Talk:U.S. Route 491/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Route 666 (Texas 666)

Photo

http://www.flickr.com/photos/99696887@N00/32689707/

is right isn't it? It's cc-by-2.0 Dunc|☺ 22:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

That's not US 666. --SPUI (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

FARM TO MARKET ROAD NO. 666

Minute Order 42972, 10-31-57; Adm. Circ. 1-58, 1-1-58

From SH 359 & BS 359-B at Mathis, southward via Banquete to FM 70, northwest of Bishop, a distance of approx. 36.6 miles. (San Patricio and Nueces Counties)

That's Texas, not U.S. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is this article tagged citation needed?

Why tag this article "citation needed" for the claim "well constructed roadway"? It's just as easy to remove the claim (as it really adds no value anyways). I'll remove this. If any objections just revert.

Davemeistermoab 04:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

A little more information would be nice

I think that this article needs more information. The author has provided us with only a general information (the author hasn't even explained those in details), and it would be nice to have the map where the highway is located (Click here for an example). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ainstushar (talk • contribs) 01:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

FYI, I have driven this route from end to end and at least once and am fairly familiar with it from Monticello to Cortez. I am willing to work on the Utah and Colorado sections. It's on my get arount to it list. Just been real busy lately. I do hope there is somebody else here who can work on the New Mexico section as I've only driven it once that I recallDavemeistermoab 04:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

mythology

i think there should be mention of the the myths legends and stories of what happens on this road such as the flaming truck and the demon dogs.I am Paranoid 00:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps some mention of Natural Born Killers (Released 1994 starring Woody Harrelson and Juliet Lewis, written by Tarantino, directed by Oliver Stone) being set along this highway? Perhaps some of the notoreity arose from this movie; the script was surely written before or at least during the Arizona governmental activity to get it renamed. Greg 22:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Why I removed the trivia tag:

Per Wikipedia:Trivia sections: "trivia section" refers to a section's content, not its name. A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and unselective list.

The guideline also says: A number of articles contain lists of isolated facts, which are often grouped into their own section labeled "Trivia", "Notes" (not to be confused with "Notes" sections which store footnotes), "Facts", "Miscellanea", "Other information", etc.

That does not apply to the "Media and pop culture" section of this article. This section has a clearly limited scope, is organized, and all content in the section is relevant to the section title.

Also, this information was specifically requested to be included in the article in above comments on this talk page.

Davemeistermoab (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Just an observation

There is a section in the article about extension into Arizona and Utah. US 491 has never been in Arizona, so I am assuming this is referring to US 666. As this article should be the history of US 491, it shouldn't mention this part of US 666. This information should be in the US 191 article which replaced US 666 in Arizona. --Holderca1^talk 17:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

GAN comments

I see User:Mitchazenia is reviewing this article, so I just have a couple comments. First, since the route has a fairly involved history, I'd like to see the lead expanded to two paragraphs. Second, I'd like to see consistency with US X and U.S. Route X. You go back and forth between the two, so I think it would be better to stick to one or the other. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 12:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Compliance with the WP:MOS to this level is usually required at the FA level, not the GA level. However, the point is duly noted and I'll start. I was wondering if we could get this to FA ASAP and nominate it for the featured article on May 31st =-) I think July 1st is a better option, however.Dave (talk) 02:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:U.S. Route 491/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Prose is generally great. Just one comment. As the highway gains altitude the highway passes through large Pinto bean farming regions. Try to cut down on the use of "the highway".
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
I know the route is pretty boring (route description wise), but I'd like to see the RD expanded some. Especially for the New Mexico section, you should write the intersections, towns passed, and I think it crosses the San Juan River.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

An excellent article overall, but there are some minor issues. I've placed the article on-hold for theses issues to be addressed. Cheers, Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. While searching for you requested more information on the New Mexico portion, I found a rather interesting document from the NM DOT about the fatality rates since renumbering. I have incorporated this into the History section. Please advise if I have erred in this content addition or if you feel this would be more appropriate in a different section. Thanks again, I believe this is ready for you to finish the evaluation.Dave (talk) 05:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, it looks good enough to pass. Congrats! For FA, however, I still think you would need to expand the route description with the intersections and towns. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 13:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Popular Page

This is the most popular page in the Utah State Highways WikiProject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Utah State Highways/Popular pages. Maybe people like 666 :p --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 07:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if those statistics are somewhat skewed because of the recent GA review and current A class review. I suspect this is indeed one of the more popular Utah highway articles, due to the "pop-culture" appeal, but I also wouldn't be surprised to see those stats drop once FAC is finished =-) Dave (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind those stats haven't been updated since early July (the one for Legacy Parkway has data end on July 12) so the results are a little outdated. C L — 01:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Now, just one minute . . .

Doesn't the number 491 have its own demonic connotation? There's the Biblical reference that sins are forgiven not just seven times, but seventy times seven. Ergo, you get 7 x 70 = 490 chances, but on 491 you are beyond forgiveness. Not exactly sound theology, but grist for popular speculation. Why would they dump one infamous number for another? Was somebody pulling a fast one? WHPratt (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOR. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I am hardly the first to note this. See this article about a 1964 film.WHPratt (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/491_(film)

Shouldn't it be US 666?

Shouldn't this article be US 666 Decommissioned instead of US 491? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.141.118.225 (talk • contribs) .

No.--P C B 22:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Reorder this page

The more I look at this article, the more I think the history section should come first. I propose to reorder the sections, and make the changes that would go along with it to make the text flow better once reversed. Any objections? Dave (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Per USRD's standards, the RD should go first unless the article's in Texas. --P C B 22:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the standards don't prescribe the exact order, just that those two sections are required. Imzadi 1979 → 04:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, those are guidelines, not mandates. Any rule that rigid would quickly be laughed out of existence. IMO, the discussion should be based on which order makes for better reading. Dave (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Mild puzzlement

The sentence, "The highway passes to the east of Ute Mountain, for which this branch of the Ute tribe is named, and believed to belong to a great warrior God of the Ute People." seems a bit strange for a featured article since it leaves me a bit more puzzled than normal. Is it believed that the highway belongs to a great warrior God? 71.94.160.115 (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations, but...

Congratulations to all the editors responsible for getting this article featured. Now to piss on the parade. Shouldn't US 666 and US 491 be split? (This is precedented — there are a number of articles on former US highways.) US 666 was (I think) more than twice the length of US 491 and is far more notable than US 491. This article seems to be a US 666 article masquerading as a US 491 article. — AjaxSmack 03:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think they should be split. The two articles would be 100% redundant except for the history section where the dividing line would be 2003, not leaving much for history on the US 491 article. There is precedent for having articles on "historical" highways, however this is usually because no modern highway exactly follows the historical one. In this case, with the exception of the Arizona portion US 491 is a direct replacement for US 666. Dave (talk) 06:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Dave on this. Before May 31, 2003, this was US 666, and starting June 1, 2003, it is US 491; that is a one-to-one replacement. Imzadi 1979 → 06:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

But the article is, for the most part, about US 666, not US 491. — AjaxSmack 16:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Because the highway was US 666 from November 11, 1926, until May 31, 2003, given due weight the article will concentrate more on the US 666 aspects in the history since it bore that number for 76.5 years, but otherwise this is the same road. The route description would be the same between the two articles, if split, save tense and number changes (US 666 was... vs. US 491 is...). If US 666 were split from US 491, it still wouldn't cover the Arizona section in its RD because that had already been renumbered before the US 666 designation was decommissioned and changed to US 491 on the rest of the road. In the end, you'd have two articles with almost the same leads, almost the same infoboxes, almost the same route descriptions and almost the same junction lists just to split the history into two articles. Oh, and if the article was split at the 2003 date, you'd still need a summary of US 666's history in the US 491 article because you need to trace back the history of the physical roadway. In both cases, it just makes sense to merge the two designations into a single article than have redundant articles cover the same roadway.

Another example is the former US 16 in Michigan. That highway was M-16 from 1919 until November 11, 1926, when it was redesignated as a part of the new US 16. That was another one-to-one conversion as all of M-16 became US 16. Those two designations should not be split into two articles because all of the Indian trail and 19th century plank road history will be in common. Imzadi 1979 → 16:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Your position makes sense if a US 666 article would only deal with US 666 as it was in 2003. However, why wouldn't a US 666 article deal with the entire 1938-1992 route? — AjaxSmack 00:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The RD section of a former highway covers it at the time it was decommissioned; that means a US 666 article would describe the route the highway took in 2003, not 1992. The history section already would cover any sections that were removed or otherwise changed from previous routings. As such a US 666 RD would only differ from the current US 491 RD in terms of tense (US 666 was... instead of US 491 is...). Imzadi 1979 → 23:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Way to go Dave! I knew you had something to do with this as soon as I saw the words "four corners". On another note.... Happy Birthday America! --ErgoSum•talk•trib 13:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, although I think there's a lot of credit to go around for this one. Imzadi, Rschen, Tony to name a few. Dave (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Dead links, March 2012

The bot updated one citation with an archived version to repair a dead link and tagged two others as dead. I repaired the one using the Wayback Machine, but the other I could not. I contacted UDOT to see if we can fix that because the other highway resolutions are still online, and they're still linking to the URL themselves. It looks like a file got shuffled around or accidentally deleted off the server, so I'm hoping that we can revive that dead link in short order. Imzadi 1979 → 21:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

US 666

I know yes another one of these. But its 2013 almost 2014, there's enough information on this article that US 666 should be another road. Most of the former US 666 does not pertain to US 491 at all. US 491 should stick to 491 and 666 should be a whole new story. I did the same with Interstate 26 in North Carolina (I got hit hard by Imazadi for grammar but...Wikpeidaian English grammar is kind of hard). 2 years ago they said no but now they said go ahead. It's time to look forward at a new US 666 article is forward for Wikipedia.--Ncchild (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

No. There is no need. --Rs chen 7754 23:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

What would be covered in a future US 666 article that isn't adequately covered here? Dave (talk) 23:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I say it is covered here but it needs to moved to it's own article for simplicity. US 666 wasn't just US 491 it also pertained along present I-40 and US 191. We can't have the article in 3 different places. Plus other US 66 spurs have their own pages (see: US 466, US 266) actually this is the only spur of US 66 that is not it's own article so I feel I should just make it now.--Ncchild (talk) 00:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Please don't take such an action. There's nothing that a separate article would not contain that isn't already in this one. You'd have two articles saying the same stuff, so it's best to merge them to reduce confusion and redundancy. Imzadi 1979 → 00:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with creating redundant articles for the sake of having separate articles. I know that's been done before, but it still doesn't mean I think it's the best solution. However, related to your point above, the article in its current state only briefly mentions the portion in Arizona. This is largely because the Arizona portion was was short lived. It was not originally part of US-666 and had already been renumbered before the 2003 mass renumbering. As such, even if a separate article for for US-666 were created, it would be debatable how much coverage should be given to the Arizona portion in that article. However, the coverage of the Arizona portion is anemic in any wikipedia article, given both the scenic beauty and history of the highway. In my opinion the best course of action to increase the value of Wikipedia in covering highways in this area would be to research and significantly expand the Arizona portion of U.S. Route 191 and break that out into its own article. Dave (talk) 04:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

"merge them to reduce confusion and redundancy"--Um, well how would it be confusing. It would help it not be confusing. The article would be directly US 666. And onto Moabdave's argument, if we put the information on 191 it would not be together but if we put it on one article the whole thing would be their together and on 1 topic. I'm sure I can find more information on the road. --Ncchild (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, let's play a game then.

RD for hypothetical US 666 article = RD for current US 491 article with the verb tenses changed and the appropriate numbers switched from "666" to "491"
History for hypothetical US 666 article = History for current US 491 article, maybe minus the post renumbering subsection
RJL for hypothetical US 666 article - RJL for current US 491 article

Given that, there is too much redundancy to warrant splitting out a second article that will be essentially the same as this article. Imzadi 1979 → 00:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Why are you so rude to me. Having to hate on my ideas telling me "not to do something" even though I could have done it in the first place (referring to US 666). You told me "2.You didn't open any discussions first about whether or not there is any interest in creating a project on Russia roads" even though on the WikiProject page it only suggests it. And in case your the "head" of the US Roads Project I found this "WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles" also on the WikiProject front page. Lastly you said this on my talk page "I hope this helps, but this is the last time I remind you about your incorrect or inappropriate usage of capital letters." I did respond back saying " I'm sorry is there a problem because "I hope this helps, but this is the last time I remind you about your incorrect or inappropriate usage of capital letters" sounds like there is. That's it so you will hear the end of this. Please don't think I'm being rude but I am expressing what I thought you were being to me since that comment on Russia Roads --Ncchild (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not intending to be rude, but you're pushing "I didn't hear that" territory with your actions. You're given feedback that you ignore. When you don't change things with your editing practices based on that feedback, people are going to get frustrated with you. As for your one comment, USRD doesn't have a "head"; we are a group of people. Some of use like me are more active, but no body runs the project. You'll notice that we all have things we specialize in doing. I publish the newsletter every quarter, watch the bot logs for new articles to be tagged and tweaked, and I special in Michigan's highway articles.

As for your accusation that I'm trying to "impose preferences", we have a Manual of Style for Wikipedia. We also follow basic rules of English grammar and writing. The MOS is based on wider consultations with the overall Wikipedia community into how good articles should be formatted, while basic rules of English grammar and writing have developed for centuries and are contained in many thousands of books on writing. For example, English doesn't capitalize most words unless they are the start of a sentence or a proper noun or name. On the other hand, German capitalizes all nouns. You've been randomly capitalizing nouns in the middle of sentences, and you've been capitalizing headings in a way that MOS:HEAD says we should not. I've point this out to you a number of times, but you continued to do it. Imzadi 1979 → 23:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on U.S. Route 491. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140821002106/http://www.newmexico.org/trail-of-the-ancients/ to http://www.newmexico.org/trail-of-the-ancients/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on U.S. Route 491. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on U.S. Route 491. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110616021239/http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=20500102 to http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=20500102

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)