Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 15

This page 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.

Cross-wiki vandal

Resolved

– Global block for 1 month. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This is just a FYI - User:71.8.199.1 has been adding random references to Interstate 70 in Nevada to articles and performing other vandalism. Below is a copy of a post received on my talk page, with links: --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You blocked this user on the 17th for its disruptive editing to highway articles. Just to let you know, whilst it was blocked here, the IP has moved over to Commons and carried on doing similar edits to images. (Thread on Commons AN). I've also quickly checked and the account is making similar edits on the French and German wikis, and probably others.--Nilf anion (talk) 11:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

How to handle routes like Pennsylvania Route 415

Warning: Big PennDOT blunder, prepare to scratch your head.

I am running into a situation here. I wanna expand routes like the above mentioned, Pennsylvania Route 415, but this route for example has a strange dilemma. Originally, when Route 415 was assigned in 1928, the route went to the western side of Harveys Lake in Luzerne County. The route to the eastern side was Route 515. In 1946, Route 515 was decommissioned in favor of two Route 415s! That is the dilemma. How do we cover a route which is signed heading bi-directionally on two sides of the lake. It is not a one-way couplet, but a bi-directional Route 415 on the western side of the lake and another bi-directional Route 415 on the eastern side of the lake (known as SR 1415 internally). How do we cover this is what I have come to ask. I am pretty sure there's more routes that do this, and wanna make sure we have some kind of standards. It would not make sense to cover the RD to cover one side specifically, as signage makes 415 mainline in 2 directions. In this case, would a separate article on State Route 1415 (Luzerne County, Pennsylvania) (or Pennsylvania Route 515) be worth for the eastern side, or is there a good way to cover both routes in the article?Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 01:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't uncommon, nor is it necessarily a blunder. Nevada State Route 3, Utah State Route 36 and if you want to stretch things a bit Interstate 5 in California (specifically the Santa Ana Freeway), just to name a few. Bottom line, don't worry about it. I would not create two articles. All three of these examples just mention that the route forks in the article. IMO It's not notable, otherwise one one of the forks would be given a different number, or at least an ALT banner.Dave (talk) 01:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, if anbody's curious about what I meant if you "stretch things a bit [1], what Google maps shows as US-101 and the unsigned reconnect with I-5/I-10 is also signed with I-10 and I-5 shields.

One side had another number, but apparently this screw up occurred in 1946. How much would it hurt to give PA 515 or the SR 1415 an article? And if not, how do you cover it so no one gets confused reading it. You can't cover it like a reality show.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 01:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if SR 1415 or PA 515 are notable enough to deserve articles. I'll leave that for somebody who's studied the situation. What I'm saying is, this is not a big deal. Based from what you've described so far, I would be inclined to have a single article. I would definitely mention the article forks around either side of the lake and one fork has/had/whatever a separate internal/formal designation.Dave (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

According to PennDOT, Route 415 is on both roads. What I am also asking is how do you write a RD for this without confusing the reader? Its not comprehensive, if not all of the route is covered.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 01:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, you note road forks, and provide a description of each fork. You could also create separate level 3 headings for each fork within the route description, should the branches be long enough to merit it. Readers will understand that. A fork in a road is a pretty easy concept to understand.Dave (talk) 01:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I also brought this up because this should be added for article standards.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 02:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

In the three examples I provided, they all handle it pretty consistently. As such, we've seemed to survive this long without creating yet another standard. Although for the Los Angeles example, I made a mistake, it's covered in the Interstate 10 in California article better than I-5. Have you studied these examples?Dave (talk) 02:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

In this case, we're looking at a route that essentially creates its own self-contained loop in the middle of the route. According to Google Maps, the western leg is ~4.2 miles long and the eastern leg is ~3.8 miles long. Given that the route itself is only 9 miles long (measured via the east leg), I doubt third level headers would really be appropriate here. It would probably suffice to mention the Harveys Lake segment in its own paragraph describing both legs of the route separately. I think this situation is something that should be addressed on a case-by-case basis, as each occurrence will probably be unique enough that one "standard" won't always apply. --LJ (talk) 04:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that the west leg is the official PA 415, and has been since 1928.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 04:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I just went with what GoogleMaps gave me when moving the map pins around. Another way might possibly be to go through the entire route description using the official west leg, then have a separate paragraph mentioning the fork/east leg and internal PA 1415 designation. That would be more similar to the Nevada SR 3 example above (although, admittedly, that article needs work). --LJ (talk) 04:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

CT 140 at AFD

Resolved

– SNOW. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

No need to say anything - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connecticut Route 140.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 22:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Can aynone save it and find some good seconary-sources (which is what they need to be a notable item apparently). --Admrboltz (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

My guess is it will be snow kept... but it wouldn't hurt. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:ALT

Apparently there is a new part of WP:MOS that we have to follow - WP:ALT, which was brought up at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Interstate 70 in Colorado/archive1‎. It seems that there are 4 steps to bringing USRD articles into full compliance:

Adding |alt= descriptions of every photo in an article.
Adding |map_alt= descriptions for every map in Infobox road.
Adding |link= to the page Template:Jct (not every time {{jct}} is used). The effect would be that the shields next to the link to the highway article in {{jct}} would not be links anymore.
Adding alt text for the shield at the top of every infobox. Hopefully this could be done with template syntax (for example, for a Washington shield it would be: The black numbers {{{num}}} inside a white silhouette of George Washington, surrounded by a black rounded rectangle. {{{num}}} would then be the route number.)

Any comments? --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

For 3, how would you then view the shield bigger? --NE2 05:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily saying that I agree with this... We have to either remove the link or provide alt text for the image to be in full compliance with WP:ALT. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Then make the {{jct}} output alt="[link text] sign". --NE2 06:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, this is being used for decoration and should thus not have alt text and not have a link, according to WP:ALT. (Also, this solution would be difficult to code, and this text is too close to a caption and is not descriptive enough for alternate text). --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

See the "Pavel Bure" example, where the alt text is simply "Pavel Bure". --NE2 06:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

(I'm not going to revert until we come to a consensus; I don't think that people will be happy that we're revert warring over a template used over 10,000 times). The USA example is more applicable as it simply duplicates the link. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't duplicate the link - one goes to the image page, the other to the article. --NE2 06:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

And the same with the USA example. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right - that doesn't duplicate the link either. --NE2 07:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

What I mean to say is that they both represent the same thing. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but one of them links to the image page. As I said at Template talk:Jct/shield, there are good reasons why we have those links. --NE2 07:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well for now this does not comply with WP:ALT. I'm not saying that you're wrong, but as it stands now there is a FAC depending on this, and we have to go with the greater Wikipedia standard. Of course, we can get the standard changed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

A featured article is less important than doing things right. --NE2 07:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Quite true, and I followed up at Template talk:Jct/shield. Eubulides (talk) 08:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

For #4, could this be done so the alt text is the same as bold text underneath the shield? We could change Infobox road such that we wouldn't have to change each instance one-by-one. --Fredddie ™ 07:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Based on what I understand, simply throwing the bold text under the shield into the alt text wouldn't be descriptive enough. – T M F 07:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It is probably good enough in this context; please see below. Eubulides (talk) 08:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems that right now (except for concerns on 3) the only thing we cannot currently provide WP:ALT compliance for is #4. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

If Interstate 70 in Colorado is a typical example, #4 could be addressed by automatically generating something like "Interstate 70 shield" as the alt text. This wouldn't express info about shield color and layout, but it does convey the gist of the image from the point of view of that article, and that's good enough for alt text. Eubulides (talk) 08:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

More to consider: Infobox road may be able to be changed to automatically provide alt text for the route shields, as mentioned above. However, there will need to be a way to add alt text manually in instances where marker_image= is used--and it would need to be able to accommodate multiple images. --LJ (talk) 08:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, marker_image=FOO shouldn't be a problem, as FOO uses full image syntax, and that can include alt text. If FOO contains multiple images, each can contain its own alt text. If I'm wrong, could you please give a counterexample? Eubulides (talk) 09:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

My apologies...I forgot that parameter used full image syntax. Nevertheless, it will need to be done manually, and instructions should be left somewhere as to what the manual alt text should say to keep it uniform with automatic text. --LJ (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

So should I (or somebody else if they want to do it) change Infobox road to include "(name of route) shield" as the alt text? --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Wow, this is quite refreshing. I log on to wikipedia today, and find out that while I was out, you all took care of this. Thanks TMF, Rschen, LJ, NE2, Eubulides and whomever else I missed. I may need one of you to give me a digest, as I'm not sure I got all of this.Dave (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There are four ways that we need to implement WP:ALT as listed above. In terms of your FAC, we fixed #1 and #2. #3 has been fixed but there is still a bit of controversy over how it was fixed (as it turns off the image links in {{jct}}.) We're still working on #4. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Status

The numbered items refer to the list above

- DONE, everybody happy
- DONE, everybody happy
- Temp solution in place, not everybody happy
What about having the alt text just be "Shield" or "Shield for" that will allow the link, and will not be redundant with the designation which is normally just to the right of the shield icon?
- Not done, but solution proposed

Dave (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

re #3: I'm not entirely sure how the screen reader technology works, but I'd imagine this solution would be less ideal when more than one shield is used.

I-15 / US 93 might come up similar to "[Shield for] [Shield for] Interstate 15 U.S. Route 93". --LJ (talk) 23:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll admit it's not perfect, but just a hunch, those that depend on a screen reader have had to endure much worse.Dave (talk) 01:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The actual verbiage depends on the screen reader and its settings, but it might be something like "Shield for link Shield for link Eye fifteen link slash You Ess ninety three link". The "Shield for link Shield for link" is just noise and should be absent. The noise is more aggravation than one might at first think, because screen readers typically let you "tab" to the next link, and this is a common operation, and the two "Shield for link"s are two pieces of noise to tab over. You are correct that this is just one thing among many aggravations for the visually impaired, but it's a noticeable aggravation and it's pretty easy to fix, so let's fix it. Eubulides (talk) 02:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The more I think about this, removing the link isn't that big of deal. If someone really wants to see a larger version of the (in this example) US-93 or I-15 shields, they can't do it directly, but they can click on the link to the right of the shield, which will take them to the appropriate article, where they can click on the shield.Dave (talk) 02:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I implemented the sub-templates to give a type of M-Bus so that BUS M-28 would correctly be ALT-compliant in the M-28 and US 41 articles. Now though, {{jct}} is making the single graphic only 20px high, instead of 20px wide. Any ideas how to correct what I did so that jct will handle the 3 remaining state trunkline business routes and still look good? Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me if we remove the link to the image page, we should use neutered shields in jct because you cannot read the state nor click on it to be able to read it. --MPD^{T / C} 02:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Re this point, I agree - and I thought using neutral shields was the current nationwide standard anyway. – T M F 02:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, per a previous discussion we should be using neutral shields. The problem is a certain set of editors in a certain state (hint rhymes with Alifornia) have edit warred them back to the point everybody quit trying to fix it.Dave (talk) 02:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Set up Michigan to generate the "banner" separate from the shield. Pennsylvania is an example of a state that has it enabled; see Pennsylvania Route 286. (I don't know how to enable the banner, though; someone else did it for PA.) – T M F 02:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I experimented with ALT on New Jersey Route 208. Can somebody look over it to make sure I am doing it right? Dough4872 (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Captions look good. You need to put in alt text for the shield at the top though. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Shields in the infobox other than the main route image need to either use the {{jct}} template or use "link=" in the image syntax to prevent showing up as image links. Other than that, I'd say you've got the hang of it based on what I've read. --LJ (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I used {{jct}} in for the infobox junctions. Thanks Rschen and LJ for the feedback. Dough4872 (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal #2

See Talk:County Route 626 (Cape May County, New Jersey). Basically, the deal is whether or not to merge New Jersey Route 162 and County Route 626 (Cape May County, New Jersey). Dough4872 (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought consensus was: most county routes are not notable enough for a article and articles about county routes should establish the notability up front and fast.Dave (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Different situation :| - NJ 162 becomes CR 626 at both termini, and I am trying to get a consensus to merge 626 for a covering of both articles in NJ 162.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 16:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Is CR 626 a former part of NJ 162? That might establish some historical notability and would make it prudent to discuss in the same article. --LJ (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope. CR 626 was split designation wise when NJ 162 was built. CR 626 now just continues on both sides of the state road.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 18:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Another merge along this line concerns New Jersey Route 13. This route is the internal designation for the state-maintained Lovelandtown Bridge which connects to County Route 632 (Ocean County, New Jersey) on both ends. How should these three redundant articles possibly be combined into one? Dough4872 (talk) 01:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure of combining all three into one, but I would definitely consider merging NJ 13 into the Lovelandtown Bridge article. If I read the NJ 13 article correctly, all NJ 13 is is an unsigned designation for the Lovelandtown Bridge and its east and west approaches. I say merge the route into the structure since most people probably know that stretch of roadway more by the bridge name than the designation it carries. Explaining that the route designation continues a fraction of a mile beyond both ends of the bridge is simple enough and likely wouldn't cause much confusion. – T M F 05:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

CR 632 can be outright merged to the Ocean County 600s list imo. I've traveled it, and NJ 13. NJ 13 is the only interesting part to the CR in the first place. As for Lovelandtown and NJ 13, merging it that way would also mean merging all the actually interesting historic takeover info in state laws. It was former NJ 13-E, a spinoff of the former Ocean County Route 13-E. The state took over NJ 13 in sake of extending it to NJ 37. My thinking is that we could do two things. The first is merge CR 632 into NJ 13, and detail the route's history, because its more interesting, and the bridge itself is not the entire route, as signage and the SLDs go down a short distance on the avenues on each side, then use Lovelandtown Bridge's article to detail the bridge, which is interesting because its been replaced three times in the last 90 years. The second is to do the above and merge NJ 13 into Lovelandtown Bridge. I would support the first option myself, but if the second one is the consensus, I'll deal with that.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 05:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Page move concerns

Resolved

– Page moves reverted. Dough4872 (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Farm to Market Roads in East Texas (talk) List-Class (Mid-Class) renamed to List of farm to market roads in East Texas
List of Farm to Market Roads in South Texas (talk) List-Class (Mid-Class) renamed to List of farm to market roads in South Texas
List of Farm to Market Roads in West Texas (talk) List-Class (Mid-Class) renamed to List of farm to market roads in West Texas
List of Farm to Market Roads in the Gulf Coast of Texas (talk) List-Class (Mid-Class) renamed to List of farm to market roads in the Gulf Coast of Texas
List of Farm to Market Roads in Trans-Pecos Texas (talk) List-Class (No-Class) renamed to List of farm to market roads in Trans-Pecos Texas

--Rschen7754 (T C) 23:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

According to this official source, "Farm to Market Road" needs to be capitalized as such. Therefore, the pages should be moved back to their original locations. Dough4872 (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Admrboltz (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement regarding my recent rollbacks of the removal of major cities boxes

Resolved

– Seems like he's moved on. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I am speaking as an administrator here giving rationale for my actions. This seems like the place where people would read it who care.

The 75.47 IP removing major cities boxes is User:I-10, who was indefinitely banned within the last year. Wikipedia policy is to revert all banned users' edits. While yes, it is a pain to have to go back and redo those edits, especially when they do follow our new guideline regarding major cities boxes, we need to protect the encyclopedia by discouraging this banned user (who has caused us much hardship) from ever editing Wikipedia again. Therefore, we need to apply WP:RBI across the board, and this means reverting / rollbacking all his edits. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I get your point, but isn't that a bit procrustean? Dave (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't get the classical reference. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

OK I'll try again: I get your point; but, isn't this forcing conformity with a policy when it really isn't necessary? If the edit is beneficial, why not just let it be? There will be plenty of other opportunities to revert this editor, I promise =-)Dave (talk) 21:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that it is necessary to revert *all* edits by this user so that they get frustrated and move on; and to show them that a ban is a ban and that they need to find another hobby. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

That policy doesn't mention anything about reverting good edits. It just sounds like you are taking the easy way out and reverting without looking. Thus harming the community in the process. I strongly suggest you stop and revert yourself on some of the edits you have made, you are being as disruptive as he is. Jeni ^(talk) 21:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, it's an essay, not a policy.Dave (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

All the more reason to ignore it! Jeni ^(talk) 21:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I have done it. Jeni ^(talk) 22:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:RBI may be an essay, but WP:BAN is policy. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you read that page at all? "This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned user, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." Jeni ^(talk) 22:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough (though the wording is "must" indicating that such is not prohibited at all), but there were definitely ambiguous cases included in there (such as the entire removal of the junctions section of the infobox, which was not mandated by WP:USRD/STDS at all). (I don't think that we should be letting this user make even constructive edits as then he will get more nerve and try more foolish things; I say this as the administrator who has had to deal with this user for the last few years. If people think I'm wrong, then I won't revert his good edits, but if something blows up, don't say I didn't warn you.) Regardless, I've issued a range block for 72 hours, so we won't see him for a few days. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't reverted your reverts of controversial edits. On those articles I edited them manually to remove the cities box. Next time you do such a mass revert, I urge you to click diff and check the edit before reverting, it only takes a few seconds. I'm sure you also know that using rollback to revert anything other than vandalism is against policy? Jeni ^(talk) 23:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Banned user edits can be rollbacked. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I'm trying to block User:75.47.128.0/19 instead now as that's a smaller rangeblock (only blocking the correct half, I hope). If this backfires then I'll block the original range again. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Interstate 726

Resolved

– Trashed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if this is speculation or if this is reliable or what. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Almost certainly a hoax. --NE2 02:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. He did put a decent amount of work, but WP:NOT a web host. --Admrboltz (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Maryland Route 2 in Baltimore

Resolved

– Page move reverted. Dough4872 (talk) 00:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Recently a user moved St. Paul Street-Calvert Street to Maryland Route 2 in Baltimore. What they basically did was rename a fine article title to something nonstandard and copied information from the MD 2 article, which itself is well-written. What should be done here? I would think reverting the move. Dough4872 (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I would revert it. If there needs to be a route description of MD 2 in Baltimore that badly, it can go in the MD 2 article. It sounds like the two streets need to be kept in separate articles because they have their own histories. Plus the article in its current state makes it sound like MD 2 extends over the entire length of both streets, which is not the case. St Paul Street is MD 139 (I think) north of US 1, and Calvert Street continues north unnumbered from the same point. Xenon54 / talk / 02:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted it. Dough4872 (talk) 00:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Category for deletion

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_August_31#Category:State_highways_inspired_by_US_highways Dave (talk) 05:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

New Jersey Route 64

Resolved

– Took out directions altogether. Dough4872 (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

In the GA review for New Jersey Route 64, there is currently a huge issue over whether the route is north-south or east-west. It is orientated in a east-west direction and considered that in the legislation for its predecessor 31A, but is marked north-south on the straight line diagram. I wanted greater opinion on what direction the route should be considered. (It is not signed in the field.) Dough4872 (talk) 00:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This is bullshit. The route is marked east-west on the SLD as proved by the alignment of Route 1 to the west! Route 1 is heading north-south, meaning Route 64 is east-west. The state map disagrees, showing a east-west alignment. Route 31A is marked east west in legislation. I refuse to budge and resort to other measures.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 00:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It is only marked east-west in physical orientation. At the top of the SLD it says "NJ 64 (South to North)". Explain that. Just because US 1 is N-S has nothing to do with the direction of NJ 64. Many north-south routes perpendicularly intersect. By the way, CR 571, which continues past 64 in both directions, is a north-south road, which probably explains why 64 is labeled as such. Dough4872 (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

No its not signed like that. We're in Mercer County, where its marked east-west. So what if its north-south in Ocean County? Image #1: CR 571 East marked twice!, Route 571 West, 571 East - and this is at 64! - Signage disagrees totally.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 00:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

But 526 is signed north-south. Dough4872 (talk) 01:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Suspected vandalism

An IP editor has made a number of changes to roads articles, which given his/her record are probably not good edits please see here I don't know enough about roads in the US to be sure, could somebody who has better knowledge have a look. -- Drappel (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed the changes related to US 9. Someone with knowledge of the New Jersey / New England area should look at the IP's edits to various expressway and NJ county route articles--they seem suspect, but I'm not familiar enough to be certain. --LJ (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Future road

Resolved

– The link is red... --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it's just as well...IMO {{future road}} became useless when the "future roads" category was removed from it a while back. – T M F 05:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Infobox Interstate/Business

Resolved

– The link is red... --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi project, I want to inform you, that I found this template and it is not used. So Template:Infobox Interstate/Business has been nominated for deletion. Your members are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Greetings. Sebastian scha. (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistency in U.S. Route 14

Resolved

– Rschen7754 (T C) 20:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Where's the western end of U.S. Route 14? The article lede says it ends at the east entrance of Yellowstone National Park, but the "Wyoming" section of the route description and Google Maps both have it ending at West Thumb, well inside the park. --Carnildo (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

From what I believe it is at the park boundary as there are no U.S. routes in Yellowstone. Don't take the current word in the article and don't trust Google as they have many errors with marking routes on their maps. Dough4872 (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Echoing Dough, Google maps is surprisingly unreliable about details such as this. For a more official source, Per AASHTO, the western terminus is at the east entrance of Yellowstone National Park (see [2], download the monster spreadsheet.) Dave (talk) 02:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The park service and various maps may have it labeled within the park for continuity purposes. However, it's best to go with a more reliable source such as the AASHTO list (or if the Wyoming DOT has a route log). I seem to recall reading once that no US routes "officially" exist within Yellowstone Nat'l Park. --LJ (talk) 03:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not really labeled in the park, except for possibly guiding people to the exits (and done in the wood signs as plain text). --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's even signed as text in the park; this is the only sign I see at the turn for the east entrance. US 20 actually has a gap through the park, much like US 10 across Lake Michigan or US 2 across Canada. US 441 appears to have a gap through Great Smoky Mountains National Park, at least based on signage on the Blue Ridge Parkway. --NE2 08:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it's been a few years so I wasn't even sure. I never ever saw anything by the Wyoming DOT in Yellowstone or even the park service owned land in between Grand Teton and Yellowstone. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

GAN discussion.

There is currently a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Nomination restrictions which may interest you guys, as you nominate GA's fairly regularly. Jeni ^(talk) 16:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:USSH violations

[3] [4] It's obvious this guy doesn't care about WP:USSH. Could an administrator take care of any blocks if necessary? (I'm stepping out for a few days). --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Rschen, I think you overreacted. Yes, I highly doubt that Georgia State Route X is called Georgia X by locals. SR is the norm for most states (although I'm not familiar with Georgia) This merited a revert and explaining on the talk page. He also erred in Interstate highway vs. Interstate Highway. However, there were also positive improvements to the prose made in the articles.Dave (talk) 07:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you miss the point... USSH leaves no room for exception. The policy basically says "Do this or you will be blocked." --Rschen7754 (T C) 16:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The "shoot on site" orders from Arbcom were for page moves. Admittedly doing a search and replace for all instances of the article title in the text of the article is similar to a page move; however, it's not a literal page move. I'm not defending this change, just questioning if the approach used to address it. The approach used is more appropriate for a vandal or a user that knows the policy. I'm not convinced that was the case here.Dave (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it also included changing the text to break what is now USSH. I know because I got blocked for doing similar actions that Radiojon is now doing. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I wasn't aware that the block on site extended that far. My apologies.Dave (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Route 23 in Michigan

Resolved

– Rschen7754 (T C) 20:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I could use some help cleaning up U.S. Route 23 in Michigan. I've added a section describing the route, as well as some sources, but I don't know where to find more sources, or what else the article needs. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If you wanna join us on IRC at #wikipedia-en-roads , I am sure we canr help you :).Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 16:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Meh. I was getting tired of using IRC; it was horribly glitchy after I got my new router, and it was taking up space. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, the sources for this highway aren't the best, but with that said this is better sourced that many road articles I've come across. Here are my observations:

Only two sources are not maps. IMO maps should be for supporting evidence, an article should not rely on a map as the primary source. Otherwise someone could save time by just looking at a map.
The only two non-map sources are Michigan Highways. This looks like a good source, but is a personal website. As such, it would have a tough time passing a good article review.

My advice would be to look at period newspapers around the time segments were constructed or rebuilt. (the challenge is many may not refer to it as US-23, many may refer to it by a project name) Also search on community info sites, for the communities the route serves. I know this takes a while, all too well. But, IMO, this is where the best info comes from. Dave (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Michigan Highways.org is used in plenty of GA- and FA-class articles, so I would say that it's irrefutably a reliable source (not to mention that the author is a professional cartographer who has worked for the state). As for the other sources, I've been trying to find any, but I don't have any access to any local papers. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It's is true that self published sources are allowed if the author is deemed an expert in the field. However the onus will be on the nominator to show that. With that said, it may be worth fighting the good fight on the next FA nomination. I count 3 Michigan highways that have passed an FA review [5]. I didn't see MichiganHighways.org listed as a source in those 3, but to be honest I just did a quick glance. For period newspapers, here are good starting points, [6] Also many newspaper publishers contract out to www.newsbank.com for on-line access to old articles. However, I've only accessed them via the individual newspaper, never through newsbank's website. Also many state level libraries are starting to scan old newspapers and make them available. However, not being from Michigan, I'm not aware of a library that has or is in the process of doing this. Dave (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Michigan Highways isn't a source in the Michigan FAs. It's just an external link in them. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:New Jersey Route 68/GA1

Resolved

– Unfortunately, it failed... --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Some concerns have arisen regarding the inclusion of major intersections tables on every USRD article. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

old USRD news bar

We have an old Project News sidebar (located at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/news) that is no longer updated, having been replaced by the {{USRD Announcements}} template. The outdated newsbar is still linked in the USRD project navigation bar found on most USRD pages. It appears that the only pages linking to the old news bar are those using the USRD nav bar. Since we're dealing with an outdated/deprecated page, would there be any objection to removing the Project News link from the nav bar (or replacing with a link to the announcements template) and deleting the old news page? --LJ (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say go for it. Also, {{Project U.S. Roads}} is deprecated... should that be deleted? (People still use that). --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think {{Project U.S. Roads}} should be deleted (as it is not updated) and be replaced with {{USRD Announcements}} on every user page it is transcluded to. Dough4872 (talk) 01:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've commented out the news bar link from the navigation box. I agree with Dough regarding {{Project U.S. Roads}}. While we're at it this should include {{Project U.S. Roads East}}, {{Project U.S. Roads West}} and any unused descendants. --LJ (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say all the unused ones should be sent to WP:TFD. Dough4872 (talk) 02:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. --Admrboltz (talk) 02:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this may be done as a CSD for deprecated template (don't remember the number). --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be a number for deprecated templates...I guess this will have to go to TfD then. Related question: What all in Category:WikiProject U.S. Roads templates can be deleted? --LJ (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say all but the last two (the ACR template and the Vermont junction list template), but all of the Project US Roads subtemplates are still transcluded in many locations. – T M F 20:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah a version of {{USRD Announcements}} uses them... however, I'd say over 90% of them are not regularly updated. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know there was a full version. But yeah, like you said a lot of the templates haven't been touched in a while. I think the reason for that is that they're no longer visible nor prominent on the project pages (the project pages use the "slimlined" version of USRD Announcements and not the "full" version). IMO, we should consider consolidating the by-state news templates into regional news templates if not outright delete them since most right now are empty or have outdated items. – T M F 18:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated the three sidebars for TfD. --Admrboltz (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC) I have also nominated Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/news for MfD. --Admrboltz (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion (FL 600A)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florida State Road 600A (2nd nomination) --NE2 05:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion (NJ 64)

Resolved

– -- no consensus, but it appears the tides may be turning on auto notability for most roads... --Admrboltz (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Jersey Route 64 --NE2 19:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope the tide for auto-notability of primary numbered roads doesn't change. Can you imagine the chaos that would result? We'd have to basically redo half of all we've ever done and we'd be spending most of our time debating whether a route is notable enough or not. If that tide changes, I quit. --Triadian (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Resolved

– Merged. Dough4872 (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:U.S. Route 1 in New Jersey#Merging Trenton Freeway. Dough4872 (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Roadology

An article that you have been involved in editing, Roadology, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roadology. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Triadian (talk) 05:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

Resolved

– Merged. --Fredddie ™ 03:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Avenue of the Saints --Fredddie ™ 01:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of merges, I noticed New Jersey Route 180 is back. --NE2 01:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Remerged. Hope it sticks. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

another merger candidate: PR-14 vs. Carretera Central

(section renamed by doncram from "another merger candidate" for more specific reference later)

Puerto Rico Highway 14 and Carretera Central (Puerto Rico). The Carretera Central is a historic road that runs along PR-14 from Ponce to Cayey and then follows PR-1 from Cayey to San Juan. I think it makes more sense to discuss PR-14 in the context of the historic road. Currently, User:Doncram is opposed to merging. I would like to solicit opinions as to whether this is a good idea. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 16:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I began the Carretera Central (Puerto Rico) article a day or two ago and Polaron has been battling to redirect it to Puerto Rico Highway 14 or vice versa, but without presenting any sources or any reasoning in fact, just battling by redirects. As with dealing with Polaron RE articles in other areas of wikipedia (cf. Talk:List of RHPs in CT, I am having difficulty dealing with Polaron here. This is disrupting my ability to develop a DYK here, for example. I do welcome discussion at Talk pages, especially regarding sources that would enrich the articles. I will promptly remove unsourced statements from the articles however and I will revert undiscussed mergers and redirects. doncram (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I would merge Carretera Central into PR 14 since the numerical designation should take precedence. They are both short articles and should be combined. Dough4872 (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the only problem with that is that the historic name actually encompasses two different route numbers (but the whole of PR-14 is part of the historic highway) so it might be better in to merge PR-14 into the historic highway article. --Polaron | Talk 17:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I just realized that and therefore must agree. This is somewhat similar to the discussion of merging IA 27 and MO 27 into Avenue of the Saints. Dough4872 (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

How do you all make such snap judgments? How do you know what is the route of the Carretera Central? I just began the article on the historic Carretera Central and have not yet found a map of it. I don't know about IA and MO 27. What this seems more like is forcing mergers of articles about modern U.S. or state or county routes with an article on the historic Route 66. Suppose a state route now partly follows the original path of route 66 but differs in some places within the state, or you don't have the information whether it differs in some places or not. Probably it would be better to let the state route be covered in a separate article. Certainly it is not helpful to make somewhat dramatic changes such as redirects and mergers when there is not yet any shared information--meaning sources--establishing to what extent the two overlap. doncram (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in the AotS example, 27 was a number specifically chosen by the states to follow the highway, which was itself a new designation. This is very different from a historic road becoming part of a modern numbering system. --NE2 19:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This may be a case where there is enough history for two separate articles. Compare Albany Post Road/Old Albany Post Road (which probably should be merged together) and U.S. Route 9 in New York, or Lancaster Turnpike (why does this have a junction list?) and U.S. Route 30 in Pennsylvania. (For the record, U.S. Route 66 in Kansas has been merged into its modern designation, but that's a very short segment.) --NE2 19:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Note also that Carretera Central, substantially complete in 1886, was a wagon road. Perhaps the National Road would be a better U.S. mainland road to compare it to, rather than Route 66 which was at least for cars.

I thought the above discussion and other info that I added at Talk:Carretera Central (Puerto Rico) would have resolved this by now. And no source comparing PR-14 to Carretera Central has emerged. But per comment Talk:Puerto Rico Highway 14, there remains some disagreement. I don't see any actual merger discussion open about this which can be closed, but perhaps some more comments would help. Is this where merger proposals are actually discussed and resolved, in this WikiProject? doncram (talk) 00:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Merger again...

Talk:Interstate 5 in California - the article to be merged in is Santa Ana Freeway. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Category discussion

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 12#Former and future Interstate Highway categories – T M F 01:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Questionable edits from previously disruptive editor

Special:Contributions/66.66.117.141

This user has been on an editing spree, mostly playing with the termini and junction lists. These edits looked somewhat questionable. I'm not 100% familiar with the guidelines for those anymore, but I noticed this user has a pattern of violating those guidelines, so I'm posting here. --Sable232 (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If those sort of edits aren't bad, they should be. (regarding changing the terminus from I-56 to I-56/somemeaninglesscountyroadthatnobodycaresabout/anothersuchroad). --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I took a brief browse at this IP's contributions, which suggests that the user has been browsing the state highways for certain states chronologically and making edits along the way. This has amounted to at least 750 edits over the two or so weeks alone. I find it highly unlikely that somebody editing from a random IP address would know enough to about roads and highways to make so many edits to so many state highway articles for Georgia, Florida, Wisconsin, Illinois, Oklahoma, and Alabama, among other states. It also seems unlikely that so much would need changing. However, two random spot checks — Illinois Route 71 (diff) and Missouri Route 177 (diff) — revealed that the IP merely added links/shields to the infobox (without using the jct template, unfortunately) for route termini already mentioned in the brief prose. So, yeah... --LJ (talk) 10:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Those are two rare edits where the person's edit is actually constructive. Most of the time, the guy just clutters up infoboxes by adding minor county routes or otherwise unnecessary designations. I mean, who cares if WIS 114 ends at CH JJ? other than this guy? – T M F 23:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I gave him a final warning. If he continues I'll just give short term blocks. The guy does not respond at all to messages on his talk page. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I would just start blocking him now as I severely doubt he'll ever stop. Remember that this guy has a long track record through another IP and a couple of blocked accounts of making edits like these. – T M F 23:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There going to be any complaints if I rollback his edits? --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Rollbacking the edits is probably a bad idea. The edits are more unnecessary and, I suppose, disruptive than they are vandalism. I don't believe rollback can be used for any edits that aren't vandalism. – T M F 23:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Commons...

This is just a call for help - please check your Commons watchlist more frequently (especially those who upload a lot of USRD stuff there). Unfortunately, we have had several users going through and making a mess of our organization system there, and very few users are watching it. Thanks! --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this the same issue as I was working on a couple of months ago? [7] Or is this a different vandal. The vandal linked above had a fascination for creating bogus Interstate 70 related articles (such as Interstate 870 and Interstate 70 in California) after being blocked on the english wikipedia, he moved on to commons, then the German wikipedia, then the Portuguese Wikipedia. I'll give it to the guy, he's determined. Dave (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a lot of stuff. We had to file two checkuser requests in one week. We had users adding highway shields to bad categories, converting categories into galleries, and all sorts of stuff. Basically, since nobody watches Commons, these bad users can run amuck and screw things up. I think that many of these users are not right in the head. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:British Columbia Highway 7

If anyone is bored, here's a debate regarding the western terminus of BC 7 - from the looks of it I think this would be an easy thing for an experienced USRD user to do. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

USSH violation in NJ

Resolved

– Template changed to comply with USSH Dough4872 (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed that the abbreviations used for New Jersey State Routes in Template:Infobox road/NJ/abbrev NJ is in violation of WP:USSH, as it uses "NJ X" rather than "Route X" that is called for. Other states that use "Route X", such as MA, are abbreviated as such in the template. A previous discussion from 2006 called for the "Route X" abbreviation to be changed to "NJ X", but this is a violation of USSH. Should this be changed back in order to comply with USSH? Dough4872 (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to the abbreviation used in the browse at the bottom of the infobox? It's not a violation of USSH, as that policy is really in relation to the names of articles. Looking at WP:USRD/STDS#, it says that route links in the infobox should be in an abbreviated form and use an abbreviation common to that state. So, by my interpretation, this isn't a violation of the USSH guidelines per se. However, it seems that "NJ ##" isn't a notation used in article prose nor by the NJ DOT, so it might be prudent to change the links as Dough4872 suggests.

As far as I am aware, we don't have a list of abbreviations that each state uses. For sake of completeness, is this something that should be added to USSH? --LJ (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

In the 2006 discussion, it mentioned some official sources use "NJ X". For example, the straight-line diagrams for state routes use this notation. However, in the GA review for New Jersey Route 50, I was told the use of "NJ X" in the article was a violation of what was determined at WP:SRNC and that "Route X" needed to be used. Dough4872 (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:USSH relates to all mentions of a route in an article, not just the title. (If you want an explanation as to why this is so, you can ask me; I'll save people from the mess). --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

So, the template needs to be changed? Dough4872 (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I erred previously when I stated that WP:USSH only applied to titles, as it does specify how full route names should be used in prose. However, WP:USSH fails to specify an "official" abbreviated form for use in prose or infoboxes/junction lists. That's why I didn't believe the issue at hand was technically a violation of the WP:USSH policy, and why I was asking about including such information to eliminate any ambiguity. (Example: Let's say that someone keeps changing "SR 88" to "Route 88", even though the former is the accepted abbreviation. There's no policy I can point to to prove such a person wrong.) For the record, I agree with changing the NJ template...just trying to point out something that should possibly be codified or better explained somewhere. --LJ (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the template. Dough4872 (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This does apply to all mentions, including linking (which is explicitly mentioned in the text). --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Would it be beneficial to make a list of official abbreviations and add them to WP:USSH? --Fredddie ™ 00:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe that it would be. The only mention of abbreviations in WP:USSH now is in regards to their use in junction lists. All it says is, "...for a ELG or junction list table, use a short form of the official name or an officially used abbreviation as the displayed text." We don't have a list of officially used abbreviations documented in any policy or guideline I've come across. --LJ (talk) 06:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

My take is that abbreviations in prose should definitely be allowed under USSH as long as they serve as a shortening of the common name specified by USSH. This has been the de facto practice, at least in New York and Vermont, for years, even before SRNC. – T M F 00:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with this take--the de facto practice is fairly widespread, and is one of the ways I commonly vary my writing in order to avoid overuse of the official route name in the prose. It should also be noted that the Names section of the USRD standards states "highway names in the main body of the article (i.e. in the prose, not in the infobox) can either be abbreviated as above or written out fully"...although the placement of this statement makes it ambiguous as to whether it applies to all prose or only links within the prose.

Some of the guidelines on WP:USRD/Standards and WP:USSH doesn't align with each other. USSH makes it sound as though the official name should always be used in prose and links (implying no abbreviations except in the infobox and in junction lists), whereas USRD/STDS shows how route links can be abbreviated in the prose. I feel there's article writing guidelines present on the USSH page that would be more beneficial if located and explained on the USRD Standards page. --LJ (talk) 06:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The strange thing is that NJDOT almost never uses New Jersey Route x, but they do use NJ x as an abbreviation: [8][9] --NE2 13:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think NJDOT uses both, but signage like that is slim now.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 14:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

NJDOT does not use "New Jersey Route X", they use "Route X" such as here and here. "New Jersey Route x" is used as an article title for disambiguation purposes. Dough4872 (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware; what I'm pointing out is that they sometimes abbreviate as NJ x despite not using New Jersey Route x. --NE2 21:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

After seeing a comment from another editor on WT:USSH, I think this abbreviation issue needs to be dealt with. I've put together a preliminary list of "official" short-form abbreviations (which I'm sure isn't perfect), so please comment further at WT:USSH#Abbreviations_of_names. My goal is to add this to the table on WP:USSH once it's been finalized, creating an official centralized list of abbreviations that editors can reference. --LJ (talk) 06:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 October 29 re {{I-45 aux}} --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Rewording on WP:USRD

Some of our project pages are a bit outdated (relating to the 2006-2008 era when we were going in between arbitration cases) and I'm updating them where there is nothing controversial about the rewordings. However there are two things that are controversial and that there is no easy way to reword. I'll bring up the first one: sections 6.5 and 9.1 (both relating to project subordination). Surely there must be some more elegant and less inflammatory way to say something similar? I remember that I added those sections in a hurry during some random debate a few years ago, and now it just seems awkward. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Definitely needs to be done. Don't worry if you make a mistake I'm sure the pitchfork brigade will make you aware of it. =-) Dave (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Does USRD really need all the subordinate projects? I don't understand why each state needs, or needed, its own project. Would we be better served by regional task forces? I'm not trying to be argumentative here. --Fredddie ™ 00:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

When people have tried to propose that in the past, there have been several arguments. Thus, I don't want to touch that issue at this point in time. :| --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Lately, I have been beginning to question the need of the state projects. Many of them have become inactive and most of the collaboration takes place at USRD. Dough4872 (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There are definitely some state projects that are dead (such as KY and WV) but there's also some that are very much alive (such as NY). I think any kind of consolidation needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. – T M F 18:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we need to evaluate every state subproject and demote the inactive ones to task forces. Dough4872 (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You can demote WASH, we've got one editor (me) still active, but tons of good quality articles. –CG 19:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing that there are some projects that are active but would be willing to be consolidated under USRD, some that are active but do not want to be consolidated under USRD, and some projects that are inactive. Question is, what do we do with the first category? --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess voluntarily demote them to task forces. Dough4872 (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

But is this the direction that we want to go? Do we want to convert all the state WPs to task forces eventually? --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

(od) There's also a scope issue by making them task forces. Moving a project to a subpage of USRD essentially turns it into a generic road project whether or not it was a state highway-only project or not by way of the simple name ("Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/West Virginia" and such). – T M F 04:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the other thing I wanted to discuss was the scope issue. :| --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps scope should be discussed first

Not necessarily a great topic to bring up, but the {{disputed}} tags have been on WP:USRD and WP:CASH for a year, and it's not exactly attractive to new users. Any thoughts? --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

As it's been over a year, and nobody has left so much as a comment about it, it's clearly not disputed anymore. At a minimum delete the tags. Speaking for myself, I don't have an issue if you (or anybody else) just throws something in the section. If it's wrong, it will at least get a discussion started. I know last time this landed at Arbcom, but I _hope_ the project has matured since then.Dave (talk) 09:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, in order to resolve the first issue we have to resolve this one. It seems to me that the **SH projects are now incorporating county routes and other primary roads. Is this the direction we want to go? --Rschen7754 (T C) 09:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

County roads can die in a fire. :P —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't like it, but that should be determined on a subproject level. – T M F 19:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Process note: not involved in the disputes over authority, however I believe in both cases the {{disputed}} tag is improperly used. The correct tag to use would have been {{Disputedtag}} for policy and guideline pages. In other words, how can anyone disprove "This article's factual accuracy is disputed" for a project page? It's a project, not an encyclopedia article subject. On the basis of use of an improper tag, you could remove them and point out "tag for use in main namespace articles improperly placed on project page" in the edit summary. See what happens next. Sswonk (talk) 12:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Crap! I saw this diff and totally agree with the short but sweet edit summary by Rschen7754. Sswonk (talk) 22:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Please forgive, as I was blissfully ignorant of what was going on around here when these disputes started (I was a newbie, in newbie heaven). If I understand this correctly, the fight was over how much "control" and or "right to control" the project had over various types of articles (auto-trails, state roads with or without an active sub-project etc.) IIRC, the result of the Arbcom case was that projects don't own anything, but are there assist articles with a common set of challenges improve. I will admit that the fight over auto trails was the first fight I've ever seen where people in a project were saying, no you cant tag that article as part of my project. I suspect this was due to the damage it would cause to a projects numbers for a contest, which, if true, is highly immature. I would say as long as we don't use words implying controllership, or ownership, there wont' be a problem. Most other projects have _guidelines_ saying like articles within the scope of this project include, but are not limited to.... Dave (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I was the one who placed the tags. :P --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the scope issue. The WP is U.S. Roads, so by mere definition we create and improve articles/content about roads in the U.S. Am I missing something? --Fredddie ™ 02:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The second highways arbitration case was all about this issue. (I'd link you to a proper discussion but it's spread out all over the place - try looking at the archives of this page, WT:CASH, and the arbitration case Highways 2). --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

How about this for an idea...

Moving the inactive projects to Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/<whatever the project was named, minus WikiProject>? --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

That would work. Dough4872 (talk) 00:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

If we were to do this, would the inactive projects be considered task forces? If so, would current task forces be renamed to match? --LJ (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, they would. I suppose we could rename the task forces to match. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I support consolidating inactive (and even semi-active) projects, go for it.Dave (talk) 01:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Works for me --Admrboltz (talk) 01:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

That would probably work. – T M F 02:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not, WP:USRD/<state> (abbreviated for brevity's sake)? --Fredddie ™ 02:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

See above. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

An abbreviated form would be simpler, though--the current Nevada project (task force) is this way. The full name could remain in the documentation. --LJ (talk) 10:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

We should start a poll of deciding which projects before going ahead with this.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 03:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Considering that we have unanimous consensus for this, I don't think a poll is needed at this point. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I think he means which projects to demote. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I would support consolidation of inactive (or semi-active) state projects under USRD. Before proceeding, it would be best to define "inactive" or "semi-active"--what characteristics make a project active or inactive? Would one regular editor constitute an active or inactive project? --LJ (talk) 10:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't support the semi's, because then what would happen if it got active all apparent? Those usually stand better chances than the really inactive ones. I would support the definitely dead ones.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 13:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Again disclaiming that I wasn't in on the round of discussions last year: with WP:MASH standing as an example of a third concept, quasi-active – 14 edits to the project page in two years, 11 edits to the project talk. However, people are taking care of the articles themselves and watching them. Why not just request for comments on project talks for projects like that, i.e. "This project is effectively inactive. USRD is considering moving this project to a subpage of the USRD to encourage greater participation. Editors who watch this page are encouraged to seek comments from regular editors of articles under its scope." ? This could be done for pages that have, say, less than 30 combined edits to both project and project talk pages since August 2007. Sswonk (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

How about we re-write the whole page?

Scary thought, isn't it? This would be a golden opportunity to do some strategic planning.

First we should define a vision, which is currently covered badly by the project's scope. The vision needs to be clear, unambiguous, and realistic. Example:

This WikiProject aims to create the most accurate and most searched resource on the Internet about roads in the United States.

Next, a mission, which should provide direction. Example:

We at this WikiProject are committed to working together to create quality content, set reasonable standards, set aside personal differences, and appropriately resolve conflicts for the benefit of all readers of Wikipedia. Should some editors not be able to follow these procedures, they should step aside for a while and allow other editors to continue editing. No one editor controls this WikiProject, but a veteran editor's opinions should be respected.

Then, a list of goals which we all would share. Examples:

Allow other WikiProjects which may cover a topic or article better to do so

Consolidate all articles and sub-projects under WP:USRD

Create task forces for each state, organizing them under both WP:USRD and that state's WikiProject

Identify other areas of the project which require task forces

Create standards for the project

Uphold those standards

Obviously, this is a radical solution. And obviously, this is how I would organize USRD if this were Fredddiepedia.

In reality, though, WP:USRD is a mess and could use some form of reorganization. --Fredddie ™ 19:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a radical solution, but probably the most ideal solution for the long term. I've thought the project page could use an overhaul for some time, but haven't really been eager to address the issue. This process of redefining/solidifying the scope--especially if we're talking about potential consolidation of inactive projects--would seem like the most opportune time to tackle this. We'd have to settle the scope and vision/mission stuff first, then figure out how to best present/reorganize this on the project page. --LJ (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding goal 3: Create task forces for each state, organizing them under both WP:USRD and that state's WikiProject. Does "state's WikiProject" mean the WikiProject for the entire state, i.e. WP:MASS and not the WikiProject for the roads within the state, i.e. WP:MASH, which would be eliminated and redirected to a state task force for roads, WP:MASH --> USRD/MA (or USRD/MASH)? Sswonk (talk) 13:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that WP:CASH should be under WP:CA, for example. That subjects road articles to state WP standards, and that isn't appropriate at all. Regarding making all SH WPs TFs, I personally think that is a good idea; however, I don't want to push for it if people disagree. --Rschen7754 (T C) 15:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, WP:CAL has listed WP:CASH as belonging to CAL since 2005-06-30 and both CAL and USRD since 2008-09-10.--Fredddie ™ 20:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that Fredddie came up with examples, but these wouldn't necessarily be what's going to be. I had a bunch of comments/thoughts about his examples, but didn't want to bring all that up until the idea of the complete rewrite got off the ground. I think, if we decide to pursue this idea, we need to approach this in steps--that way, we don't end up repeating ourselves and it's easier to follow. For example: (1) settle the scope issue; (2) create a vision statement; (3) based on the vision statement, create a mission statement; (4) develop goals. It may be a somewhat long and drawn-out process, but its probably for the best.

Right now, though, we should probably suspend this conversation and focus on the scope issue above. That needs to be addressed no matter what we do. --LJ (talk) 17:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Trying to get this thing restarted

It's been a few weeks... what are people's thoughts? --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm still with the idea of making the inactive projects and the projects that want to be task forces of USRD. Dough4872 (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that, before potential consolidation, the project scope needs a complete overhaul. As I mentioned above, we need to flesh out the scope in a manner that more accurately reflects the current/revised focus of the project. Note that the project scope wasn't revised when the Interstate and U.S. Highway projects were merged several months ago...should it have been? Are we looking at state highways only? Should this project include county routes and/or parkways? Should non-numbered, regionally significant routes not maintained by a state- or county-level agency be tagged as part of the project? If we're potentially looking at consolidating the state-level projects (or at least the inactive ones) under USRD, we'll need to figure out the answers to some of these questions, as the subproject scopes seem to vary--and some articles have been tagged as being part of USRD when maybe they shouldn't be. Food for thought... --LJ (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

We've always included all numbered highways. What was in question before (and technically still is) is auto trails, regional roads, bridges, tunnels, city streets, etc. that are not numbered highways. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

**SH projects are now incorporating county routes and other primary roads. Is this the direction we want to go? Rschen, you made that comment in the scope subheading above; this leads me to believe that things like numbered county routes haven't always been understood to be a part of this project. If we're going to eventually consolidate state projects under USRD, stuff like this really needs to be fleshed out first so that we're all on the same page. --LJ (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

County routes have always been a part of USRD, however. --Rschen7754 (T C) 14:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as other topics mentioned: The inclusion of auto trails and regionally significant roads under USRD are definitely topics for debate when considering our scope. Bridges and city streets all have their own projects--if they are not and have not been part of a state system (or other roadway type that would be covered under our scope), I feel these would not warrant being tagged under USRD. If they occur relevant to the relevant road articles, I think dual project tags would be in order. --LJ (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Well one thing that bothers me: During the second ArbCom case we had stuff like this going on - We have a 50 mile road, and at one point in time, 2 miles of it was on the state highway system. One editor tagged the article as part of USRD. I disagree with this, since most of the article falls outside the scope of USRD, and the part that is is relatively insignificant. --Rschen7754 (T C) 14:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with using a big umbrella in this case? All roads in the U.S. should potentially be a part of USRD. USRD doesn't own any articles anyway. --Fredddie ™ 00:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone agrees with that. That is what the arbitration case was about. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

(od) I don't remember what my take at the time was, but my take now is that since the title of this project is U.S. Roads, all articles on roads in the U.S. should be within the scope of this project. The scope given above corresponds more to a project titled "U.S. Numbered Highways" or some sort (putting aside the fact that United States Numbered Highways is the official name of the U.S. Highway System). For me, the more contentious issue is the tagging of articles outside a subproject's scope as being part of that subproject. Just because an article falls within the scope of USRD and is located in a particular state does not necessarily mean that it automatically falls within the scope of a subproject in that state. However, that's a topic for another discussion since this one is geared toward this project's scope. – T M F 20:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely. --Fredddie ™ 01:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

So does this apply to city streets? --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say whatever WP:USST doesn't cover, which, paradoxically is what USRD doesn't cover. --Fredddie ™ 03:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

So basically we're proposing status quo, and leaving some leeway to the state projects? --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

But writing it out in clear, unambiguous language. --Fredddie ™ 05:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay... so I guess we wait to see if there are objections and do it then. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the only thing to be concerned about down the line is that some of the more open subprojects may wish to include articles within their scope that lie beyond the proposed USRD scope. I browsed through the assessment categories of the Maryland project - which I think is the most open of any project in the country - and found Talk:Baltimore Street, which has all the markings of a city street. However, it was the only item I found that lies outside the proposed national scope. How would this situation be handled down the line if it arises on a more widespread scale? – T M F 18:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I would just remove it and hope that it doesn't happen again. Technically, {{USRD}} is our banner. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Another idea that has come to my head is to possibly launch task forces for states that do not yet have a project. These pages can list article standards particularly associated with that state. Dough4872 (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Leaving aside the state task forces momentarily, it sounds like "status quo" is the proposal. Since the current scope on the project page is vague on this, I'll list items that I perceive to be part of the "status quo scope".

Interstates & U.S. numbered highways
State numbered routes
County routes
Toll roads
Freeways, parkways, expressways, and similar controlled access or semi-controlled access roadways, regardless of whether it carries a numbered route
Historic auto trails
Any notable roadway of regional significance which does not fall under the purview of WP:USST.
Former alignments of numbered routes (possible dual tag with WP:USST, where applicable?)

Please discuss anything you feel I've left out, mistakenly added in, or is otherwise contentious. Sorry to beat this into the ground, but I just want to make sure the "status quo" is clearly defined so that everyone is on the same page before anyone tries to craft any official wording for this. --LJ (talk) 01:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I still think the wording of the scope need to be general and not exactly enumerated. That said, how's this: Any notable road in the U.S., which is numbered, named, current, and/or historical ~~which has a speed limit of at least 45 mph~~. We could use this sentence as a checklist in order. --Fredddie ™ 07:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

There are many roads where we could not make this determination. Also, there are many notable roads with a speed limit of < 45 mph. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't clear, so I edited my sentence to say a checklist in order instead of just a checklist. Is it a notable road? Is it numbered? Does it have a name? Is a current road? Is it a historical road? The last question, "Does traffic move at least 45 mph?" is too hard to source, so I omitted it. I thought it might be a good way to decide USRD or USST. --Fredddie ™ 08:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

With that list, I wasn't trying to develop a specific wording of the scope. From my limited browsing of previous scope discussions, some of the listed items seem to have had a bit of contention. (Most of those discussions occurred before I became active on this talk page, so please excuse any ignorance on my part.) I wanted to make sure we're all in agreement that articles on those listed items are all things that we, as a project, agree should be in the purview of the project. If we're all in agreement on that, then we can figure out exactly how the scope should be worded (which can be more general than the list, if it is so desired). --LJ (talk) 11:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the "status quo scope" for what should be under USRD. However, I also feel that USST may better serve as a task force under USRD, since streets are roads essentially. Dough4872 (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that USST was created out of the belief that the composition of city street articles are significantly different than articles on major through routes, hence the need for their own project. Whether or not that's true, I have no idea but I believe that was the reasoning behind the project's creation. – T M F 19:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That is correct, and it typically requires a different type of editor. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

So... should we start a straw poll to see if this works? --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Dough4872 (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Straw Polls

We are trying to redefine the project's scope. Should we...

Go the status quo, and leave as is?

Go the status quo, but explicitly define everything?

Rschen7754 (T C) 05:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Maybe not explicit definitions, but definitely more guidance than currently provided. --LJ (talk) 07:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
The scope is fine, the subprojects should just become task forces. Dough4872 (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 16:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Per LJ. – T M F 20:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Scrap the current scope for broader language?

Fredddie ™ 05:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Other, please elaborate

Regardless of the result above, it's likely that WikiProject U.S. Streets will be greatly affected. That project's scope is loosely defined as roads and streets not covered by USRD. Would USST be better served...

As is?

Fredddie ™ 05:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Rschen7754 (T C) 05:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
--LJ (talk) 07:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 13:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
– T M F 20:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

As a task force of USRD?

Dough4872 (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has voted in over a week. Is it safe to close the straw poll and start hashing out the verbiage of the scope?? --Fredddie ™ 03:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess so. Dough4872 (talk) 03:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Scope

How should we go about deciding what goes into the scope? Should those who want to write something out do so and have the rest of us vote on it? --Fredddie ™ 20:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That would work. Dough4872 (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I really liked LJ's list above. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, first of all let's get this settled, as it's really the core of the scope issues: What goes into USRD and what into USST? In founding USST, my original idea was for all city streets related article to fall under USST and only USST, while USRD handled the numbered routes. The idea here is that USRD handles the broad, state-level view of the route, while USST hones the local importance and history to that city. It is clear to me (though it may not really be to others) that these are two different styles of writing, requiring two different kinds of expertise in the members of that project. Compare Kansas Turnpike or any of our FAs to Rush Street and note the differences in the types of things we focus on; while "History" in the USRD sense covers things like construction history, challenges to construction, and realignment history, the history of a street will consist of more human factors like how that street is placed in the community, significant community events that's happened on that street, etc. In some cases a street will become iconic for a community, industry or even the culture prevalent in its environment (probably the best example of this is Castro Street in San Francisco, or Wall Street). Obviously these sorts of things are not likely to be covered well by a USRD editor, who is more attuned to tracing a numbered route and its changes throughout the years and doesn't generally focus on the social implications of a route beyond that which may have challenged its construction.

To this end the two separate projects were established. However for some reason we ended up with many articles tagged with both! This is doubleplusungood. Perhaps even tripleplusungood. Just because a city street happened to carry a numerical designation at some point does not mean that it should be included in USRD. The reason here is that in the majority of cases there will be two articles: one focusing on the numerical route (which we will call Hwy 41 for the sake of example) and one focusing on the section of city street (we'll call it, oh, Wigley Street). The Hwy 41 article's makeup should be familiar in all of our heads because we've written it countless times. You've written the history of Hwy 41 before, built its junction list, described its route. Wigley Street's article will be completely different. In it, the designation as Hwy 41 will be of little importance and as such only noted in passing. Its history section will start by discussing who Mr. Wigley was and why the street was named after him, launching into early development along the street, and the type of demographics which eventually evolved along the street and surrounding neighborhoods. You know what I mean, whether it has a certain ethnicity attached to it, if it is a poor, middle-class, or rich neighborhood, types of zoning (industrial, retail, residential, etc.), and perhaps prominent local businesses along its route. The types of details included within this city street article are too fine to include in a numbered route article, and the types of details included in a numbered route article are too broad to include in a city street article. They are entirely separate. I encourage those of you who may doubt this to take the article on Rush Street or Castro Street, and to try going about writing another article about it in the same way you would a USRD article, using the USRD standards and format. Notice the difficulties in doing so. Notice what you have to leave out.

The only situation in which a city street should carry both tags is when the numbered route is wholly the city street. (That is, a completely urban route assigned to just one stretch of street). In such cases, the articles would be merged, and the numbered route would probably end up subservient to the city street purposes. In conclusion, articles on city streets and numbered highways are two completely different animals and writing them two different tasks. It takes a different kind of editor to write each one well. That is why I feel they should be completely separated from one another in terms of projects and why city street articles should not fall under USRD. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I read this very measured, specific and detailed account of the separated scopes just in the couple of minutes it took before jumping in to comment, so it might not have completely sunk in but I must say I basically agree 100% with Scott, but.... One of the first things I did on en.wikipedia over thirty months ago was to start the article Southern Artery. I did not know about adding project tags to talk pages when I started the stub, and Polaron added a USRD tag to it a few months later. This short article about a street that I could walk to in five minutes right now should I think actually be under both projects, and I think there may be several other examples. Southern Artery was a roughly eight mile long stretch of road designated in the 1920's and partly made of streets in existence and partly of new construction. Then it went from southwest Boston to southeast Quincy, Mass. But today it is just the last portion that was mostly new construction, and even though I didn't label it as such I consider it to be about the city street primarily. But it is also the only place in the encyclopedia where the former eight mile route is given more than passing coverage, and is important for that history as a state highway. It still is designated as either Route 3A or Route 53 for its entire length. So I understand and agree with the obvious differences between USRD and USST scopes and writing styles, but don't think that at least some articles can't be under both and those that are have to choose one project. Take several presidents of the United States for example, some are under state projects, US History, WP:USPREZ, WP:USC and others, and there isn't a dispute over which one should take control. Sswonk (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Nicely put, Scott5114. All this being said, and I mentioned it a while back, WP:USST needs their scope re-written worse than USRD does. --Fredddie ™ 05:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You're assuming that every city street has "city street" style material to write about. I'm not sure where you're drawing the line, but Rock Creek Parkway isn't a numbered route, but isn't much of a city street either. Other city streets may have both, and so both projects would have something to add. Consider Wacker Drive: I don't believe it has much in the way of demographics associated with it, but it was an important step in the historical development of the freeway. USRD probably has more to contribute to that article than USST, even ignoring the sad present state of USST. --NE2 12:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Now that I have read this, I have changed my opinion toward USST. As presented above, the two types of roads have separate standards. For example, take New Jersey Route 27 and Nassau Street (Princeton). The NJ 27 article has a broad description of that route, the history of the designations, and a major intersections table; while the Nassau Street article describes that road's atmosphere within Princeton, describing some of the businesses along the street. The NJ 27 article passingly mentions Nassau Street as it would any other name along the road while the Nassau Street article passingly mentions it is the southernmost part of NJ 27. Clearly, these two articles are totally different in their style of describing the road. In this scenario, NJ 27 should be tagged with USRD and Nassau Street should be tagged with USST. However, as mentioned abovr, there is the dilemma with roads like Rock Creek Parkway and we need to figure out how to handle these type of roads. Dough4872 (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure - if there's very little that road editors can do to help with the article, it probably shouldn't be tagged for USRD. (Stupid question: does this apply to bike paths? How about M-185? :)) One has to remember, though, that USRD is not just about numbered routes, but also about highway engineering and related topics. --NE2 21:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You bring up some good points about edge cases. I should have made it clear that roads with obvious freeway/highway characteristics, but no number, should be handled by USRD (for example Turner Diagonal, probably Rock Creek Parkway). M-185 is another special case, where it could possibly be tagged as both... I feel that in cases such as these we should attempt to weigh the characteristics of the roads in a case-by-case manner, using insight provided by editors who have on-the-ground experience with them.

As for bike paths, perhaps we should contact a bicycling-themed WikiProject and see if they would like to take them. Or perhaps we could have a bike path task force. I am inclined to say that they would not be part of USRD, but many of them do have numbers that behave like highway numbers do. I don't know; they seem like a unique enough edge case that we could have a special discussion at a later date to determine what to do with them.

As for highway design/engineering concepts, except for specific policy decisions by USDOT or state DOTs (like various things the MUTCD/SHS specifies), engineering concepts are conceivably international (I'm sure there's a SPUI somewhere in Canada), so I would say those would fall under WP:HWY instead of USRD. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

With engineering concepts, I'm referring to their application to specific roads. For instance, if a city street is rebuilt using engineering practices that promote the flow of traffic, especially if it's notable in the historic context of the evolution of said practices (Wacker Drive again, or the expressways in California such as La Cienega Boulevard and Geary Expressway), and the article talks about or should talk about that, it should be covered by USRD and USST. --NE2 19:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

A comment regarding bike paths: A few bike path articles, such as Delaware Bicycle Route 1, the BicyclePA bicycle routes, and the United States Numbered Bicycle Routes are tagged for both WP:USRD and WP:CYCLING as they are bike paths (which is appropriate for the cycling project) that are numbered or lettered as part of a system (which is appropriate for our project since it covers numbered routes). Dough4872 (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

So anyway... a written scope? --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

ELG poll

Nearly two months ago, we had a poll at WT:ELG to see if junction list and exit lists should follow the same standard and if colors should be allowed in exit lists. No one has voted for about a month and a half and at this point the majority of the votes lean toward one standard for junction and exit lists without color. At this point, I am considering closing the poll and modifying the ELG to call for two things: One, a sentence in the lead saying junction lists for surface roads fall under the same standard, and two, a note somewhere indicating that colors are prohibited with the exception of the light gray for proposed or former interchanges. I want some feedback on how I can make these changes in an efficient way. Dough4872 (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think something should be said about which junctions should be included (regarding the topic a few sections up). --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I know individual state projects, such as WP:NJSCR, call for what specific junctions can be listed. I would definitely say all Interstates, U.S. Routes, and state routes should be included in a junction lists, with county routes included in the case of shorter routes (unless they make the list excessively long). Dough4872 (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately a few users decided to include way too much in the junction list. :| --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If we make a set guideline for what should be included in the list, then we can try to prevent junction lists from looking large and sloppy. Dough4872 (talk) 00:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

How's this for a rough draft:

All separated-grade interchanges regardless of the crossing route's status.
All primary (state level and up) and National Highway System routes (may include county and local roads)
Historically significant former routes (such as Lincoln Highway)
Former routes which have been turned over to local government within the last 10 years.

Like I said, it's a rough draft. We can hash out the details. --Fredddie ™ 00:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

That could possibly work, I never thought of using the NHS as a criteria for the junction lists. The first point makes sense as interchanges usually exist due to have traffic volume along the roads. The second point is pretty good, but I have some concerns. Some NHS roads are local roads which may connect to a railroad yard or distribution facility of little interest to the general public. Also, some states have statewide county route systems, such as the 500-series county routes in New Jersey, that should be considered major junctions the same as state routes. As for the third point, many of these highways (such as the Lincoln Highway) already run along numbered routes. I am a little concerned with the fourth point as the list could be excessive and the 10-year deadline will expire for routes over time. Dough4872 (talk) 01:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I would just combine the third and fourth points to cover "historically significant" former routes/auto trails/etc. The kind of significant numbered routes I'm thinking of are along the lines of NY 47 and NY 57 - lengthy highways that were more than a connector between a couple of communities. I also echo Dough's concerns over the NHS point; someone proposed using NHS inclusion as a notability criteria once, and I argued against that for much the same reasons that Dough added above. – T M F 01:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of point #4, not really verifiable and subject to be dated. I don't see the problem with using NHS as a criteria, yeah it will include some oddball routes, but it is at least a verifiable standard. My own "internal" standard has been if the road show as major in both the on-line map I'm using, and on the Recreation Atlases I have. This has worked well for me, as the Recreation Atlases are pretty good road sources all the way around, with overall much more accuracy than on-line maps. (although they do often include some out of date information). However, the problem is making that the standard means we all have to shell out for a recreation atlas for each state we want to work (about $25-30 each), have access to a library with these atlases, or have all kinds of staring eyes and possible security incidents at the Barnes and Noble. =-) Dave (talk) 02:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

(od) My criteria for inclusion has been if MDOT has numbered the crossing roadway on the state map. That means all state highways and the County-Designated Highways are included, but not other county roads. Since not all counties participate in the CDH system though, I've added other major county roads, where appropriate, to balance out. As an example, on the M-35 article, Menominee County does use CDHs, but Marquette doesn't. Marquette County numbers major county roads, and only letters the rest. The only other time I've included county roads not on the CDH system is when they are mentioned in the route description or memorial highway section as a terminus for a memorial highway name. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

On Nevada articles I've edited, there are a select few that come up that fit because: (a) they are quite recognizable, such as Las Vegas Boulevard (former SR 604/US 91); (b) they are part of a former state highway turned over to local control that still appears as a business route on many maps, such as Virginia St/US 395 Business/former US 395 in Reno; or (c) are former state routes that are major arterials and also on the NHS, such as McCarran Blvd (which acts as a ring road for Reno/Sparks) or Tropicana Avenue. This is consistent with TMF's proposal combining points #3 and #4. Similarly, I include Summerlin Parkway and Clark County 215 as junctions on Las Vegas area articles, because these are freeway interchanges (or access-controlled intersections that will eventually become freeway interchanges, in the case of the 215 beltway). This would be consistent with point #1 above.

It is difficult to comment on county routes coming from a state that has so few of them. With each state treating county routes differently, there probably won't be a reliable standard that could be enforced at the national level. County highways that are former alignments of significant state/US highways should definitely be included on all lists, per TMF. Otherwise, I would opine that every intersecting county highway is not crucial on a state/U.S highway junction list, but every intersecting county route would be appropriate for county highway junction lists. Determining what other intersecting county routes are notable enough to include on state/U.S. highway junction lists is probably better left to the state sub-projects & task forces, based on the county highway system(s) in place in those states. --LJ (talk) 07:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I could see all CA county routes being included (though I wish that people wouldn't edit war over if it's signed or not). I doubt that's true for all states though. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with LJ that what county routes should be included in junction lists should be determined on a state-by-state basis as each state recognizes their county routes differently. Dough4872 (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

How would the new ELG guidelines work for Washington state? The last major renumbering (addition and deletion of SRs) was in 1991 and WSDOT marks all former routes and alignments in their Highway Logs. –CG 15:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Just because the WSDOT log lists all old alignments doesn't mean that they must be listed in junction lists here. This would be an example of a decision that may be better left to the state level. --LJ (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Have we agreed on a standard of what junctions should be listed (besides county routes, which will vary by state)? Dough4872 (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Along these lines, I noticed a problem that came up with New Jersey Route 56. In this diff, an editor removed a row that indicated the road had no major intersections in Salem County. I added this row in order to show that the road does run through Salem County, with no major junctions, as opposed to showing it as to appear to be entirely in Cumberland County. Can I have some feedback on this and can we try to establish a consensus on how this should be handled? Dough4872 (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the best way. California and Nevada road articles do this (have a row for every county even if there is no intersections in that county) However, those states use county based mile markers. I would say if you revert, take out the bolding. Per WP:MOSBOLD, only table headers should be bold. I know this part of the MOS has taken a beating in USRDland; but still, it is a violation nonetheless. Dave (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any Nevada articles that add the row like this (there's not many that enter a county without a junction) There are some California articles that do (U.S. Route 395 in California comes to mind).

The table is meant to show the location of major intersections/exits, not to list every county the route goes through. Thus, I'd say you could remove it. One could argue that, following this logic, we should remove all mention of bridges, tunnels, toll plazas, etc. currently found in junction lists--a notion that wouldn't likely be too popular around here. I guess it's probably fine to leave that in for now unless consensus develops to the contrary, but I'd agree with Dave's comments about the bold--we've got a lot of junction lists that need bolding removed... --LJ (talk) 10:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Ordinarily, I would do that but I do not want to show the route as it only exits in Cumberland County. If the county column only displayed Cumberland, then per the WP:ELG, we would need the note at the top stating the entire route is in Cumberland County, which is not true. Dough4872 (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You could have a note saying the route is mostly in county X, except for a portion that dip into county Y. I have no opinion on which is the lesser of two evils, just throwing that out.Dave (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That would work, but the note is generated in {{jctint}} to say "The entire route is in Cumberland County." Dough4872 (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I installed a param in {{jctinttop}} recently - "nocty" - that removes the county column from the table header without generating the hatnote above the table. A few routes in New York run along a county line for their entire routings, which is what made the parameter necessary. – T M F 03:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I changed NJ 56's major intersections table. Can you check it over? Dough4872 (talk) 00:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

So... it seems that we've decided on a state-by-state basis? --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, mainly for the county routes. Interstates, U.S., and state highways should always be included. Dough4872 (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

What if we drew the line at the notability standard? If it has an article, it should be included? --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That would work too. But keep in mind that there are some notable state routes that may have not had articles created yet. Dough4872 (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, that too. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Rewording

How is this for a tentative proposed rewording for the ELG for a section concerning junction lists:

In addition to covering exit lists, it has been decided that junction lists for surface roads, as well as "hybrid" lists for roads that are both surface and freeway, should fall under the same standards as exit lists. In deciding what junctions should be included, the decision should be left to the individual WikiProject overseeing roads for that region.

Obviously, for USRD, this would be Interstates, U.S., state highways, select county routes, and any other road notable for an article as determined above. Other WikiProjects would decide their own standards for what routes should be included. Dough4872 (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That works for me, but remember to post a link to this proposed change at WT:ELG and wherever else necessary. – T M F 20:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I have a few issues: 1) What about states with no WPs? That still under USRD's standards for jcts? Also, I'm concerned about California. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Based on the wording, I would assume that USRD would be the overseeing WP for states with no state-level project and that the state-level project could set their own, potentially more rigid, inclusion standards. Although with as messed up as California has been, maybe it's better to put something in writing. – T M F 18:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that each state, on their project page, should mention what junctions are to be in the junction list as decided by that project. WP:USRD/STDS could list the junctions to be included for states without a project. Dough4872 (talk) 22:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, if we were to create task forces for the states that do not have projects, then the junction standards for that state could be listed there. Personally, I feel that may work better. Dough4872 (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Any thoughts? Dough4872 (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The wording proposed above seems like it would be better placed on the USRD standards than on ELG. I agree with the concept though, and have used ELG guidelines in formatting junction lists on Nevada articles. --LJ (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, other countries will have totally different standards. Dough4872 (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

In fact, we may be the only country with ELG-compliant junction lists. (As opposed to exit lists.) --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Canada, although inactive, mostly follows ELG system.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 19:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this rewording for junction lists should be at WP:USRD/STDS instead, along with the provisions prohibiting color. Dough4872 (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

At this point, does everyone feel we are ready to add this rewording to WP:USRD/STDS? Dough4872 (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

That should be good. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I have made the modifications to WP:USRD/STDS. Dough4872 (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

At this point, should we move to the process of deciding what junctions should be included for each state? Dough4872 (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(od) I'm not sure what you mean. What each state decides to include is up to the relevant subproject...unless you mean deciding what junctions every state should have at minimum. – T M F 01:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I assume that the "former junctions" in "Colors are not to be used in either junction or exit lists with the exception of the gray shading for unbuilt or former junctions" refer to closed junctions since the gray former route shading has been deprecated and phased out for months. – T M F 20:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

My bad, fixed. Dough4872 (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Just an update: articles using the "concur" or "mplex" types in {{jctint}} are in the process of being categorized in Category:Junction lists with deprecated parameters. I would have also disabled the types completely, but since this template is also used in Canada (where USRD/STDS obviously doesn't apply), I decided to just flag them instead. The category should be populated in a day or so. – T M F 01:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

What about "noaccess" which is used on many PA junction lists? That should be deprecated too. Dough4872 (talk) 03:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The "noaccess" type is long gone - like "decomd", all instances were phased out months ago. – T M F 04:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

In addition, it should also be noted that the major intersections section for roads with freeway and non-freeway sections should be combined into one table, as in New Jersey Route 29. Dough4872 (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Both WP:CASH and WP:NYSR have been updated with this sort of information. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

Resolved

– Trashed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Highways along the BosWash corridor --NE2 09:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Good riddance. --Rschen7754 (T C) 09:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems totally unnecessary... --LJ (talk) 22:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of sources for numbered routes in Rhode Island

Resolved

– Closed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of sources for numbered routes in Rhode Island is currently being discussed at articles for deletion. Your comments would be welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of sources for numbered routes in Rhode Island. Thryduulf (talk) 08:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again...

[10] Could someone comment on this? Basically, I went through my Thomas Guide collection, which is very generous on what is major, and removed all the streets that were not marked as major in it. Also, according to [11] [12] it is Goldenwest Street, not Golden West Street as AL2TB claims the sign says. A sign is not a RS, but several maps (including Thomas Guide, Yahoo Maps, and Google Maps) are. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

From looking at Google Street View, it appears the road is known as "Golden West" in Huntington Beach and as "Goldenwest" in Westminster. By the way, my Rand McNally road atlas labels the road as "Golden West". Also, Google Maps is not the best source to use as a recent change in their cartography has introduced plenty of errors in spelling road names. Therefore, I would have to say the correct spelling may in fact be "Golden West" at the point it intersects CA 1. As for the addition of the extra junctions, they should have not been added. Dough4872 (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Believe it or not, re: Goldenwest or Golden West, I think it is both. I did the trick of looking up tax assessments here. Try for example the address "16105 Goldenwest St, Huntington Beach" (Papa John's) in the "Search by property address" form and see the results. Sswonk (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree wtih Sswonk. Just doing a Google search for "Goldenwest Huntington Beach" gets you Golden West College and Goldenwest Apartments, for example. --Fredddie ™ 17:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

However, we need to agree for one of them to be used in the CA 1 major intersections table. Dough4872 (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, a little more digging got Goldenwest from the Census Bureau and searching 16105 GOLDEN WEST ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA at USPS results in

You Gave Us

16105 GOLDEN WEST ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA

Full Address in Standard Format

16105 GOLDENWEST ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-3407, so it looks like the federal government likes one word, i.e. Goldenwest. Sswonk (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Do we know what official sources from the state of California, such as road maps, call it? That should be the determining factor. Dough4872 (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Can put Goldenwest in the exit list and "Also spelled Golden West" in the notes? --Fredddie ™ 18:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Could work, it would be a fair compromise since the same road has two different spellings used. Dough4872 (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Not official State of California source, but http://www.octa.net/bus/sysmap/index.html says Goldenwest. Sswonk (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Fredddie has added a note to the CA 1 intersections table indicating "Golden West" is an alternate spelling of "Goldenwest". At this point, I feel that "Goldenwest" is the official spelling. Dough4872 (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

On Google Maps Street View, it's signed as "Golden West", so I switched the names fromt he columns in the table. Gill Giller Gillerger (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted your change, "Goldenwest" is the official spelling per official sources while "Golden West" is simply the alternate form seen on some signage. The official spelling should be listed as the junction with the alternate spelling in the notes. Dough4872 (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought major intersections were supposed to show how things are signed, even if it's not the "official spelling". The traffic signal has the sign that says "Golden West". Gill Giller Gillerger (talk) 18:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

That's true, however, we should stay with the official sources. Keep in mind that signage errors and inconsistencies do exist. Dough4872 (talk) 18:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you planning on making the same change to I-405 (CA) as well? Gill Giller Gillerger (talk) 18:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point, I think it should be done for consistiency. Dough4872 (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

More sources for refutation of possible future arguments: City of Westminster official and City of Huntington Beach official maps. Sswonk (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

And he just won't give up...

[13] --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

TFD

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 November 1 re {{junction}} --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

{{jcon}} - Another {{jct}} fork? – T M F 18:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering that myself. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it's {{Jct}} with everything useful removed. --Fredddie ™ 23:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No, its jct with all the American crap taken out. A much simplified version of the template that doesn't require the parameters be entered, and doesn't use 15000 sub templates that are impossible to navigate through or do anything with. It takes care of all the Ontario roads, hence JunCtion ONtario.

{{jcon|Hwy|12|Brock Street}} creates

Highway 12 (Brock Street)

It also has a custom size parameter, something jct forces.

I'd appreciate if you kept yourself to American Roads. You aren't editing Ontario roads, so please don't be bureaucrats simply to impede. Its not like there is a shortage of room on wikipedia. Trust me, it won't end the world to have a second template that deals with a specific area. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Enough with the semantics. We don't need it here. Anyway, Jct isn't that hard. There's only 3 or 4 important parameters you need to remember. And if its necessary, keep working ones on the side so you can work it. Fighting this isn't getting us anywhere. If you continue to argue semantics, I will call in special forces.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 03:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Or just leave the template alone... That WOULD be the easier solution. YOU don't need it here, because this is the AMERICAN roads wikiproject (and it has huge ownership issues with the rest of the world). I don't want to fight this, believe me, it wastes my time to argue with people that stick their nose up in refusal, but I will continue to make the template that I need for the articles I'm writing. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No screaming - and you're still arguing semantics crap. Shut up on the semantics. And we will get rid of your template, even if it meant ArbCom crap. I would basically prefer that you stop violating WP:POINT, because now its becoming obvious that you are disrupting to make a point. Just shut up and listen to us for pete's sake. No more semantics.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 03:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

There really was no need to mention ArbCom. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Guys, there is no need for this "them vs. us" attitude; all contributors are welcome to participate in any area of the project. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not screaming, I'm putting emphasis on my words. I'm not listening, just as you are not, because I'd prefer to be left. I'm happy staying in my corner, its you guys that keep interrupting what is only article-creation on my part over politics and games and a template that in no way interferes with your jct template. Please don't tell me to shut up, because if my capital letters are shouting, then yours is a personal attack. I'm going to go about my creating articles and ignore this little pit. Just remember that I did not start any disruption, I asked a question and am now being hounded about style issues and templates, so by all means carry through your threat and take it to ArbCom. They will only tell you that they won't take up such an insignificant minor issue. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

If you think I am stupid, I certainly am not. Now you still can't be violating WP:POINT and issues can arise from continuing certain actions. Can't we be content with changes to the Canada & US template? I mean Template:Jct works for Manitoba and Saskatchewan. (See in this usage:

PR 280 {{jct|state=MB|MB|280}} and

Hwy 994) {{jct|state=SK|SK|994}}, and I am sure adjustments can be made for Ontario rather than creating forked templates.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 23:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Ideally I'd like to fork all of Canada out of jct. There is still lots to be added, and it becomes a big mess trying to figure out all the calls made through each template. I like the idea raised about doing something similar to infobox where something like jct ca could be made. The same formatting can be applied across several templates, and it becomes much easier to manage the needs of each wiki-project/country as they arise. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Just because you don't want to be associated with USRD at all!? There is little that you gain from creating your own version of {{jct}} for Canada. I've been to Canada before. There is nothing so drastic about Canada that requires a different version of {{jct}}. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Calm down, I'm not killing your first-born. All I'm saying is that it is of benefit to both projects, to editors of articles, and to editors of the templates to split them. The current template is still made up of a million transclusions anyways, I don't see what difference it makes to have one template if you can't do anything else with it. It took me several weeks of learning templates, and then it was only by sheer accident that I found the transclusion for Ontario and added Kawartha Lakes. It should not be that difficult for the sake of holding onto a single template. The same standards can be upheld over all the templates, this would just make it easier to add new content.

No, we don't need it. Ontario's road system is the only reason, as Manitoba, British Columbia, Quebec, the Yukon, NW Territories, New Brunswick, Pr. Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Labrador and Alberta have small systems. We don't need to fork the provinces and we can make things better in terms of abbreviations.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 01:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really taking a stance either way on this, but I want to make some comments: The trend on Wikipedia (at least from my viewpoint) seems to be to consolidate or delete redundant templates that achieve the same basic thing. If {{junction}} or {{jcon}} achieves the same exact effect of using {{jct}}, then there's really no need for them to exist. Now if either of the former templates presented differently from {{jct}} or needed some parameter that it cannot accommodate, then I could see the need for having a separate template. I do not know the intricacies of template coding, so I cannot tell what the differences are between these templates. Seeing the differences is especially difficult given that {{junction}} and {{jcon}} have absolutely no template documentation or usage instructions (as of this writing). An absence of template documentation means that other editors would not be able to use the template effectively, and it seems really unnecessary to have a template that only one editor knows how to use. --LJ (talk) 05:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Junction doesn't have one because its going to be deleted within days. No point. The templates are different, as jct is hard coded in terms of sizes and uses abbreviations. Jcon is simpler in terms of syntax, uses one and only one template, and has a custom size parameter (Attempting to put one in jct would be next to impossible without a complete rewrite. When it becomes like that, its time to split things).

Again, you don't need it, so don't use. I need it, so I will use it. That's all there is to it really. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 06:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, until we get a nutcase trying to use {{jcon}} in an article they're not supposed to. You laugh, but we have editors who would make that mistake. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is a testing for the 12 provinces & territories with numbered roads in Template:Jct: User:Mitchazenia/Sandbox II. The Route 42 in Manitoba is Winnipeg City Route 42.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 15:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but here is where you present contradicting points. Rschen is saying that a newbie may easily use the wrong template (assuming they don't read the instructions that I am writing) in the wrong place. Mitch is saying "well this template does it all". So a question: That newbie uses jct on a Saskatchewan road, and then says "hey, where is the shield? I want to add it" (because if you notice, 7 jurisdictions do not have shields yet). Do you think the ease of use of having a single template makes up for the fact that the newbie is going to either A) screw up the template, resulting in damage to road articles world-wide; or B) Get pissed off and stop working on those articles? It would not be hard to figure out what to do with jct ca, jct us, jct gb, jct ja, jct au, etc, and where to use them. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The Canadian jurisdictions that do not have shields don't have them in {{jct}} because their shields fall under fair use. Thus, those shields cannot be used in any article but the article on that shield's route. The New Brunswick, Quebec, etc. shields are not fair use, which is why they're used by {{jct}}. Creating a template that would allow editors to add shields to Saskatchewan, British Columbia, etc. junctions would allow editors to violate the WP:NFCC. – T M F 18:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I can speak from experience that adding, for instance, BC shields, will get them removed within minutes for TMF's reason. --Fredddie ™ 18:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I find it ridiculous that road shields are copyright. What makes those shields copyright but others not? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Canada copyright laws. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

With regards to Alberta, I don't think the shield itself is subject to copyright, but the Alberta wordmark on the shield is. --Fredddie ™ 20:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It depends if you buy the statement that File:Alberta wordmark.svg doesn't meet the threshold of originality. --NE2 08:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we not make variations on those provinces shields to remove the coat of arms or the watermarks that make them copyright, and just stick with the colours and shapes? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That's how Quebec Autoroute shields are handled. --Fredddie ™ 22:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Resolved

– consensus is to keep Massachusetts Highway Department. Sswonk (talk) 06:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Massachusetts Department of Transportation#Merge discussion. Sswonk (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Interstate 99 vandal

Regarding this, I believe it is vandalism but would like someone else to confirm and revert if necessary. Sswonk (talk) 04:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I rollbacked it... considering that edit made most of the links red, and US 23 is no where near PA... I agree that it's vandalism. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a vandal we've had lately. I saw some other bad edits, rollbacked them. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, I hadn't scrolled down to Line 218 in the diff, or I would have known for sure. Sswonk (talk) 05:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of numbered roads in Kawartha Lakes, Ontario/archive2

If anyone has the time, the above FLC needs reviewers. Yes, that is a Canadian road FLC and this is the US roads project, but any expertise you all can offer is appreciated. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Signups for WP:USRDCUP

Signups are beginning! There have been a few changes to simplify the contest to judge. The contest will start Jan 1. --Rschen7754 (T C) 12:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's not and say we didn't. --NE2 19:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concern about people doing the least amount of work they can for the most amount of points, and the article quality suffering as a result. I've tried to implement several measures to discourage against that this year. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

What are these measures? The last time something like this was done, it resulted in many subpar articles that had to be cleaned up or rewritten entirely later because editors tried to "manufacture" articles just to get points. Having something that promotes editing activity but reduces article quality is a very bad idea.

As a footnote, I'm completely skeptic of contests for one reason: every contest has hurt New York's articles rather than helped them for the reason given above. If it's not the rush to get points, it's the creation of articles on subjects that shouldn't have an article to get a quick GA; if it's not that, it's the splitting off of a topic that's more than adequately covered in the article it redirects to. – T M F 23:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hell, last year's improved Oklahoma rather well. Let's give it a shot. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This year I will reserve the right to void submissions if they bring article quality down. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Virginia State Route 234 Old

I'd appreciate more input at Talk:Bannered routes of Virginia State Route 234. --NE2 20:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstate 11 Dave (talk) 07:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No more control cities in junction lists?

I'm tired of having to deal with stuff like this: [14]. Control cities for intersecting roads that are not freeways add very little to the article, and encourage editors to add nonnotable junctions to trash perfectly good junction lists. I am proposing adding a section to WP:ELG prohibiting the addition of control cities to junction lists if the intersecting road in question is not a freeway. An alternate plan is to remove them from all junction lists across USRD. Comments? --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that this issue is along the lines of freeway exit lists. Freeway exits generally have destination cities, and we include those, of course, because it serves as the "name" of the exit in a way. In my view, this is just a scale-down of the idea, as around here at least most junctions will include directional signage indicating where the intersecting route heads off to in both directions. You could include this if desired. Of course, some states may not feel that they can source this adequately (OK has okhighways which includes photographs of damn near every intersection on the system in the circle-sign era, and some smaller states may have their whole SH system covered by Google Street View) or overhaul their system efficiently to include this data. And some states/editors might just not feel this is worth including. Therefore I believe this should be added to the standards as optional, allowing each state subproject to decide on their own. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm told that California's the only state that does this, however. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Washington state does this as well. That said, I agree with the idea of restricting control cities to interchange listings on freeways or freeway portions of at-grade highways. IIRC, this point came up a few months ago as well. – T M F 04:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. The problem isn't with the inclusion of control cities. It's with the inclusion of very minor junctions so a control city/destination can be listed. I'd rather we dealt with the minor junctions issue first. That will solve the collateral issue over the control cities. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how to handle this. We tried dumping the issue down to the state level last time. That apparently is not working. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If there's a control city (at least a major city), it's a major intersection, is it not? --NE2 07:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Possibly. Specifically, what we're trying to prevent against is this [15] where the control city is not a major city (the first one is... a state park!? and the second is a minor city.) --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's my take on the issue. The control cities need to stay in exit lists for freeways as the ELG calls for the entries of exit lists to appear as it would on the road signs. However, for junctions along a surface road, the issue is more contentious. For many surface roads, I tried to include any destinations that can be seen on signs at the junctions. In order to determine what cities to include, I usually look at Google Street View or photos taken by roadfans. However, it appears the practice of including control cities on surface roads vary by state. For example, most Maryland articles show the control cities for every junction, while many from New Jersey and Pennsylvania do not. I do not see any issue for listing control cities along surface roads. It appears the larger issue at hand is the listing of minor junctions. The recent changes made to the ELG call for each state to determine what junction is major for a junction list; however, only a few states have decided upon this. We need to make sure every state has a standard for what junctions should be in a junction list. ---Dough 48 72 23:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we either need to a) set a minimum standard for what definitely cannot be included in a junction list, no matter what, and allow states to exclude something else, b) set a default standard that can be overridden, or c) set a universal standard. The problem with dumping the decision to state level is that New York makes a standard, and that's it. No other state takes advantage of it. Due to the poor editors in California, I'm concerned about leaving decisions in the states' hands as well. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is my opinion. For the issue regarding control cities in both junction and exit lists, I think we should stick with what destinations are listed on road signs. As for what junctions should be included in a junction list, we had stated that Interstates, U.S. routes, and primary state highways should be included for ALL states and that any roads below the primary state level need to be determined on a state basis as states have different systems for secondary state, county, and local roads. For California, CASH calls for the following regarding what should be in a junction list - "In order to be listed as an at-grade intersection, the road must be a county route, state route, Interstate, or U.S. Route or must be marked as major by several map sources." There is no problem as to including numbered roads; the main problem is there is subjectivity in the roads that are "marked as major by several map sources". Different editors therefore feel different about what unnumbered roads are considered as "major". Perhaps a more strict standard needs to be set for what unnumbered roads can appear in CA junction lists or maybe unnumbered roads should not be allowed in junction lists at all to avoid problems. The major problem with the latter option is that many major roads in CA are in fact unnumbered, and many of the unnumbered roads are more noted than some of the numbered roads. As for other states, the only other ones that call for what should be in a junction list are NJ and NY. There are still 47 other states that need to have a set standard in place for junction lists. ---Dough 48 72 00:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

As for California, the "if it has an article then it should be in a junction list" criterion has been suggested a few times. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

That may resolve the problem for the CA junction lists and can be strictly enforced. ---Dough 48 72 01:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

That will lead to creation of bad articles :) --NE2 04:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, then we send them to AFD. :) --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(od) Personally, I have a sliding scale of notability. If a route is 5 miles long and only intersects numbered highways at its termini, I might be inclined to include less notable roads. If a road has more than about 3 intersections with numbered highways, I will rarely include non-numbered roads. If I do include them, they are notable for scenic or historical reasons. The problem is how do you codify that into an enforceable standard? I would hope we can agree that a for a route over a hundred miles long that crosses most of a large state, only in rare cases should a non-numbered road be listed in the junctions list.Dave (talk) 07:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"If a route is less than 5 miles long and only intersects numbered highways at its termini, it is permissible to include less notable, non-numbered roads in the junction list. If a road has more than 3 intersections with numbered highways, do not include non-numbered roads unless they are notable for scenic or historical reasons." :) —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, some editors have such a hard concept of spectrums that we may have to go to something like that. :| --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I have taken the step of opening Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gill Giller Gillerger 2. --Rschen7754 (T C) 09:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Renaming Alt. US 19 in St. Pete?

As some of you know, I created the article U.S. Route 19 Alternate (St. Petersburg, Florida). But because of the fact that it goes through major cities such as Largo, Clearwater, and Dunedin, I'm thinking of renaming the article U.S. Route 19 Alternate (Pinellas County, Florida). Does anybody think that'd be a good idea? Keep in mind, it also goes into a sliver of Pasco County(Holiday), but not enough of one to include that in the name. ----DanTD (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Route 19 Alternate (Florida) won't suffice for this? --Fredddie ™ 16:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure, since other Alternate US 19's existed in the past in Florida(Scroll down for the one I'm talking about.). ----DanTD (talk) 17:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Give them a mention. It won't hurt anything. As it is US 19 Alt Fla redirects to St. Pete. --Fredddie ™ 19:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Another option would be to use the terminal cities, i.e. U.S. Route 19 Alternate (St. Petersburg–Holiday, Florida). I believe this used to be a standard disambiguation method, although I don't think it's currently documented on a project page. --LJ (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

If this is going to be the title, remember to space the en dash per WP:MOSDASH (because of the space in St. Petersburg). – T M F 04:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems like the county would be best. Others should be covered under their current names, not plopped at the end of an article about a current major route. --NE2 19:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

~~According to the link above, the route appears to be in two counties. --LJ (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)~~ Since the route is in two counties, I think the city terminii method is best. I think any guidelines we had on this may have inadvertantly been eliminated when the Interstate and U.S. Route projects were merged with USRD a while back. --LJ (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

In this scenario, I think it may be best to use the termini to identify the route. "St. Petersburg" would imply that it is the only city the alternate route runs through, which is not true, and county disambiguation would not work since it exists in more than one county. ---Dough 48 72 22:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I just did it. I might even consider redirecting some of the redlinks posted here. ----DanTD (talk) 16:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Fragmented exit lists

Notice how the Santa Ana Freeway portion of the Interstate 5 in California exit list is on the Santa Ana Freeway article. Is this something we want to do? --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

When I first read this, I thought that the freeway portion in question had been removed from the I-5 article. However, it appears that the portion in question has been duplicated on the Santa Ana Freeway article. I believe the full I-5 exit list should be retained on the I-5 article. If it is felt that this portion should be duplicated on the Santa Ana Freeway article, I'm okay with that (but advise against it). I would just be extremely leery of having to maintain two identical lists, especially complex ones such as I-5 in CA. --LJ (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be only on the Santa Ana Freeway article, since that's the article that will have the detailed prose about that portion, and thus the one where readers will be most likely to want to check the list. --NE2 23:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I know I've suggested something like this before with "Major Cities", but this is perhaps a better case for making the exit list a separated list article on its own, which could then be transcluded into both articles, possibly as a table that is collapsed in the I-5 CA article. This would centralize edits if it is desirable to have the list in both articles. Tricky, but would solve the main issue without removing copy from I-5 CA. Sswonk (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Templates are for navigation and "look and feel", not for content. --NE2 00:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

And such templates got deleted. We don't do list articles for exit lists anyway. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Not at template, NE2, a page, and I know we don't normally do that, but this is a special case. How is it done on other named freeway/entire route cases? Example Santa Ana Freeway page, exit list surrounded by onlyinclude, transcluded below: ~~User:Sswonk/SAFexits as:~~

{|  class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;font-size:88%;text-align: left; border: 1px solid silver; margin-top: 0.2em;" |- ! style="background-color: #CFC;" | Hidden for ease of scrolling |- | style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white; " | {{:Santa Ana Freeway}}{{Reflist}} |} ~~or use onlyinclude tags around the list at the freeway article~~ (done). Sswonk (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Edited to prevent incorrect categorization of this page. DexDor^(talk) 16:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

If it's transclused, it's a de facto template. --NE2 00:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

But it is in main namespace, and this is documented, see WP:TRANS—"If the source is in the Main article namespace (e.g., "Cat"), you must put a colon (:) in front of the name, thus: {{:Cat}}", and should be perfectly acceptable as a way of maintaining a single list. Sswonk (talk) 01:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Then it's a template masquerading as an article. Content doesn't get transcluded, no matter what namespace it's in. --NE2 01:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

No, a template is in the template namespace. The fact that it is in the main namespace doesn't preclude using it elsewhere, whether by copy-pasting (which is freely done) or through transclusion. Simply transclude the exit list, and place an HTML comment pointing to the original source, , for editors who don't recognize the syntax. If you can show me a policy that says no transclusion, go ahead, but it seems to me the WP:TRANS documentation makes it plain that it is acceptable. Who could argue against it? It's a lot safer and easier than maintaining two separate lists and constantly having to stop newbs from adding edits to one and not the other, i.e. thinking the list for Santa Ana Freeway is "missing" at I-5 CA and filling it in. Transclude, simple and safe. It is still freely editable content. Sswonk (talk) 01:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Transclusion is a help page that tells you how to do something with the software, not what should or should not be done. --NE2 02:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue that point, but I do think that if there are reasons not to use transclusion they should be spelled out there or elsewhere in a general guideline. It does cite an example of using transclusion in exactly the way we are talking about Wikipedia:Trans#Partial transclusion, but the example page it gives has since been edited. It's moot here however. I realized that what would need to happen is: Santa Ana Freeway would need to transclude only the rows of the exit list at I-5 CA between exits 94B and 134B. It could be done the other way around, but rowspans in the county and city columns conflict in both cases. Test transcluding just I-5 CA rows into Santa Ana is at User:Sswonk/SAFexits. The bottom of the table is slightly messed up due to rowspan problems through using transcluded rows. So this is out, unless three tables are used on each page, i.e. one table each for South of overlap <--overlap--> North of overlap. This is a tough question, Rschen7754. Sswonk (talk) 05:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

What happens if this were to snowball? I know if we did the above, other articles would follow soon after, probably within 20 minutes. Wouldn't inserting includeonly tags on I-5 CA affect any articles that wanted to do this? --Fredddie ™ 17:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions, not meaning to seem impudent just don't understand: if what were to snowball, and I talked about onlyinclude, so what does includeonly have to do with it? Sswonk (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

My error, I meant onlyinclude. I'm saying if Santa Ana Freeway had its exit list transcluded from I-5 CA, some editor will want to transclude sections of I-5's exit list onto every article that is a section of I-5. If there are onlyinclude tags on the Santa Ana section of I-5 CA's exit list, transcluding it would only show Santa Ana no matter the article. I hope this clarifies. --Fredddie ™ 18:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, this problem went through my mind last night but was undocumented. Transclusion, there may be a way to tag the code and use parsing to pull the right section of I-5 CA out, but it is not looking viable as a solution to Rschen's question at this point. I think we need to look at another way of handling this. As problematic as it may be, two separate lists (status quo) might be the best answer for now. Sswonk (talk) 19:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

An option that might be considered is to have the complete list of highway exits in only one of the two articles, and use cross-references to get people to go and look in the other article. EdJohnston (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's been the de facto method: place in I-5 a colspan saying "see Santa Ana Freeway#Exit list". --NE2 23:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, that leaves someone looking for the I-5 list having to go to another article. What if we did it the other way around? --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

If a cross reference is used, I would say have the complete list in the I-5 article and use a colspan in the Santa Ana Fwy article. I feel it is more important for the numbered highway to have the complete list, because most people in the US use numbers (not highway names) to navigate. --LJ (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If only one list is left after this discussion, this is the way to do it:

Maintain the full I-5 exit list at I-5 CA and place a cross reference note colspan at Santa Ana Freeway's list where the overlap begins.
On the I-5 CA list, use a colspan to note the beginning and end of Santa Ana Freeway overlap.
To handle incoming traffic from readers clicking the cross reference note at Santa Ana Freeway, use {{anchor}} to put a hidden HTML anchor at the I-5 CA list where Santa Ana Freeway begins. For example, {{anchor|Santa Ana Freeway exits}} at I-5 CA where Santa Ana Freeway begins and the link [[Interstate 5 in California#Santa Ana Freeway exits|Interstate 5 in California exit list]] in the Santa Ana Freeway list in the colspan.
In the I-5 CA list at the end of the overlap, put a link back to the Santa Ana Freeway list.

I think that is preferable to either maintaining two separate lists with duplicated content or splitting the list between articles with the overlap appearing only in Santa Ana Freeway. I-5 CA should have the complete list. An HTML comment could be placed in the list at Santa Ana Freeway saying in so many words "don't change this it's a consensus decision". Sswonk (talk) 04:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The detailed exit list should go where the other details of that segment are: the Santa Ana Freeway article. It's more likely that a reader will want to check the exits on the Santa Ana Freeway while reading about the Santa Ana Freeway. For instance, if you read how it was opened from Fire Canyon Road to Wet Stream Avenue in 1932, you might then want to see where those are in relation to other interchanges. --NE2 20:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You know, I can't disagree with that reason for having the list at Santa Ana Freeway. The problem is, it should be at I-5 too, why gut a very important part of that list? LA, OC? The heaviest traffic on the whole list no doubt. That's why I tried transclusion but it breaks the table and you strongly oppose it. Actually, I am not too thrilled with it now that I have realized some of the implications myself. So, if we are expressing opinions mine is: maintain the exits at both articles. Second choice would be just Santa Ana if I had to choose, but others here have the opposite feeling. Again, a tough one. Sswonk (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The same argument applies to other sections of the article: why gut a very important part of the history of I-5? Why gut a very important part of the route description? (I know some think the articles should be merged, so if you're one of those, apply the same argument to Cross Bronx Expressway/I-95, or Central Artery/I-93, or Dan Ryan Expressway/I-94...) --NE2 21:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Not for merging any of those or these two. It seems as though we would be doing this for our benefit rather than the readers, however. The exit list is more or less the definition of linear content, like a time line. Compare to Timeline of World War I, it would seem odd to remove two months in the middle because an (obviously hypothetical, never going to happen) article about those two months was spun out. So I think the argument is not exactly the same as history or route description. But I do see your point. I'm waiting to read what others think as well. Sswonk (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the I-5 and Santa Ana articles can't really be merged, since it looks like the Santa Ana Fwy also composes a significant portion of US 101. It's probably best in this case to maintain two lists, and maybe put a note in the table code that states edits to one list should be duplicated in the other. If this were a case of the named freeway being solely a part of the numbered highway, it would be much better to just merge the list (and the whole article, for that matter). --LJ (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if two months were spun out, I'd expect only the most important events during those months to be in the main timeline. --NE2 01:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Good, we're starting to think alike on this. I thought the same thing about the hypothetical spin out of WWI events. Like any other subject there would be a summary of major exits at the I-5 CA exit list with a "for details on this section of I-5 see Santa Ana Freeway#Exit list" note inline above and another note when SAF leaves I-5. I think that would be OK. Sswonk (talk) 01:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I still think that two exit lists is the best option (or rather, the least painful option), as having only a summary at I-5 CA disrupts the continuity of the exit list. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

From a reader standpoint, the state article should have the complete list. If that means we need to transclude a portion of the list there, then that is what we need to. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

How is that the reader standpoint? I've explained that a reader is more likely to want that part of the exit list while reading about that part of the road. --NE2 21:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

But if I'm reading about I-5 I want to see all of the exit lists in that article. Yes, a reader who is looking at an article that covers a section of the road probably would like to see the exit list that covers that section. That need does not remove the need to have the exit list in one place. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If you're reading about I-5, wouldn't you want to see all the history in one article just as much? But we split out the detailed history into sub-articles. --NE2 22:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Histories tend to get long in many articles which is why they are commonly moved to separate articles. The problem with splitting up an exit list is that it does not make sense or aid readability if it is split across articles. You can clearly have you cake and eat it to if you simply transclude the data into other articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

With transclusion, the cake you're eating is rather inedible. --NE2 23:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I cannot resist the temptation to point out that the cake is a lie. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

RFC for wider input

I think that maybe we should get a wider range of input on this; right now it seems we're at a stalemate. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I am seeing these options:

Status quo – Maintain the status quo, two separate full lists at each article.
See Santa Ana Freeway – Maintain a full list at Santa Ana Freeway (SAF) and a partial list at Interstate 5 (I-5 CA), omitting the concurrent exits.
Transclude – Maintain a three-part list at SAF, with the middle list showing the concurrent exits, and transclude that portion of SAF into I-5 CA.
Single list – Maintain a single list at I-5 CA with a "See Interstate 5 (California)" link at SAF
Summary – Only include the major exits at I-5 CA, with the full list at SAF

I'm not listing these to solicit !votes or opinions, just trying to summarize the choices discussed so far. Make any corrections to that summary. I don't know where this would be posted to get a wider range of input, or if someone just wants to volunteer using AWB to notify a list of editors. Sswonk (talk) 22:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking article RFC. In the past we've used article RFC when the project is full of angry people; I don't see that as the case here. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe this discussion is still active, I am adding a comment at the bottom to hold for ten more days against bot archiving. Sswonk (talk) 01:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This is falling apart. I wonder if we should just do a straw poll? --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Single list. No, it's not unanimous, but it's a clear majority. We have to choose one option, and this is the one most people support. Rschen7754 (T C) 06:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll

The choices are above. Time to get this dealt with. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Single list. None of the options are great; this has the least disadvantages. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Single list. with appropriate targets on the I-5 list and links on SAF. --Fredddie ™ 07:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Single list as described by Fredddie. I've never been a fan of having to bounce from one article to the other for a numbered route's exits. – T M F 08:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Transclude. it's a little complex, but it's easy to maintain and the right exit list appears at both articles. As a plus it works well for other concurrencies, like the US84/285 freeway between Pojoaque and Santa Fe in New Mexico (which needs an exit list).Synchronism (talk) 08:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Single list per others.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 10:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I prefer having a single list if there is a single exit numbering system in place for the multiple sections and that the beginning/end of each section should be clearly identified on the exit list (a row saying "Begin XYZ Freeway" spanning the entire table would be my preferred method). Now, if a highway has different exit numbering systems for each section, separated exit lists are probably better. --Polaron | Talk 19:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Single list on the I-5 and US 101 articles as the Santa Ana Freeway is a part of both these routes. Personally, I think the Santa Ana Freeway article should be converted into a disambiguation page like San Diego Freeway. ---Dough 48 72 21:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Most relevant location; anything else is bad for the reader. Should Ohio Turnpike#Exit list be split? --NE2 21:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Transclude – allows the status quo to exist in appearance while the reality underneath is that there is only one place for either set of data. I think not trying this solution is denying a good currently available improvement, it keeps the reader from having to leave in the middle of the list to view the named freeway section. NE2, you're just plain wrong about it being against the rules, transclusion of main namespace copy is not in any way "templatizing" content. It is simply storing data in one place but making it available in both. Sswonk (talk) 01:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Single list - If the transclude option can be made to work in an acceptable fashion, I wouldn't mind it. For now, however, single list (at I-5) with appropriate links & anchors seems to be the best option. What Polaron mentioned about exit number continuity of overlapping exit list situations would be a good consideration for future cases. --LJ (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems most people prefer single list. Any objections to closing this soon? --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- No, at this point I would say we decided on what we wanted as a majority. ---Dough 48 72 15:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Unresolved issue with template:jct

Resolved

– Rschen7754 (T C) 08:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:Jct#Enabling "banners" for NY. The section has been there since August and I can't fix it since the documentation for the inner workings of the template is shoddy at best. – T M F 23:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you give examples of what doesn't work? --NE2 23:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Currently no banners will work if there's no banner for the first route, and that's not dependent on the state. --Fredddie ™ 23:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Examples:

NY 9D / NY 52 Bus.

US 20 / NY 9D / NY 52 Bus.

Looks like everything's resolved now, with thanks to Fredddie (talk · contribs). – T M F 00:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Another AfD

Resolved

– Deleted. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geronimo Trail --Fredddie ™ 06:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

TFD

Resolved

– Deleted. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 4#Template:I-83 aux ---Dough 48 72 19:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Book-class

Resolved

– Done. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright there are several Wikipedia Books that are related to US roads, so if you could update the US road banner to handle the book-class, that would be of tremendous help since the members of WikiProject Comics have a lot more clue when US roads are concerned than we have over at WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, and thus will be able to give better feedback on content, deletion discussions, etc...

Since most of you don't know what Wikipedia-Books are, here's a crash course. Basically they are collections of articles which you can download or order in print. I would really recommend to go through Help:Books and Help:Books/for experts to see what this is all about.

For example of a US Roads-related books, see WP:Books/New York State Route 20N and WP:Books/State touring routes in Warren County, New York (you can view the PDFs here and here). Needless to say a lot more books could be made, so if you want to give it a try, you have lots of room. It really doesn't take long to create books (at least compared to writing new articles) since all you have to do is find existing articles and arrange them into something that makes sense. And if you create a book, don't forget to place {{Wikipedia-Books}} on pages that should link to the books, otherwise no one will know these exist.

If you have questions, just ask and I'll answer as best I can. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the point of these books, but I've added the functionality to the USRD template anyway. – T M F 22:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Ick. How long until The Power Broker is tagged as book-class? :) --NE2 07:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Uh what? Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Washington State Route 20 Spur merge discussion

Resolved

– Merged. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Washington State Route 20. --Rschen7754 (T C) 09:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Interstate 82 GAR

Resolved

– Demoted. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Interstate 82 has been nominated for a good article reassessment. 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) 09:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

UK

I came across this today regarding UK exit lists. If anyone's interested... --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Washington State Route 213 merge discussion

See Talk:Washington State Route 20. --Rschen7754 (T C) 09:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Route 410 merge discussion

See Talk:Washington State Route 410. --Rschen7754 (T C) 10:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Chinook Scenic Byway merge discussion

See Talk:Washington State Route 410. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Wyoming Highway 110 merge discussion

See Talk:Devils Tower National Monument. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Interstate 5 Business (Marysville, Washington) merge discussion

Resolved

– Merged. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Washington State Route 529. Not really sure if this is where it should be merged to though. --Rschen7754 (T C) 11:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Six more TFDs

Resolved

– All deleted. ---Dough 48 72 17:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 12#Various auxiliary Interstate templates. ---Dough 48 72 16:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

And another, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 11#Template:I-16 aux. ---Dough 48 72 17:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 13#Template:I-66 aux. ---Dough 48 72 03:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Iowa Highway 370/Nebraska Highway 370 merge discussion

Resolved

– Merged into Nebraska Highway 370 --Fredddie ™ 00:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Iowa Highway 370. --Fredddie ™ 00:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I-287 merge proposal

Resolved

– Merged. ---Dough 48 72 04:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Interstate 287#Merging Cross-Westchester Expressway. ---Dough 48 72 04:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I am moving the discussion here: I am planning on expanding the Interstate 287 article and in doing so, I looked at the sub-article Cross-Westchester Expressway and saw it was nothing more than an exit list, some history, and a two-sentence route description. I feel the information about the Cross-Westchester Expressway can easily be incorporated into the I-287 article as the entire expressway is part of that interstate. ---Dough 48 72 17:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the CWE was proposed as Interstate 187 and for one year was Interstate 487 :|. I'd rrather see the history be in first before there, because its a pretty major name expressway.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 17:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I could incorporate all the CWE history into I-287. ---Dough 48 72 17:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see the need to cover the CWE separately from I-287. I know for a fact that some of the CWE did not predate I-287; thus, there is at least some common construction history as well. Support merge. – T M F 22:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

This was originally envisioned as a separate project and it was only absorbed later into I-287 so in the long run I think this will be split off. However, because of the almost stubby state of the main text of the article, I agree that merging is the way to go until someone can make a full-fledged article in the future. --Polaron | Talk 23:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't completely follow this logic. Even though the plans for the CWE predate I-287, the project served as the origins for the Westchester County part of I-287. The true test to determine if a separate article should be made would be to see how much of the CWE's history would be independent of I-287's history and origins. My guess is not much. – T M F 23:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

In expanding the I-287 article, I have merged the Cross-Westchester Expressway as suggested. ---Dough 48 72 04:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

New Jersey Route 33 Business merge proposal

Resolved

– Merged. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:New Jersey Route 33. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/Baltimore–Washington Parkway

Resolved

– Article promoted. ---Dough 48 72 18:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Please visit the above page and review the article; this has been open for almost 6 months. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Scope updated

The scope has been tagged as {{disputed}} for almost 2 years. I put a scope that closely resembles the status quo. If you have any problems, please discuss here (do not edit war), so we can at least get a discussion started. I decided I would take the initiative to get this resolved. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no problems with the scope, but did want to propose a rewrite of what's there now. It's got everything that's in there now, and cleans up/clarifies some things:

This WikiProject maintains articles relating to roadways of national or regional significance in the United States. This includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the following:

Numbered route systems, such as Interstate Highways, U.S. Routes, state highways and county highways
Controlled access or semi-controlled access roadways, such as freeways, expressways, parkways and toll roads
Historic auto trails and named highways which predate the U.S. numbered route system
Former alignments of numbered routes (where such routings are noteworthy enough to warrant separate articles)

Articles not maintained by this project, with some exception, include:

City and local streets, which are maintained by WP:U.S. Streets
- Some city streets may carry numbered highway designations, or did so in the past. For articles where the numbered route comprises a large portion of the local street, WP:USRD will maintain information relating to the numbered highway, while WP:USST will maintain info about the street itself and its surroundings.
Bridges, which are maintained by WP:Bridges
- Where the entire length of a numbered route exists solely on a bridge, WP:USRD will also maintain the article.

If in doubt as to whether an article falls under the scope of this project, please discuss it on the project's talk page.

Any comments? --LJ (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Only one, and this is very picky:

>Articles not maintained by this project, with some exception, include:

exception should be plural (exceptions). --Tim Sabin (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Redirects

I was randomly looking through some of the USRD assessment categories just now. I found out that for Wisconsin, we have tagged 1066 redirect-class articles. That's right 1,066 redirect-class articles in Wisconsin!?! It seems that someone went through and created a talk page for every redirect that exists for all the Wisconsin articles. I thought we only used this class tag on the main article's talk page if the article page is converted to a redirect as a result of a merge (especially if the old talk page has discussion on it). I imagine we could get rid of most, if not all, of these useless talk pages. --LJ (talk) 05:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it should be deleted in my opinion. Ugh, what a task. --Triadian (talk) 05:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, delete. Those are silly. --NE2 09:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully this qualifies under G6 (or whatever the maintenance one is)? --Rschen7754 (T C) 10:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You can probably say "consensus at WT:USRD" in the deletion log and get away with it. Alternately mass-redirect them to the talk page of the target article. --NE2 12:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There's quite a few of these useless talk pages:

Talk:Highway X (Wisconsin), Talk:STH X (WIS), Talk:State Trunk Highway X (Wisconsin), Talk:WIS X, and Talk:Wisconsin State Highway X -- about 195 of each "X".
Talk:U.S. Highway Y (Wisconsin), Talk:U.S. Highway Y in Wisconsin, Talk:U.S. Route Y (Wisconsin) and Talk:US Y (WI) -- about 17 of each "Y".
Talk:I-Z (WI) -- about 8 "Z"s. (Other Interstate talk page redirects exist as well, some of which might be useful in the future.)

So how do we begin to go about eliminating these under CSD-G6 criterion? --LJ (talk) 10:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

See WP:CSD for the process. In a nutshell, tag the article with whichever of the tags listed there best meets the situation, and an admin will come around and delete them. (I gave it a brief look, {{db-redirnone}} or {{db-g6|rationale=reason}} are probably the closest, but none exactly fit the scenario). I am an admin, and am willing to delete, but I'm leaving right now for work. So if you want me to do it, it will have to wait. Dave (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I understand the process but was more asking about actually doing it. Assuming that {{db-g6}} with an appropriate rationale is used, there's over 1000 talk pages to tag... That's a daunting task! --LJ (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You can probably use WP:AWB. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Or you could use AWB to replace with a redirect - use two find/replace rows, one to replace with "#REDIRECT %pagename%", which it pre-parses, and then use a regex to change the target. --NE2 22:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I've never used WP:AWB before. So I'll either need to learn how to use AWP to do this, or someone with the necessary experience could jump in. --LJ (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Until there is a mac version of AWB, or until my employer stops forcing spyware that blocks my work machines from installing software such as this, AWB is not an option for me. =-( (Yes I'd love to use it).Dave (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

As long as you have a Windows system it should be easy to figure out. See WP:AWB. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Interstate 287

Can someone take a look at the edits made by 71.48.97.82 (talk · contribs) to Interstate 287? Basically, this user is removing informationn without an explanation. I have tried to revert their edits, but they keep getting changed back. ---Dough 48 72 18:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

These edits were already reverted by Fredddie. It looks to me like they are mostly nuisance edits; they say the same thing as before by re-wording the text. Kinda like a gnat buzzing in your ear. --Tim Sabin (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

For all the edits 71.48.97.82 made, I was surprised how little content was actually changed when I reverted. --Fredddie ™ 22:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

On the same vein as this is 98.81.2.95 (talk · contribs). Who knows, it might be the same guy. Unlike the one above, though, this guy is changing wording on multiple articles. Also, some of the edits (like [16]) are of pretty poor quality. (To me anyway, I don't see how "about" means the same thing as "circa".) – T M F 02:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

And another: 204.255.30.12 (talk · contribs) – T M F 13:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for one week as a result of vandalism on other articles. – T M F 14:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, this one's back at it. He apparently has a big beef with the wording of one sentence in the history as he's attempted to change it at least three times. Anyone care to look at this article and see if they can copyedit or rewrite it to skirt the issue altogether? – T M F 12:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I-287 is on the rewrite list for NJ anyway, so it shouldn't be too long.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 12:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Roadgeek#Notable_roadgeeks

There seems to be a problem here. A roadgeek who is also a Wikipedia editor removed this section citing policy in WP:DIRECTORY. I don't want to mention who for reasons, but he then got reverted as vandalism. I reverted that reversion, which removed the list, and I've been reverted, citing WP:DIRECTORY allowing for lists of people. Outside of the fact Roadgeek has been up for AFD 5 times, and it probably doesn't need to stay. I would solve this myself, but I have a massive conflict of interest as I know most of the people in real life, and can't really get involved. If people want to leave input on the situation, it would be helpful.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 20:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

No point in trying to preserve anonymity. With the information provided, all someone has to do is check the article history to get the identity of those involved. However, this is an interesting point of discussion on the long-plagued roadgeek article. I agree some more feedback would be useful, and I intend to provide some once I've had a chance to think it over.Dave (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

How can one be notable for being a roadgeek? The list seems superfluous in the first place. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I feel it us unnecessary to list "notable" roadgeeks, as these are simply ordinary people with an interest in roads. Sure, there are a few that have been mentioned in the media, but many media origanizations like to scope out people who have interesting talents. Railfanning is a somewhat similar hobby and there is a List of railfans article. It may make sense for the list of notable roadgeeks to be kept if there is a reference from a reliable source available. ---Dough 48 72 01:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The list of roadgeeks was a list of people who run roadgeek websites whereas the list of railfans is a list of famous people who like railroads. I don't think the list should stay if the people on the list aren't notable enough for their own articles. --Fredddie ™ 02:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That is a good point. If someone notable enough for an article is a roadgeek, then it can be mentioned in the Roadgeek article. Otherwise, they should not be mentioned. ---Dough 48 72 02:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

While there are a few people who run well-known roadgeek sites, I don't think we should have a listing of them. There are a few people who have their roadgeeking noted in the press—Jeff Kitsko, who appears in Pennsylvania newspapers semi-frequently, H.B. Elkins, who appears in the media as a matter of course because he's a KTC PR guy, Steve Alpert, whose photos have appeared in the Vermont drivers' manual, and I guess you could include User:US 71, who often has letters published in a Fort Smith newspaper's road column. But all of those cases seem too marginal; there's no household name that is an acknowledged roadgeek (or would deserve their own article). So really I don't think we should have a list in that article. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Roadgeek#Notable roadgeeks. --NE2 11:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Stub recent changes

Here's a dynamic list of recent changes related to Stub-Class USRD articles. Might be worth watching for bad edits that would usually go under the radar. (I can do one of these for the other classes too.) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 12:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Great! That's really useful. How often are you planning on updating it? Where are you getting the source info? —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Presumably AWB, by getting the contents (recursive) of Category:U.S. state road transport articles by quality, filtering for "Stub-Class", then getting the contents of each remaining, and converting from talk pages. At least that's how I'd do it. --NE2 19:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly. I guess I can update it every couple weeks or so, since we don't really have that many newly created stubs. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Welcomeroad

{{Welcomeroad}} has been updated! It is now based upon {{W-basic}}, a standard welcome template. {{Welcomeroadip}} now redirects to Welcomeroad because W-basic had some boilerplate text for IP editors that I utilized. --Fredddie ™ 00:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Another deletion discussion

See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 19#Interstate navboxes with three links. ---Dough 48 72 04:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Virginia primary state routes serving institutions

Most of the articles about Virginia state routes serving institutions are stubs and will never be anything else; their sole purpose is to provide access to the institution. I'm wondering if these stubs should be combined into a larger article (this is already done with "bannered routes"). Most of these routes are in the 300-399 range. See the List of primary state highways in Virginia for a thorough listing. --Tim Sabin (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The USRD Notability Guideline speaks to this regarding lists of short articles, with the specific example of List of state highways serving Utah state parks and institutions. Sounds to me like an acceptable list article if many of these route articles would be "permastubs"--a really significant entry on the list could still have its own article. --LJ (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. On another note, it seems the use of colors in the table is arbitrary. Business routes are colored green while Alternate routes are not. --Fredddie ™ 00:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

There is already a list of Virginia state highways serving state institutions at State highways serving Virginia state institutions. This article should be rewriiten into a similar matter as the Utah list is. Currently, most of the 300-routes in Virginia redirect to the institute they serve, with the article about the latter not even mentioning the route. For example, Virginia State Route 350 redirects to Tidewater Community College, and the college article has no mention of VA 350's route aside from a hatnote. In additon, it would be awkward for a community college article to randomly mention its access road has a number. The routes should instead be redirected to State highways serving Virginia state institutions, where its routing, what institution it serves, and history can be described. ---Dough 48 72 01:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This is good. I like the idea of the Virginia list being similar to the Utah list. I have just one concern here: many of the links from the list address the stub articles that were mentioned above (such as Virginia State Route 393). I would suggest that, once the proposed list is developed, the existing stub articles be deleted. --Tim Sabin (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The stub articles should be redirected to their place on the list so the reader can still find the information of a particular route. ---Dough 48 72 06:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the existing Virginia stubs should be redirected to appropriately placed anchors in the revised list--creating other redirects might be appropriate as well. The list article should also be renamed similarly to Utah's, in accordance with WP:LISTNAME. --LJ (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

USRD/NT proposal

Discussion at WP:USRD/NT --Fredddie ™ 23:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Lists of highways in counties?

There are 3140 counties in the United States. Do we want 3140 lists of highways in each county? (I suppose there are independent cities and Alaska divisions too.) --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. From what I can tell, the only reason any exist are for those by-county topics that some are making. At the risk of going off on a tangent, I'm not enamored by those either. A true topic should be something where you don't have to make something extra, like a list of routes in a county, to get it. This is an example of what I would consider a legit topic as it has a main article that should actually exist. – T M F 07:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my comment applies to lists of all highways within a county and not to lists of just county routes within a county. I agree with the posters below in that listing the routes that enter a county in the county's article is sufficient. – T M F 07:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Lists of county-numbered routes by county are probably okay if there is at least some description of the county highway system and county highway/public works department managing the system. A separate list article of state and national highways through a particular county is probably overkill. It might be better mentioning state and national highways passing through a given county by listing them in a transportation section of the article on that county. --Polaron | Talk 16:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, for those counties that maintain highways. There is probably a fair amount of history for each county that existed in the early 20th century, before the state took over main highways. But no, we don't need anything more than a sentence or two about current state highways. The focus should be on the county highway department and its activities. --NE2 21:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with NE2. Many of those counties probably do not maintain their own system of routes, and only have state maintained highways and interstates. In Canada, only Ontario has "county" roads, and only has about 30 such "counties" that maintain a network separate from the provincial one. State maintained highways should be examined on a state by state basis. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The only lists that should exist for highways in counties are lists of county routes (such as List of county routes in Monmouth County, New Jersey), as they are part of a numbering system within a specific county. Many articles about specific counties, such as Lawrence County, Pennsylvania, list out major highways as a section of the article. I would say listing the routes in the main county article is the best way to go and a specific "List of routes in X county, Y state" for every county (or parish, independent city, or Alaska borough) would be excessive. ---Dough 48 72 21:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the consensus developing here. I don't think list articles of every numbered highway in a particular county are necessary--many articles on counties already provide brief lists of these. If there's county-level prose of state/national routes on such list articles, it might be better placed in the main or state-detail articles to improve their quality. --LJ (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there would be too much harm to squeeze a bit on the state maintained highways in a county into the "numbered (county) roads in X county" article. Unless the county has a major city in it, there are only going to be a small handful of interstates that could be listed and link to Interstate X in STATE. They may be separate networks, but they all tie in together. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

But the county route lists are only meant show routes part of a county route system. It is unnessecary to tack on state routes into a list that is intended to cover county routes. ---Dough 48 72 18:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It really depends on the naming of the article. For my Ontario articles, I'm naming them 'list of numbered roads in Foo', which means the article isn't intended only for the county road system, but rather a broader coverage of all numbered routes. Of course, the US system is far more complex. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

That is the kind of articles we are trying to stay away from. The list should only cover the county route system while the state routes can simply be listed in the main county article. ---Dough 48 72 19:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, again, things aren't nearly as tangled a web up here so its easy to get away with listing provincial highways, since only 4 or 5 often cross a county/region. The lists are more suited for statistics (termini, length, etc), while the main county article is more suited to an evolution of the transportation network in that county. No point in spreading information about and making users look for it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The concern here is that we'll end up having multiple articles like List of highways in Hudspeth County, Texas (one of 24 such lists in Texas alone). This list article is nothing more than tables for each route listing termini, length in the county, and some junctions. Without any kind of detail in the list article, a reader might want to get more info about a specific route...unfortunately, 11 of the 15 article links are red. I think the thinking behind this discussion is that effort is being spent to create these lists (and in this case, companion navigation templates) when we have a great many articles that need improving or creating. If the articles aren't available to link to from the list page, the list page starts to become useless. I would prefer to see route articles (or lists of routes, where applicable) expanded with more detail before the proliferation of "List of highways in Foo County, Bar State" articles. --LJ (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but as for me I'm opposed to the lists of all highways in a county articles simply because I don't see the benefit of having them. The content of these lists could be easily included in a transportation section of the county's article instead. – T M F 21:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. A good chunk of the county articles don't have any transportation-related content outside a meager list of state-and-above level routes. --Fredddie ™ 22:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

So... what does this mean for the ~~routes~~ lists that exist? --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Change them into lists, then cut down :) --NE2 02:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Rschen fail. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion proposal

Elliptical highway shield (what the...)

[17] is a bit strange - is this someone we know? --NE2 18:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The latter is a guy who keeps causing trouble over at Commons. He's been blocked several times for socking. – T M F 18:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see that guy was the one who created this lousy article. I'll expand on my initial comment a bit then. The guy started out with another account, got blocked for uploading things to Commons with no licensing (and the things were typically worthless crops of photos, where the only thing left was a shield), and was indef'd when he evaded the block as an IP. Since then, he's created several socks, all of which have been indef'd at Commons. They are not blocked here, though, so we'll need to keep an eye on them. Based on their prior history, I doubt this user will ever contribute productively to the wiki. – T M F 18:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Let me see if I have this straight: a user named Interstate208 (no such interstate exists, but if it did, it would Surely be in San Diego, California. In fact, a couple of freeways in San Diego could legitimately be renumbered I-208), makes edits suspiciously like another blocked user from southern California who frequently chooses names of freeways that do exist, but in their talk page claims to be from New Zealand and only work on New Zealand road articles. OK I've seen enough, I'm logging out now =-). Dave (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Resolved

– Deleted. ---Dough 48 72 03:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

TFD of {{Control cities}}. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 18. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Arizona State Route 202 / Spur merge discussion

Resolved

– Merged. --Rs chen 7754 04:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Arizona State Route 202. --Fredddie ™ 01:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Yet another TFD

Resolved

– Deleted. ---Dough 48 72 15:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 20 - for {{State Roads in Indiana}} --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The services section

This was added to WP:USRD/STDS a couple of years back. My question is is it really feasible on longer toll roads, such as the New York State Thruway, which has over two dozen service areas? As of the time of posting the section looks like this: an ugly bulleted list that violates the MOS in three different spots. Thoughts? – T M F 19:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd wipe it out. I would say service areas are notable if they are rare in that area and/or have some historical significance. Neither of these appear to be the case here, given the most notable thing whomever added them could find about them is that some have a McDonalds. Wow, how exotic, you people in New York really have it good compared to us uncultured folk out west. =-) Dave (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The Services section as it stands is optional anyway. However, I should note that it is possible to discuss services in general without resorting to listing them all out; you can state that the Thruway has 26 service plazas with an average distance apart of X miles, and list the companies that generally have concessions at them, as well as typical amenities (gas station and food? dog walking area maybe? any history exhibits or such?). You can discuss the locations of the plazas (median, right-hand side, or at interchanges, perhaps). Is there a tourist information center/welcome center at any of them? Take a look at Kansas Turnpike#Services for some ideas. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the services section can be useful in a toll road article, if it is done right. It should be a table listing the name, location, and milepost of each service plaza. The list at New Jersey Turnpike is a decent example that should be converted to table format and would work well. However, the list of service plazas should not list specific services at the plaza, as in the New York State Thruway article, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. ---Dough 48 72 15:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I prefer Scott's example better. Honestly, a simple paragraph or two is sufficient for most highways. I even had a non-tolled highway get a section on rest areas. See M-28 (Michigan highway) for the subsection in the RD. Anything more could be overkill. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"Hidden Designation"

This term is used in a number of articles about roads. Could someone perhaps make an article on exactly what that means and why it's important to know? 98.249.238.176 (talk) 05:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

We already have one, unsigned highway. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

However his point is still valid. If any article (especially one ranked GA or higher) does not have a link to this article on the first instance of "unsigned highway" or "hidden designation" this article is not friendly to those who are not roadgeeks and this should be fixed.Dave (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Same goes for terms like "overlap" and "concurrency" (and in the case of New York "reference route"). All of them should be linked when they're first introduced in the article. That said, I think the phrase "hidden designation" is a bit unencyclopedic. "Unsigned designation" would probably be better. If we can agree on a term, perhaps we can have JC do a find and replace to introduce the term and wikilink it (even though it would probably result in some overlinking, but over is better than none I suppose). – T M F 21:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Interstate A-1

Resolved

– Redirected. --Rs chen 7754 19:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Should this exist (the article, not the route :))? --NE2 11:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that Interstate Highways in Alaska handles the need of describing Alaska's unsigned Interstate's and that separate articles are not needed. However, if the interstate only follows one road, as Interstate A-4 follows the George Parks Highway, then the interstate can redirect to the article about the road it covers. ---Dough 48 72 17:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

IMO this should redirect to another article (the list is fine) and the shields should be removed from the infobox of the A-4 article. To the best of my knowledge, there is not a single interstate highway shield placed in the state of Alaska, and it is misleading for an encyclopedia to imply the highways are signed as such. Dave (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The articles state that Alaska interstates are unsigned, so I don't see this as misleading. The A-1 article states that the article is under major construction/revamping; the last edit was today. The contents af the articles is pretty much the same, so if this "revamping" doesn't create new content, I think the A-1 article (and the A-4?) should be deleted. But, give it a little time - esp. since we're entering the holidays. --Tim Sabin (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I say send it back to the IH in Alaska list. There's no need to write an article about an unsigned designation that's only used internally by the FHWA. – T M F 07:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Could it just be redirected? --Rs chen 7754 06:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that would work. ---Dough 48 72 15:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Massachusetts Route 28A merge discussion

Resolved

– Looks like this has been taken care of, comment back and remove the template if not. --Rs chen 7754 19:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This has been merged with Massachusetts Route 28 but another user is against merging. Comments regarding the appropriateness of the merge are welcome. See Talk:Massachusetts Route 28A for discussion. --Polaron | Talk 05:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Arkansas Highway 72 Spur merge

Resolved

– Merged. --Rs chen 7754 19:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Arkansas Highway 72 Spur - not sure where it should be merged to. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

AR Highway 72 seems like the logical target unless I'm missing something. – T M F 20:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently it was a former routing of US 71 at some point. That was the only thing that gave me pause. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I definitely think the AR 72 Spur article should be merged into AR 72. ---Dough 48 72 04:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Reminder about the WP:USRDCUP

Resolved

– Contest delayed. --Rs chen 7754 04:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The USRDCup contest begins January 1! Currently only 5 editors are signed up. This contest will encourage editors to improve USRD articles. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Do we really need a contest to do what should already be done? Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It makes things more fun. --Rs chen 7754 19:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Turnpike/Interstate 276 merge proposal

Resolved

– Merged. ---Dough 48 72 01:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Pennsylvania Turnpike#Merging Interstate 276. ---Dough 48 72 16:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Named interchanges

I've recently been thinking about articles on named interchanges (SuperRedTan Interchange, Fort Smith Junction, Grandview Triangle as examples). A lot of our coverage on them is rather poor. I have a few questions that I think we as a project need to answer:

Is this something we should have articles on (i.e. does it merit coverage)? If not how should we go about deleting these sorts of articles?
If they merit coverage, what sort of standards shall we set for them?
What is the best way to assess these articles?

Please share your thoughts on this, guys. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think there are a select few interchanges out there that warrant coverage. These interchanges should have a recognized name, be between major roads, and be mentioned in the media. The interchange articles should, in addition to describing the location and routes at the interchange, mention the specific movements between roads, the history of the interchange, and any notable incidents. These articles should fall under the scope of USRD and any relevant subprojects and should receive a quality and importance assessment like any other article. ---Dough 48 72 15:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think named interchanges should have articles if and only if the name is in common use, even amongst non-roadgeeks. If the name is only a legislative designation, it should only be mentioned in the route description of the intersecting roads, at best. If we must have a redirect, redirect to the primary highway of the 2 at the intersection, if there is a peeing match about which is the primary, go by AADT data.Dave (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think much more than a few sentences can be said about any interchange, named or not. Any more than that is fluff. If there isn't already, there should be a list of types of interchanges, e.g., diamond, parclo, SPUI, etc. Then, in an article, we could use targets to link to that type of interchange on the list. If we do give each interchange an article, obviously they should be assessed Redirect-class.

--Fredddie ™ 20:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with this, see Newhall Pass Interchange and Mousetrap. Both these articles need work, but are examples of interchanges that can have much more than a few sentences written about them. Dave (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

1) I believe we should have articles on them if they're notable; more specifically, if a decently-sized, fully referenced article not full of fluff can be written about the interchange, I don't see why we shouldn't have an article on it. As for eliminating the ones that don't meet this...either AFD them or merge them to the primary highway through the interchange. 2) Location, roads served, layout (including the type of interchange if applicable), and history (construction of the interchange itself, not of the highways leading into them) are musts. Perhaps use "Description" for these articles instead of "Route description"? Also, I would ax the junction list since there's no need for anything remotely close to that. 3) For me, a B-Class (complete) interchange article would be one with a completed infobox (Infobox road junction was made a while ago), a complete and referenced description, and a complete and referenced history. – T M F 21:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What would you say about something like Orange Crush interchange? --Rs chen 7754 18:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It appears notable from the content, but it needs a rewrite and references. – T M F 20:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Article requests

Resolved

– Historical. --Rs chen 7754 04:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this really something we want to do? --Rs chen 7754 02:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It can be useful if a user wants a new article but does not have the confidence or time to create it. WP:MDRD has a Wanted articles section which lists the lowest numbered and longest route without an article as well as any additional requests. This list can therefore motivate the creation of new articles. ---Dough 48 72 03:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

However, is that something we want to encourage at this point? We already have thousands of existing articles that need massive work. – T M F 03:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there's always new articles needed. ---Dough 48 72 03:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

See the challenge on the blog. Also, nobody is actually monitoring the page. --Rs chen 7754 03:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we also need to reduce the stub count. However, it still does not hurt for new article creation, as long as they are decent. ---Dough 48 72 03:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, nine times out of ten, they are not decent. --Rs chen 7754 03:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That's true. In that case, the page may not be useful. ---Dough 48 72 03:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like only one editor is actively using that page. Also note the kinds of article that are requested there—there are state-detail routes, bannered routes and lists of county routes... just the kinds of articles we do not want created! —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There any way we can get rid of this page? MFD, or marking inactive? --Rs chen 7754 03:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Mark it as inactive for historical purposes. ---Dough 48 72 03:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Test of the USRD Notability guidelines

Our project's guidelines for notability (WP:USRD/NT) advise that usually a highway should have notable spans in at least 3 jurisdictions before being broken out into state detail articles. I would like to put this to the test; Should Interstate 8 be subject to, or excepted from, this guideline? (I've known about this for a while, but the above item with I-208 reminded me.)

I don't know the answer, I'm asking an honest question. I-8 only spans 2 states (Arizona and California) and even if re-merged the exit list would not be as long as the exit list on some single state higways.

However I-8 also has the following mitigating factors:

California and Arizona are both massive (in size) states, with counties as big as most states on the east coast, indeed the span in each state is longer than some 2-di's back east.
Although currently all 3 articles (the main and the two state detail articles) are incomplete, both the Arizona and California spans are quite notable, with massive twisty grades in the hills that separate the two endpoints of the freeway.
I-8 through San Diego is quite congested and is one of the major arteries in the San Diego metro area.
Although not covered in the current history section, both spans also have quite a bit notable history. In both states I-8 led to the truncation of US-80.
- In Arizona, the freeway closely follows the proposed (but cancelled) route of First Transcontinental Railroad. The US purchased this land from Mexico (the Gadsen Purchase) explicitly for the purpose of routing a transcontinental railroad through it. When these plans were cancelled and the route of the First Transcontinental railroad was moved north (to what is now Wyoming, Utah and Nevada) this was one of the factors that agitated the south in the run-up to the American Civil War. (the rail line was later built by the Southern Pacific Railroad, and is still in use today.)
- In California, the proximity of the freeway to the Mexican border has lead to other notable issues. To the best of my knowledge, it is the only freeway that does not cross an international boundary and yet has immigration checkpoints. The freeway has been the subject of several tragic accidents from human smugglers using unsafe practices (such as driving in the lanes for the opposite direction of travel, at night, with no headlights) to sneak around said checkpoints.

So, what say ye? Again, I'm asking an honest question to test if our guidelines are appropriately written, knowing I-8 is a tough case. Dave (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the railroad-related history would probably fit better as a brief bit in the US 80 article, with a link to the most appropriate railroad article. (By the way, did you know that the Texas and Pacific Railway did some work between San Diego and Texas, but sold it to the SP after that company's subsidiary Galveston, Harrisburg and San Antonio Railway beat it to El Paso? Later the San Diego and Arizona Railway built east from San Diego, and had to cross into Mexico to get a decent route.) As for splitting, if you think there's enough information to support a split, go for it. Also, in this case, there's a definite natural, not just political, boundary between the two states. This really has nothing to do with notability. --NE2 20:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, an I-8 in California article could cover US 80 in California too, since it was built as an upgrading of that road. There's a lot of history there, for instance the Old Plank Road. --NE2 20:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I didn't know about the plank road or the SD&A railway, those definitely should be included. I knew about SP not winning the race to El Paso, but only because I played the fan created Southern Pacific scenario in the very addictive Railroad Tycoon 3 game, where to win you have to meet the GHSA in El Paso by 18?? (Most of the included scenarios contain historical inaccuracies, but there are some very historically accurate railfan scenarios available on-line). I will copy these points to the talk page for future expansion. The only point where I disagree, I definitely think these rail lines should be mentioned, and in some cases have a dedicated sub-section in the route history section, regardless of weather I-8 is one article or 3. The route through the southwest discovered over a hundred years ago that resulted in the Gadsen Purchase and these rail lines are why this freeway exists. I-8 wasn't built because the rocking metropolis of Dateland, Arizona was crying for a freeway =-). Dave (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not commenting yet on the specific situation at hand, but I believe we need to reevaluate how we handle state-detail articles. Currently articles like Interstate 10 are left without a cohesive purpose as everything is in the state-detail article. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a very valid point. Though you state this is a general comment, not specifically directed at I-8, this would be a worst case scenario. With only passing through two states, it would be difficult to create a non-redundant I-8 article. Dave (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

A while back, I proposed, off-Wiki, that state-detail and national route articles (Interstates and US Highways) would each be mangled into one mass and then split by topic and not by state. Using I-95 as an example, there would be three articles: [[Interstate 95]], [[History of Interstate 95]], and [[Routing of Interstate 95]]. The reception this idea got at the time was cool at best, but now may be a good opportunity to discuss it. --Fredddie ™ 22:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that is if someone tries to find all the information on one state, they have to look at three different articles. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I never said it was perfect, just a suggestion. But, a solution could be to make all the state-detail pages disambiguation pages pointing to the sections in the topical articles. --Fredddie ™ 22:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is a solution to our problem. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this would be a disaster if it was implemented for a couple of reasons. The first is what Rschen stated above; the second is that it would result in a heavily jumbled history of the route. Having a page with a bunch of disconnected subsections for history by state would give off a really unprofessional appearance IMO. Like Rschen said, I think this is a solution in search of a problem. – T M F 00:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's a longer route than I-8, but U.S. Route 50 seems to have held its own. There is more history of the designation than for most interstates though. --NE2 23:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Worse comes to worst we could always axe the concept of state-detail articles and do away with exit lists (I'm sure gribblenation or aaroads or something would take them). —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the best option that was discussed last night was to axe a lot of the S-D articles where the S-D article is a stub. Then, if it is expanded, the article can be split out. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Rschen. State-detail articles aren't the best thing in the world as it turns the "main" route article into little more than an index or a glorified dab page; however, at the same time, having the state-detail articles allows us to cover parts of a route's history that may be important within that state but non-essential or even trivial in terms of the route as a whole. The rerouting of US 44 around Millbrook, New York, is a good example of this. The realignment means very little to US 44 as a whole, but it has a good deal of importance when the scope is narrowed to just US 44 in New York. – T M F 00:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I feel like some people are missing the problem: if someone merges the state articles because they 'aren't that good', someone else is going to come along and abridge the text because the main article 'is too big'. So we get nowhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.107.1.165 (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think state-detail articles are a great idea as they break up what would otherwise be a very long article and can focus only on the history of the route within the given state. The history of a route between states is often unrelated as the roads are maintained by individual states and sometimes treated with the same equivalencies as state highways. In my opinion, state-detail articles should exist where there is enough material to write about that route in a particular state and it would otherwise make the main article too long. In the case of I-8, I believe the two state-detail pages are justified as there is a lot to say about both the CA and AZ segments of the road. ---Dough 48 72 04:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If I interpret the above discussion correctly; the "passes through 3 states rule" can have exceptions, but these should be limited. I will amend the notability guidelines accordingly.Dave (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with the current task forces

It doesn't seem likely that the current task forces (Alabama, Kansas, Louisiana, Nevada, South Carolina) will be repromoted anytime soon. Is there any opposition to changing the TF page to reflect this? In other words, removing stuff that's duplicated at WP:USRD/STDS, etc. --Rs chen 7754 05:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No objections here. Although for the record, Nevada isn't completely dead, LJ and myself (mostly LJ) have done some work on it. Even then, I have no objections to doing a complete merge of the Nevada project into USRD. Dave (talk) 06:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote the Nevada page a while ago, simply because it was severely outdated. Having said that, I have no problems with removing any redundancy with USRD and/or merging of the Nevada project/task force. I think the current (and future) task force pages should only really be used to list state-specific templates and resources, as well as any state-specific article guidelines/standards that go above & beyond or clarify those at USRD. --LJ (talk) 10:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what LJ said about task force pages listing state-speecific materials. In addition, task force pages of a similar matter should be created for states without a project, simply to list resources. ---Dough 48 72 15:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with LJ completely. I wouldn't go as far as what Dough's proposing though as USRD seems to be doing a good enough job of holding the resources for states with no project. – T M F 19:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I somewhat agree with Dough about creating pages for states without a current project or task force...but this doesn't necessarily have to be anytime soon. If the links on the project page are up to date, USRD only has 36 state projects/task forces right now (not counting county route and similar subprojects) with a relatively low number of links/resources for six other states. Resources for states without a project/task force don't seem to be a priority right now. Perhaps creating new task force pages can be done on an as-needed basis in the future, but definitely after we resolve the status/merging/whatever with the current task forces and inactive projects. --LJ (talk) 10:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If after nearly five years nobody's created a subproject nor a task force for a given state yet, chances are it's not one that gets much attention from editors. :> —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 15:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I changed the WP:NVSH page. Does it look good? --Rs chen 7754 19:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It's better, but there's still a bit too much there IMO. For one, the box at the top (the "Welcome to the Nevada State Routes task force" one) seems unnecessary; just convert it into prose, a {{shortcut}} box, and a couple of {{portal}} boxes. I think the idea for that box came from New York; however, in NY, the box also features the project's selected article of the month. If a project doesn't do something like that, then the box is really unnecessary. – T M F 20:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I edited the page further, to reflect recent changes here at USRD. As for the trimmed down content of the page, it seems fine to me. --LJ (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article alerts

Is this something we want to do? --Rs chen 7754 06:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Here is an example from WP:Comics. I think it would be useful to move the discussions to an Alerts page with links to discussions. It would certainly clean up this talk page. --Fredddie ™ 06:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I remember Article Alerts being mentioned here before, but there wasn't much of any discussion on it. This seems like it might be useful for monitoring project articles and related pages, as I'd assume not every page tagged by USRD is watchlisted by an active member of the project. It might also avoid the need to manually list XfD discussions here on this talk page, and would be helpful in noting when USRD articles go through the GAN or FAC processes. We may not need to subscribe to every workflow that Article Alerts provides, though (such as the Other news section). --LJ (talk) 07:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've seen them on other WikiProjects and it may be useful here in knowing what is going on. ---Dough 48 72 16:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

JCbot update

JCbot (talk · contribs) completed its task of preforming general MOS/capitalization/style changes to highway articles; according to AWB, it made about 3,157 edits. Sorry for the watchlist/recent changes flood. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about the format of lists of routes

{{Road list}} v. Table v. Bulleted list at Talk:List of state routes in Arizona --Fredddie ™ 22:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Resolved

– All deleted. ---Dough 48 72 20:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 30 - {{featuredNVSR}} --Rs chen 7754 20:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

And at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 31 - {{featuredfsr}}, {{featurediash}}, {{featuredinsr}}, {{featuredMASH}}, {{featuredMNSR}}, {{featuredRIR}}, {{featuredSCH}}, {{VR-SA}}, {{featuredwvr}}, {{featuredwih}} --Rs chen 7754 01:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

PROD

Resolved

– Both redirected. --LJ (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Jack Schrade Interchange, Glendora Curve --Rs chen 7754 03:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Bot request

Resolved

– Done. --Rs chen 7754 07:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey. I have a bot, User:JCbot, pending BAG approval for its fourth task. The bot will preform general fixes on USRD-related articles, including:

Changing, for example, "north-south" to "north–south"; otherwise adding en dashes where appropriate as per WP:MOSDASH and associated guidelines.
Changing "north/south" or "east/west" to "north–south" or east–west".
Changing "Route Description" to "Route description".
Changing "Major Intersections" to "Major intersections".
Changing "Exit List" to "Exit list"
Removing whitespace.
Preforming any of AWB's pre-programmed automatic general fixes.

Please list any further ideas for fixes the bot can easily preform.

–Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Many of the Maryland articles use "Junction list", I would suggest a function that could change "Junction List" to "Junction list". ---Dough 48 72 02:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Convert "Route summary" to "Route description". --Rs chen 7754 02:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good then. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

A little more difficult than the tasks that you've suggested but.....

determine which is the most common abbreviation scheme used in that state's road articles (or even within an article) and change the non-standard abbreviations to be consistent. For example, if an article has US-50, US 50, U.S. 50, U.S.-50, US50 and U.S.50; figure out which is the "correct" for that article or state project and change the incorrect ones.Dave (talk) 06:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That probably requires more advanced coding and research than what I'm able to do right now. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that would require some regex and changing the find/replace when you enter a different state. I know that wouldn't pass BAG. – T M F 19:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I happened to check my watchlist today (as I still do from time to time) and noticed your bot changed East-West Highway to east-west Highway in U.S. Route 1 in Maryland. Obviously that should be capitalized since it's the name of the highway. I already reverted it, but just giving the heads up.-Jeff ^(talk) 19:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I observed a similar issue with "North-South Freeway" in a few Nevada articles. I manually changed the capitalization on the affected articles. Perhaps the bot can replace just the dash instead of the entire phrase (if not already implemented). --LJ (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

As with any automated task, there will be anomalies. It changed the "twp" in one article to Township... which is a good thing unless that is part of a URL in a reference. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the same deal happened in NY with "North-South Arterial". Overall, though, I do believe the benefits of the run outweigh the few cases where something got borked. – T M F 00:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Portal!

Resolved

– Whatever. --Rs chen 7754 07:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

We need two more facts for the portal. Currently there are only three, with two being reused from December. Your help would be appreciated. --Rs chen 7754 21:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

TFD

Resolved

– Deleted. ---Dough 48 72 01:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 1#Template:CASH-SA. ---Dough 48 72 16:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

A formatting idea

I hesitate a bit starting this discussion, but some comments above on JC's bot have had me thinking about this again. I wonder if we shouldn't propose, for USRD purposes only, a national standard on the formatting of the abbreviation for US Highways. (Please note, this would be a USRD standard only, because unless we post at the village pump or in other locations to notify a much wider community, articles on other subjects like TV stations that link to adjacent highways may or may not follow our standards, even now.)

Here's the situation as I see it now. Each state DOT or equivalent has an in-house abbreviation for their route logs. Each state has a different common usage for what a highways is called in that state. In some states, the abbreviation for U.S. Route 1 might be US-1, others US 1 or U.S. 1. Some states are U.S. Route states; others are U.S. Highway states. Dealing with the latter difference is easy. For U.S. Route 41 in Michigan (which has a U.S. Highway 41 in Michigan redirect in place), I simply overrode the infobox and used the word "Highway" in the lead piping links as required.

The former difference though isn't as nice. Take for example, U.S. Route 50 in Utah. The infobox lists the continuations into and from Nevada and Colorado. {{Jct}} abbreviates U.S. Route 50 in Nevada as US 50, and the same for U.S. Route 50 in Colorado. In Utah, however, it is abbreviated US-50. So the only place in the entire article where the former abbreviation type is used is the infobox, while the rest of the article uses the latter.

What I am proposing we do is try to achieve some consensus on a single abbreviation standard, regardless of the individual DOTs preferences. Interstates are this way already by default. Texas, and IIRC one or two others, are the exception by using IH-10 instead of I-10, but the overwhelming majority of states would use I-10. At this time, I would not propose changing the status quo on Interstates. Instead, I'm only suggesting changes dealing with the US Highways because there are a wide range of abbreviations in use, we could come to a consensus on which to use, and implement it nationally. Other projects would not be forced to implement our decision, but they could see that we have a single, well-discussed consensus, and they could follow along for conformity sake, or not. I'm not debating that one abbreviation standard is better than any other, just that we could have one for all states and be done with it. (States like Wisconsin where US 41 would be more commonly called just Highway 41 versus Illinois which calls it Route 41 wouldn't be affected by this proposal for the simple fact that I'm proposing here is a standardization of the format of US 41 vs. US-41, etc. Writers would still be free to spell the names out in longer formats to break up the monotony of prose. The state vernaculars should be retained.)

If we decide that this is something we would like to do, I think we would vote later on which standard to implement, but for now, let's keep the discussion to the merits of the idea, not the details. 19:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel both ways about this. One way, I feel the abbreviations should be in line for what the specific state uses, and that can even apply to Interstates. The other way, it would look nice to have a national standard similar to the Interstates, using whatever abbreviation most of the state use. ---Dough 48 72 01:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The only thing is that the state use the same convention for Interstates, save the few that follow the other convention like Texas. Either way, the discussion is limited to the US Highways, not the Interstates nor state highways. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

What I am trying to say is we have two options to how we can handle the abbreviations for Interstates and U.S. Highways. We can use what the state uses as the abbreviation for both I and US or we can have all I and US articles in every state follow one standard abbreviation based on what the majority of states use. One standard or the other should be adopted. ---Dough 48 72 02:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Both types are designated on a national level. What abbreviation do the feds use? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The feds don't call it anything as the states own the roads and not the feds, but AASHTO logs use U.S. #.--Fredddie ™ 03:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I once used U.S. x in Oklahoma, but someone sent a bot/AWB thru and changed it all to US-x. Personally, I would prefer U.S. x as that looks most professional to me, but it looks sort of weird in exit lists... —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 16:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As much as I'd like to see a consistent abbreviation scheme across all USRD articles, without a bot to enforce it, I don't realistically think it's going to happen.Dave (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't even abbreviate, often I just right U.S. Route X, or with concurrencys Route X & X (with no difference), but I think again this goes to the state level.Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 20:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

For consistency's sake, I would like for articles to use one consistent style in the prose (jct templates not withstanding). It's really jarring to see "U.S. ##", "U.S.-##", "US ##", and "US-##" all in the same section of an article. It doesn't really matter which style, just pick one and make it consistent in the text. As for a USRD standard, I think this is something that varies too widely to implement a national standard. On the state level, using whatever abbreviation best meshes with the state highway abbreviation is good enough for me. --LJ (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with LJ on this issue. I understand that it looks a bit awkward on multi-state articles where the two states use different abbreviations, but I don't see an easy resolution to this issue that wouldn't result in a potentially awkward abbreviation on local (intrastate) articles. No matter which one we choose, it would be awkward for some state. – T M F 04:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Well, Dave, here's my thoughts on enforcement: All higher-level articles could be easily checked for compliance with the consensus at GAN, ACR or FAC. After a bot run to convert the articles and updates to the {{jct}} subtemplates, any future changes would just need to be corrected at the top end of the classification scheme. I already have to edit MI articles when some editors add in prose with a different format from the templates. Right now I can only say something along the lines of "making formatting consistent with the rest of the article". In the future, I could say "make consistent with project consensus/project standards".

Mitch, that's fine but that sort of usage isn't what I'm discussing here at all. I'm discussing standarizing which form of punctuation we use for the most abbreviated form of highway name. Your usage is similar to the vernacular in Wisconsin, except they have highways, not routes.

LJ, that's exactly what I'm discussing here. Standardizing on one form in prose and templates. The advantage if we settle on one form is that no one would feel like they had to consult a chart for the "correct" form when helping out on expanding/writing/editing articles in other states.

TMF, yes, no matter what we might decide, there will be states making some changes. SRNC was the same as many states had to convert conventions, and 3 years later, those conventions have held. I don't see how it would be awkward. For example, post implementation, all references to an abbreviated US Highway would always be of the same form. We would NOT be changing all references from a Route ## or Highway ## to US ##, US-## or U.S. ## format. Basically what I'm proposing is that we pick one standard from a few options (periods or not, hyphen, non-breaking space or space) and stick to it nationally.

As for U.S. vs. US, there's considerable debate at times about that among editors outside of USRD. I was actually asked to "remove the flyspecks" from an article at FAC by a non-American reviewer (i.e. convert the U.S. to US) Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should look into how many states use what abbreviation. If a clear majority of states use one abbreviation, then maybe it won't be that significant of a change. But if the country is split 50-50 on this, it won't be an easy task. – T M F 04:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Auxiliary routes of Interstate 80

Resolved

– Deleted. ---Dough 48 72 00:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Should this even exist? --Rs chen 7754 04:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Not really, {{I-80 aux}} handles this need. ---Dough 48 72 04:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Prodded. --Rs chen 7754 04:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD of the Day...

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of auxiliary Interstate Highways Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

An issue at WP:PUI

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 January 9 - apparently maps made with Quantum GIS and NHPN and TIGER data are too professional to be freely licensed. – T M F 01:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)