state highways but also focuses on other roads in Pennsylvania, such as Forbes Avenue. Dough4872 (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Titling the project to limit to just state highways rather than roads in the state in general unnecessarily limits the scope of the project. Jeni (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Route 60/62 in Illinois

Moved to Talk:U.S. Route 60/62 in Illinois
 – Rschen7754 (T C) 06:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I have put merge tags up for this article, discuss here.Mitch/HC32 19:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Links please?Dave (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Check the header. 0.92 of a mile ain't that worthy.Mitch/HC32 19:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
If you want the discussion to take place here, you might want to fix the merge templates, as they point the discussion to 2 different pages. For the record, Merge why does this article exist?Dave (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I put two on purpose, as it is two separate highways on a concurrency.Mitch/HC32 21:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and they both direct the discussion to two different pages, neither of which are this one, where you request the discussion take place. There now exists the possibility to have _three_ different discussions going on about the same proposal. I'll fix this, but you should be more careful in the future. For the record I'll move this to Talk:U.S. Route 60/62 in Illinois where it belongs.Dave (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Talk:U.S. Route 60/62 in Illinois Dave (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of State Route 1002 (Lehigh County, Pennsylvania)

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:State Route 1002 (Lehigh County, Pennsylvania)/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. You are being notified as the talk page has a banner for this project. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

An editor has proposed merging Interstate 24 in Tennessee and Interstate 24 in Georgia into Interstate 24 in Tennessee and Georgia. Not sure where the discussion will be held. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently it is at Talk:Interstate 24 in Tennessee. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

California State Route 78 and California State Route 39 *sigh*

Could someone comment on these edits? [27] [28] Basically he is adding nonnotable junctions to the junction list because he wants to list every single control city on every single BGS on the highway. In addition to this, he believes that we need to include all roads marked in yellow on Google Maps, and every single road junction with a signed control city. Can someone tell him that that's not what we do? --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The history of the SR 39 article is pretty insane... --NE2 00:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Correction: The history of every CASH article is pretty insane. XD --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
:| - Protection again?Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 00:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
78 seems to be okay for now. My view is that if enough people tell Mgillfr that this is not okay, then we will be able to revert to the correct version. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
IMO, I think only junctions with numbered highways should be listed, within reason, unless it is for a limited-access portion where all interchanges need to be listed, much like what is called for in the ELG. Dough4872 (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Google maps is NOT the gold standard for establishing notability. In fact, my opinion of google maps has gone down since they switched cartographers. Dave (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
If I can add a simple opinion, Google Maps is useful but not reliable at all. I have found dozens of factual errors in my experience on Google Maps. It should always be checked with a better source or at least a couple of different sources and the best source for anything is state highway GIS data or maps. Sswonk (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
As a side note, I found an error in my Rand McNally atlas that shows US 12 continuing east of its terminus in Detroit to Woodward Avenue and then south to Jefferson Avenue. So all map sources need to be scrutinized from time to time. Google Maps shows US 16 shields in the Grand Rapids, MI area even though US 16 was decommissioned in Michigan with the completion of I-96. MDOT marks Federal Forest highway 16 in the Upper Peninsula as H-16, even though 1) it's not a county-designated highway and 2) it's in the "G" zone of the CDH system, not the "H" zone. These are just a few examples off the top of my head, so more sources are better than just one. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
IMO, I only use Google as a source for showing what environments the route passes through (suburban neighborhoods, farmland, etc.); as for route designations, I prefer to use a more official state DOT source. I have found many errors with Google marking roads. For example, this image from Google shows US 130 and US 206 in New Jersey marked as state routes. A more humorous error not necessarily related to roads is this image from Google which shows the Delaware River strangely marked where the Upper Moreland High School is in Willow Grove, PA. Dough4872 (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Thats the nice thing about NJ they have SLD's for all of their SRs... WA does for freeways only, and Utah doesn't have that. Well that and NJDOT is a primary source, and should be used sparingly as we need secondary sources more often than not. --Admrboltz (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Another strange Google Maps error I have found is that they have former WA highways and alignments, like SR 509 ending at SR 7 in Tacoma,ref while the state highway log says it ends officially at I-705. Also, it shows my community (North Lakewood, WA) as English, WA, a name that hasn't been used since the late 19th century and they call Smokey Point North Lakewood instead.ref –CG 17:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(od) It's trivially easy to find errors in Google Maps. However, we need to keep the larger point in mind. Rschen's complaint was that intersections were being listed solely because the roads are drawn with a thick line in Google Maps. I think the point is well made now, that Google maps should NEVER be the primary source for information in the article, and that includes the Major intersections guide. What I traditionally do is have an on-line map, and paper atlas or map, if it shows up as major in both, then I'll add. Using this standard, I've removed many junctions in CA road articles because it only showed up as major in one, not both. Sadly, they have since been added right back in.Dave (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Another question

Are junctions notable to be included in major intersections solely if they were a former routing of a state / US route? Case in point: major intersections table of California State Route 39. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say yes only if the route no longer exists; however, if the route still exists and the junction in question is simply an old alignment of the route, I typically would not list the junction. A situation where I think mentioning an old alignment is acceptable is on New York State Route 65, namely the Calkins Road row. NY 253 still exists, but it no longer extends as far eastward as it once did. It is just an old alignment, but I consider this (the truncation of the route) to be a different situation than a realignment of the route between two points. – TMF 01:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
It probably makes sense to include former alignments of routes that are now freeways. --NE2 02:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Clarification: on intersecting routes, not on that route. --NE2 22:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Route 1/9

Recently, Mitch and I have been improving articles about Interstates, U.S. highways, and state routes in New Jersey to GA status. One problem I came upon is how the U.S. Route 1/9 concurrency in northern New Jersey should be handled. Currently, we have a U.S. Route 1/9 article that dewscribes the concurrency while both the U.S. Route 1 in New Jersey and U.S. Route 9 in New Jersey articles describe those routes south of where they split. My thinking was that we have the US 1/9 article thoroughly describe the concurrency while the separate state-detail pages for US 1 and US 9 thoroughly describe the portion south of the concurrency with a brief summary of the concurrent portion. Mitch said that the information should be in the US 1 article since it takes precedence to US 9. Another idea is to turn U.S. Route 1/9 into a disambiguation page to the US 1 and US 9 articles and list the details of the concurrency separately in each article. This is similar to how the long concurrency of Maryland Route 2 and Maryland Route 4 is handled. However, this third idea would cause a lot of redundancy between the US 1 and US 9 articles. Therefore, I am opening a discussion to see what the best option is. Dough4872 (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this could be handled several ways. I would be opposed to any option that creates two redundant articles. I don't see the current situation as all that bad. The U.S. 1/9 concurrency is somewhat notable among roadgeeks, the question is, how about the general population? I knew about the US1/9 concurrency long before I actually set foot in the Mid Atlantic states, but that's because a. this shows on almost all maps of the New York City area and b. I'm a roadgeek. =-) Dave (talk) 19:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I would be opposed to eliminating the US 1/9 article because of the unbelievable amount of redundancy that would create. My stance goes more along with your thinking - have the detail in US 1/9, then summarize it in US 1 and US 9. – TMF 20:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I wonder how similar this situation is to the US41/M-28 concurrency? Both articles cover the 60-mile concurrency. Of course they cover it in opposite directions because EB M-28 is SB US 41 and vice versa. Both articles are FAs. It was never suggested to cover the concurrency in a separate article, maybe because they are different "classes" of highway designation. Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Good point. The more I think about it, the more I think the issue is this: Is the Route 1/9 concurrency notable enough to merit its own article? I don't have the answer. If we can decide that, the rest is easy. Dave (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey the fact that it gets its own shield that shows up on almost every road that intersects it and its a major thoroughfare in eastern New Jersey should be enough for it to have its own article.—JA10 Talk • Contribs 21:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
US-41/M-28 is 60 miles of almost nothingness, however. --NE2 23:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

There are separate shields for US 1 and US 9 (not the hyphenated ones) along the concurrency such as in this picture. Nevertheless, the concurrency is long enough that it probably warrants its own article. In addition, the junction list for the concurrency should only appear in the US 1/9 articles while the junction list in the US 1 and US 9 articles should describe the portions south of the split. I guess the status quo is the best way to go. Dough4872 (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Commons v. shields (again)

Resolved
 – Fixed at commons. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I was talking with another member about why he was uploading new PA Quadrant Route shields to "File:Quadrant Route xxxx.svg" instead of our standard "File:PA QR xxxx.svg" but he says that he can't upload to the latter file name. I remember a while back that members got the Commons to allow our short file-named shields and I was wondering if someone here could do that again. I would but I can't seem to find where that discussion happened and if I did, it'd probably be a too complex of a procedure for a simple-minded roadgeek like me. :) —Mr. Matté (Talk/Contrib) 21:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Shields/Requests/Archive 3#Commons blacklist? Basically you go to the page and tell them the problem and then they edit the whitelist to fix it. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Major Cities (part 2) - "Major" != "Control"

I was going to write this earlier, but got distracted. Already, a response to part 1 has alluded to my second point. Lately, I am seeing an increasing number of Major Cities boxes that are being treated as "Control Cities" boxes. WP:USRD/STDS#Major cities states that the box should be "a list of major cities along the route". Taking the current revision of Interstate 15 as an example, the box lists Riverside, San Bernardino, Los Angeles as major cities through other connecting highways; that box also lists Lethbridge, Alberta in Canada. All these cities are clearly not located along Interstate 15, so why are they in the Major Cities box? The situation is further illustrated by the use of notes indicating a direction (northbound, etc.). To the road enthusiast, we might understand that this indicates the control city direction; for the average user unfamiliar with the highway, they may be wondering why I-15 only serves San Diego in the southbound direction. That I-15 example has several instances (mostly within California) of control city related notes within the major cities box. The situation also exists on state-detail articles as well. When I reviewed this version of Interstate 70 in Colorado for its ACR, one of the first things I noticed was three non-Colorado cities in the Major Cities box. I suggested the removal of these cities, thinking it might cause confusion for the average reader to see Utah and Kansas cities mentioned in a major cities list for a Colorado section of Interstate. With these removed, the box makes a bit more sense on a state-detail page. From the discussion above, it would seem some editors may prefer the removal of the Major Cities box. I don't care whether it's kept or cut. If it is kept, I would like to see something that explicitly states that the route serves the communities listed. The box should not be used as a means to list control cities because these are, in my opinion, difficult to source (outside of photographs/Google Street View) and do not provide encyclopedic information about the route itself. --LJ (talk) 06:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case, I'm in favor of removing all city boxes, whether they be major, control, communities etc. I remember last time consensus was to keep only the control city boxes, which is the only reason they've survived. However, like you said, they're a sourcing nightmare, so I won't be sorry if they go. – TMF 06:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I find Major Cities boxes more useful & appealing on national route articles than on the state-detail pages. If consensus is to eliminate them, that's fine by me. If consensus is to keep them, that's fine as well, as long as we're clear on what the contents of the boxes should be. --LJ (talk) 07:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Over the last few days I've noticed the boxes on CA 3di articles. I'm pretty sure that these control cities are not sourceable for the most part. Is it safe to remove them? --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I guess that's the purpose of my semi-rant/this discussion: to make that determination. I say, if the city is not located on the route it doesn't belong in the box (regardless of whether or not it is listed as a control city through a published/reliable sources). --LJ (talk) 08:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Based on that comment, I assume that you are in favor of eliminating control city boxes since there are many cases where Interstate Highway control cities are not actually on the route and there are some highways where the control cities aren't cities at all (I-190 NY has Canada and I believe I-75 MI has the Mackinac Bridge, to name two).
In hindsight, I think this discussion would have worked better if question one was "do we need these", with these being the floating city boxes of any kind. – TMF 08:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
My intent is to better define what goes in these boxes; I'm not advocating for removal the boxes and don't care whether they are kept or discarded. I'm just trying to figure out why we are using a box entitled "Major Cities" to list control cities, which are two separate items. As things stand right now I feel the title of "major cities" and the control cities content conflicts and is misleading. Even now, TMF, you have used the term "control city boxes" in your previous comments/examples, yet the articles mentioned have "Major Cities" boxes on them--'Canada' and 'Mackinac Bridge' are not cities, yet they are listed in a box entitled "Major Cities". My position on this is to eliminate the conflict by listing only major cities on the route, as I feel it is more encyclopedic. If folks would rather keep control city-type content, I would much rather see the box renamed to something like "Destinations" to better reflect the content of the box and be less misleading.
I'm not trying to stir up trouble...I just want to understand and clarify to improve the end-user experience. If I missed a previous discussion about this, please direct me to it so I can understand the rationale. --LJ (talk) 08:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(od) I'm all in favor of dumping them completely. If it is truly a major city, it will be mentioned in the text with a wikilink at some point anyway. Imzadi1979 (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that I've personally cleaned up the major cities box on several routes, only to see "Roosterpoop, NJ" added back in just a few hours later. I know of one highway I've done this several times over. Same is true for the 8-10 most major junctions in the infobox. I suspect even if we were to nail down a good standard, we would not be able to keep the articles in conformance with the standard. I'll wait for ideas on this standard before voting. But to be honest I'm inclined to vote remove the boxes, as from my experience, this is futile. I will say is that for some states, such as Missouri, the list is published. (this is how we were able to get a source for the two I-70 articles). But for most other states this list will always be subjective.Dave (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there nothing in the US along the lines of List of primary destinations on the United Kingdom road network? All towns/cities listed in UK roads infoboxes must be on that list (which is an official government document). As such it would solve any issues of which towns/cities to include? Or am I completely getting the wrong end of the disagreement here? Jeni (talk) 00:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It only exists for primary Interstate highways; also, it is not available on the Internet. We're stuck with a reproduction of the list off some guy's website, and it is dated (2002-2003?) --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
No chance of anyone getting hold of a copy? I'm not sure if you have any processes to get copies of government documents? Over here we'd use the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Jeni (talk) 00:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Someone who is a project regular did say once they bought a copy, but I don't remember who. The problem is it's not a government document, but rather a document published by a standards and certification agency, AASHTO. These agencies make their money, in part, by selling the standards they produce. The dream scenario, which AASHTO has done in this case, is for an agency to produce a standard which gets codified into law, yet they retain control (and copyright) of the standard. That's when they can charge a ridiculous price for the standard. Though a different industry, it's a similar idea to Baseefa in the UK.Dave (talk) 01:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Time for a straw poll? Of everyone who has commented explicitly about whether to keep or remove the boxes, and by association the STDS section, no one has said keep, why don't we just vote? Here goes: (Sswonk (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC))

Straw poll

This is simply a single place to list the current opinion of participants, not anything binding. Indicate a preference to either Keep or Remove "Major Cities" boxes from USRD articles:

  • Remove as redundant and prone to misuse, already handled by junction lists and article text. Sswonk (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove all floating city boxes, whether they be major city boxes or control city boxes. Major city boxes are redundant to the route description and/or the locations of junctions in the infobox, and control city boxes are near impossible to source in the vast majority of states. – TMF 20:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove - Per TMF's comment and that Washington hasn't used them since late 2006 (with some minor exceptions) because they aren't needed and could be merged in the route description. –CG 20:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove - cause a lot of edit warring and useless edits, and users tend to list their favorite cities in the boxes instead of what is truly major. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I would keep the boxes on national articles only (not state-detail pages), provided a reliable threshold were developed, such as being listed as an urban area by the US Census (as mentioned in the part 1 discussion). If such a threshold cannot be developed, then I would vote to remove. --LJ (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Standards could be developed, but they would run the risk of being too narrow or too broad. In New England, I-91 would have three UAs, New Haven, Hartford and Springfield. I-93 would have two, Boston and Manchester. I-89, just Burlington. On the other hand, lowering the standard to include clusters would make the list for I-90 very long nationally. Pittsfield, a UA, is currently listed at I-90 but the route bypasses well outside the UA boundary,[29] showing proximity as another issue that would need to be micromanaged. If you think of what this would look like in a printed encyclopedia, I'm pretty sure they would just leave the major cities box out altogether and handle it in another way, like the infobox. To prevent the inevitable reverts that would be needed to keep the list to standards, I think they need to go. Sswonk (talk) 23:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • 'Keep per LJ, otherwise Remove Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove - The Major Cities boxes are too subjective into what cities should be included. Dough4872 (talk) 03:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove --Admrboltz (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove. These cities would be listed in the articles anyway. The definition of what a major city is is too subjective. --Son (talk) 04:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Leaning Remove If someone can come up with an idea to standardize it, I'll reconsider. But, as stated above, from my experience this box is more trouble than it's worth.Dave (talk) 03:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Dave, just throwing this out there for curiosity's sake, but is there a way you know of to create admin locked templates for these that would allow the presentation of data on pages but be a part of the page that not "anyone can edit"? My first thought is no but if that could be done then I can see adding a field that includes that template at the bottom of the infobox. Something like {{I-95majorcities}}, just protected against tampering. Sounds like a big no coming already, and I haven't even finished typing. Sswonk (talk) 13:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
      • No; templates are meant for formatting and navigation, not content. (The railway line templates are an exception because the code is complicated.) --NE2 13:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Never mind, Dave. NE2 answered and to verify what I suspected to begin with I found "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article." at the WP:TMP page. Thanks NE2. Sswonk (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the status of this? --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks stale, my guess would be you could draft and place a standard at STDS against major cities lists everywhere but national articles. For the national articles lists, perhaps contact LJ and Dave via user talk and ask for their thoughts re: a standardized list for each highway or use Dave's standards below. The desire to include such lists probably comes from the rightmost column in http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/routefinder/table1.cfm. Another solution would be to use that list ∩ List of United States urban areas which would cut the population at 40K. Sswonk (talk) 12:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
It sounds to me like the consensus is remove with a minority of keep where we can come up with a standard that will stick. With that said, the link Sswonk provided kinda changes things. I would be ok with using that page as the "official" standard for Interstate highways (this is not the AASHTO list, but at least it's freely available, and hard to argue about the reliability of the source). As for the others, no discussion really started on what that standard should be, except for a couple of mentions of sticking to a list of urban areas from one of the census lists. Dave (talk) 19:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Sswonk, I had forgotten that FHWA Interstate table existed! I like your suggestion that the major cities be in both the FHWA table and the US urban areas list--this would limit the Major Cities box to articles on 2-digit interstates. I would also suggest that a minimum of two or three eligible cities be required in order to use the box. Although I think we should limit the Major Cities box to national articles, I suppose it could remain on state-detail articles at the state subproject's discretion, provided it meets the above requirements. I would further propose that bolding and references to control cities be eliminated. Unless a similar list/source can be found U.S. Routes, I would suggest removal of the box on those articles. --LJ (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I could go for all of those points. Sswonk (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Isn't this just using a rigid definition of "major city", which will mean including some suburbs and excluding some that have more "prominence" (by analogy with topographic prominence)? --NE2 00:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Hell yes, that's just what it is. Topographic prominence is what any parochial editor will argue for their favorite local "major city". By using the FWHA alone, the lists at least would have enforceability. I would point out that FWHA does however include Bacon, NY on the I-84 major cities list. Like all good federal sources, sometimes there are mistakes. Everybody knows Bacon is in Washington. [30] Sswonk (talk) 03:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
No, no, no, the other Washington! --NE2 03:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't see an easy answer, aside from remove entirely. With that said I'm proposing a solution below and would welcome comments.01:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Standardizing

If the decision is to keep the major cities/control boxes. Here are some ideas to standardize the boxes. Just ideas for discussion

  • Must be a core city on the list of Metropolitan Statistical Areas (for the US, equivalent list for other countries)
  • Must be on the list of approved control cities where available. For the US, this would mean the AASHTO list for Interstate highways (presumes we can get a copy of that list somehow, although portions of it are published, for example MoDOT has published the control cities for I-70 on their website)
  • Must be a city where the highway intersects another cross country highway (for the US, highways ending in 0,1, or 5)
  • Sliding standard of maximum of 10 cities, selected by consensus (similar to how the major junctions box within infobox road is defined for the U.S. Roads wikiproject)

Dave (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

The straw poll showed most favored delete, with some keep and standardize. As such how about this for a compromise:

  • Major Cities box is to be removed unless it has a source(s). The source must cover that the highway serves the city and provides a standard of which cites count as "major".
  • Acceptable sources can include, AASHTO lists, FWHA lists, or a combination of a map (to show the highway serves the city) and a list of U.S. Government defined major cites (to show the city is major). Discretion on which to use can be left to the relevant subproject and/or the editors of the article as appropriate.
  • After the list has been filtered by the sources, there should be at least 3 cities left on the list. If there are less than 3 cities served that meet the standard of the source, no box should be used.
  • A major cities box is inappropriate if the cities listed are not discussed in the prose of the article. The box is to supplement the prose, not contain any new information.
  • No more bolding. Either a city is notable enough to list, or it shouldn't be listed. No more tiered systems implying some cities are more notable than others.
  • No more directional or via markers (i.e. Los Angeles (southbound only) or Los Angeles (via I-10)) Either the city is served by the highway or it isn't.

How about this? Dave (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

So does I-75 serve Miami? It's on the FHWA list :) --NE2 01:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I would say yes, if FWHA is the source to be used for that article. But that is an interesting point, this proposal could lead to source wars =-) 01:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(od)  Doing...  Done I am taking the next hour or two to compile a table of the FWHA list intersected with the 40K restricted population of the urban areas list. I'm notifying everyone to avoid any possible duplication of effort this morning. This doesn't mean I oppose addition of other criteria in the proposal, I simply think it would be good to see exactly what we are talking about with those two lists used as standards. Sswonk (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is 40k is an arbitrary definition of major. If we're going to use the FWHA list, we should use it without modification, IMO.Dave (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Dave on this. --Admrboltz (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Let me refine my answer a bit. I think the FWHA table would work for a state detail article of an Interstate Highway. For national articles, IMO this list is not useful. It would have to be pruned via an arbitrary method, as you just did. So for national articles, the only standard I can think of that would work is use the list of namesake cities on the list of Metropolitan Statistical Areas.Dave (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad someone went through and experimented with this, cause some flaws were exposed in the process. I'm fine with using the FHWA list for state-detail Interstate articles. For national route articles, some other list should be used. --LJ (talk) 01:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
How about Table of United States Metropolitan Statistical Areas [31] for the national articles? Dave (talk) 01:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I see a few problems with that list as well, as there are only several dozen that are singles, most are like " Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT", "Kennewick-Pasco-Richland, WA", etc. Then there are pairs that list a northern boundary like "Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL", well I was there earlier this year and Sebastian: not a major city. Using that list would cause a lot of headaches trying to figure out which of a couplet or triplet to use. The naming on the MSA list tends to use geographic locations within counties, as opposed to a list strictly based on sheer population. I think we might be better off setting standards for the upper limits of lists first and then work from there. By that I mean something like (max number of cities per national route) = (total length) / (100 miles), and minimum one major city per state (dictated by common sense, i.e. I-84 in MA has none), maximum three per 500 miles per state. Setting a maximum might be the way to go, with a list of cities as opposed to metro or urban areas guaranteeing eligibility, minimum of 25K population. All of that is debatable but if we can establish maximum numbers per list, then per state and then find a good list later it might be easier to do this. Sswonk (talk) 02:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
You're right, I noticed a few surprises in that list myself. Geez, I think I'm about back to giving up and just saying, delete the box. =-) Dave (talk) 02:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I think this proposal to place metropolitan areas of a certain population is too subjective and people are going to change the boxes up anyway. It would just be simpler to totally remove the boxes. Dough4872 (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I've had editors add them to freeway-grade state trunklines here in Michigan. I can tell that they are a direct copy of the code off an Interstate article because they have even included the reference for the FHWA Control Cities list verbatim, as in this edit: [32]. I must say now, let's ditch them all before well-meaning editors see them and add more to places they don't belong. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Are there any objections to removing them entirely? --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggested text for the WP:USRD/STDS page

This would replace the "Major cities" section that currently exists:

In the past editors have added a second small infobox entitled "Major cities" to articles, and used that box to list several prominent cities along the route. However, no practical standards published by secondary sources exist that are useful for determining the inclusion or exclusion of a particular city within the box. Standards can not be set, neither based on population and local prominence nor based on proximity and number of exits or intersections within the city. Through experience it has been determined that the use of such boxes is not acceptable. The coverage of major cities served by a route should exist only within the article body, exit or junction lists, and the article infobox "major junctions" locations.

Notice it doesn't say anything about state projects, this would just express the standards USRD wishes to have imposed. Sswonk (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Since in theory none of the state projects use the Major cities box there wouldn't be any changes to those standards. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not quite clear on what you mean. What are "those standards"? What I meant was, it explicitly does not say what was suggested above somewhere, that state projects could set their own standards for major cities: we don't want that, so don't even mention it. Sswonk (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I would argue that no state project should have major city boxes for the reasons given in the section above. In any event, I don't think any state project uses them anyway. – TMF 23:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I would revise as follows:

In the past, a second small infobox entitled "Major cities" has been used in the route description section to list prominent cities along the route. However, no secondary sources have been found that are useful for determining whether a particular city should be included or excluded within the box. Various criteria have been proposed (population, local prominence, number of junctions/interchanges, etc.); however, no consensus has emerged in favor of any particular standard. In addition to the lack of source and standards, previous experience has shown that the contents of the Major Cities box can be contentious on certain articles. Unless an acceptable source defining major cities is found, it is not appropriate to use the Major Cities box. Major cities served by a route should be covered in the route description, junction list, and/or in the article infobox.

I feel this better explains the rationale discussed here. The wording doesn't mandate anything for the state projects and allows flexibility for a sourced box to be used. Thoughts? --LJ (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Addendum: Should it be decided to remove the boxes entirely, I would replace the last two sentences of my proposal with the following: "Thus, the Major Cities box has been deprecated. When found in an article, ensure that all cities listed appear in the route description, junction list, and/or the article infobox, prior to removing the box." --LJ (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec) The "c" in "Major cities" should be lowercase throughout per style. I might add "and agreed to by consensus" after "Unless an acceptable source defining major cities is found". Also, the last phrase "in the article infobox", won't proponents then simply move the content from "Major cities" boxes into the "cities =" parameter of {{infobox road}}, resulting in the same problems the proposed text seeks to address? You updated it during (ec), I disagree that they should be moved into the infobox. Sswonk (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry...what exactly does "(ec)" mean?
I personally never understood having a separate box when {{infobox road}} has a parameter built in. I've used it on Nevada articles with no problems (granted there's not many people editing Nevada articles to edit war over it...). Maybe it's best to simply state that major cities should be discussed in the route description; the junction list and infobox standards should already say where city names are appropriate. --LJ (talk) 06:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Based on the time stamps "(ec)" was for "edit conflict". – TMF 07:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
As for the separate box, the major cities were originally listed in a section before being moved into a floating box. I think (could be way off) that at the time the major cities were listed in sections, the infobox didn't have a "cities" parameter. The boldface for the control city boxes was probably one of the reasons why they weren't moved to the infobox when the sections were nixed; other may have been the potential awkwardness of the field's appearance ("Rochester, New York; Syracuse, New York;" etc.) or how much longer it would have made the infobox, which was of great concern at the time and still is to a lesser extent today. Now, I still don't support having separate lists of "major cities" in articles; I just wanted to try and offer an explanation as to why the standalone boxes were made. – TMF 07:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I have revised my suggested text, now shown below, to reflect a few of the revisions offered by LJ. Going through the discussions above yet another time I think consensus is very strong that the use of the "Major cities" boxes is not supported. I think also that the lead paragraph of WP:USRD/STDS is weak enough already, mentioning WP:IAR in the second sentence. There is no need to show again that things can change with consensus because the entire page leads off with that statement. Rather, the deprecation of "Major cities" boxes should be made clear and unequivocal with reasons. No instructions for removal are needed, the statement itself gives the reasons. The overwhelming opinion given here is that the information is best handled within the article and is self-evident by the exit and junction lists, and that coming up with standards to go back to using a revised second infobox called "Major cities" is to be as discouraged as the boxes themselves. The wording of the statement can make that quite clear.

In the past a second small infobox entitled "Major cities" was sometimes added to articles to list several prominent cities as part of the route description. However, no practical standards published by secondary sources have been found that are useful for determining the inclusion or exclusion of a particular city within the box. Because of the lack of such sources, standards can not be set. Basing standards on such criteria as population, local prominence, number of junctions/interchanges etc. becomes subjective and a source of contention. The use of "Major cities" boxes is therefor deprecated and they should not be used in articles. The coverage of major cities served by a route should exist only within the article body, exit or junction lists, and the article infobox "major junctions" locations.

– Sswonk (talk) 03:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with this proposal. I'd like to clean up the wording/grammar a bit, but I guess that can wait until the concept has been agreed upon. --LJ (talk) 06:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Fantastic, LJ, we can move on. TwinsMets was right about above, when you see (ec) that means edit conflict, basically I saved after editing but you had also saved to the same section at the same time, conflict. Sswonk (talk) 10:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
BTW, I hope by "clean up the wording" you don't mean you want to remove the final phrase that specifies infobox major junctions. The consensus is to encourage the use of cited article text and exit/junction lists to cover cities along the routes; simply moving the "Major cities" list from a separate box and into the "cities =" parameter of the infobox ignores the points made about lack of standards and subjectivity. Sswonk (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm disappointed you'd think that. I felt the proposed text has parts that don't read well and has some grammatical concerns...that's all. My clean up is as follows:

In the past, a second infobox entitled "Major cities" was sometimes added to articles to list several prominent cities as part of the route description. However, no published secondary sources have been found that are useful for determining the inclusion or exclusion of a particular city within the box. Due to the lack of such sources, practical standards can not be set. Basing guidelines on criteria such as population, local prominence, or number of junctions/interchanges becomes a subjective exercise and a source of contention. Therefore, the use of "Major cities" boxes has been deprecated by consensus, and similar lists should not be used in articles. Major cities should not appear outside of the article prose, except in conjunction with a major intersection or terminus entry in the article's infobox or junction table.

Is this satisfactory? I feel this is a bit more tightly worded regarding where cities can appear in an article. --LJ (talk) 06:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
You might want to clarify that it also applies to separate sections that are just lists, like the one in Alabama State Route 144. --NE2 06:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Changed "and such boxes" to "and similar lists" in the second to last sentence to address this. --LJ (talk) 07:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I support this, and will begin removing boxes on articles once I get settled back in (was out of town).Dave (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Near perfect! I see nothing wrong with it, but since nothing is going to be absolutely perfect, I started out with "near". Rschen7754, when you read this I think you should go ahead and make the change to the Standards subpage. We have a winner, and having the project organizer who's also an admin put it in place will give it weight. Thanks, LJ and all of the other members of USRD. Sswonk (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
In reality it doesn't matter who makes the change but I'll go ahead and do it. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Of course, anyone can edit. Thank you for taking care of it. Sswonk (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sample with FHWA list restricted to Urban Areas >40K

I stopped at I-26, having concluded this method is too restrictive. I started to worry at I-5 and then I-10 but removing Butte and Helena from I-15 seemed to tip the scales too far. I have the complete FWHA list in table form without strikes in storage if needed. Sswonk (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

List of problematic articles

There are certainly some false positives in here, but User:NE2/major cities should have almost all that need to be fixed. --NE2 05:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm just curious how you derived that list, since all of the non-Interstate Michigan articles listed that I checked don't have the box in the articles. Imzadi1979 (talk) 07:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Some of them have Richland township or Rutland township; others may use the word 'communities'. As I said, there are sure to be false positives. --NE2 07:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Is it a problem if we edit the page to remove false positives or articles that no longer have the box? --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
No, not a problem (but make sure it doesn't have a list in the text either). --NE2 09:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(od) Thanks for making this list, It's making the cleanup easier. Dave (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI: It should be noted that the list is not all-encompassing. A couple Nevada articles using the {{infobox road}} parameter were caught, but it missed similar use on U.S. Route 95 Alternate (Yerington-Fernley, Nevada), Nevada State Route 650, and probably many others. The list was definitely a good start, however, so thank you. --LJ (talk) 10:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Those can be found by adding a temporary category to the infobox if the cities parameter exists. --NE2 20:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Special Cases

Q: What about articles such as Lincoln Highway. I was about to delete the major cities box for this article, but decided to ask first. In this case the box is equally clogging the article space. However, for auto trails, named scenic byways that span multiple numeric designations, etc. these are not as easily verifiable with, say Google Maps. As such maybe the major cities list adds more value here, than on, say I-95? I still am leaning towards delete, but would like a 2nd opinion. Dave (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I would say delete. (Wow that article is a mess). --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
agree the article can have some help, so then help it, deleting stuff not the answer
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Archive_14&oldid=1088304633"