Jump to content

Talk:U.S. Route 66/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Comments

The "66" U.S. Route designation was "decommissioned" by The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 1985. The U.S. Route 66 Recommissioning Initiative seeks to get the U.S. 66 designation reinstated and the famous Route resigned and put back on standard highway maps. For further information on the Initiative, go to: http://www.bringbackroute66.com

-Fred M. Cain, U.S. Route 66 Recommissioning Initiative

What is wrong with United States Highway 66? The "historic" part isn't needed. --mav

I agree, or even Route 66 - Zoe

Rename it then. It was this way when I found it. Presumably someone was wrestling with the issue that it is known around the world as Route 66 but officially designated something else. There is also an unrelated Interstate 66. Ortolan88

I went with Route 66 since this highway is popularly known by this title and this highway is decommissioned so it no longer has an official title as such. --mav

With all these redirects, somebody's going to lose some information. Route 66 should be a redirect; United States Highway 66 -- Historic describes the former U.S. highway that no longer exists; Interstate 66 describes that highway; and of course there's New Jersey State Highway 66. -- Gregory Pietsch

But nobdody calls Route 66 "United States Highway 66 -- Historic." Please read our naming conventions about common names. The historic Route 66 by any measure you want to use, is the most famous thing called "Route 66" in the world - therefore our article on this route needs to go there. The disambiguation block will serve anybody who gets lost. --mav
Anyone who wants to look in the encyclopedia for Route 66 should be able to find it here, under its rightful name, Route 66; likewise Interstate 66 can be found under its name. It's fine that New Jersey has a highway with that number too, but half the article is limp jokes about its not being the Route 66 you've heard of. I imagine there are highways numbered 66 in other states as well.
Not one reader will ever be confused by having to go one more click from here if they are looking for a short cut to Asbury Park, but many people will be confused if they can't find one of the most famous highways in the world under the name it has been known by for three-quarters of century. Disambiguation in this case introduces ambiguity. A simple See also will cover the obscure cases while preserving the main article under its own name. Ortolan88
I agree that full disambiguation is not at all called for here, but I do think we should have a simple disambiguation block (as the article now has). --mav

I'm about to embark on my first "Project" -- creating a page for each US highway, probably based on information from this site (with permission). I'm going to update the List of United States Highways to use the standard notation, "United States Highway (number)". As far as Route 66, it seems appropriate to put the main listing under Route 66, since it's no problem to redirect United States Highway 66. I'm dropping the "--Historic" suffix, though -- that seems like content, not title. I would welcome any comments or suggestions on my project! RobertB

Just an update. The "standard" notation (unless someone changes it later) is now like this: U.S. Highway 77 But there are a lot of links out there like United States Highway 77, so it makes sense to redirect them. Route 66, I believe, is a credible exception to the rule, with both U.S. Highway 66 and United States Highway 66 redirecting to Route 66. Comments welcome, of course (drop a note in my talk so I don't miss it). --Robertb-dc 00:54, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The combination of the highway number, the speed of the car and even the fuel's specific gravity in the range of 66 led to the creation of Phillips 66 gasoline

I've removed the bit about the specific gravity because it can't possibly be right. 66 times the density of water? A gallon of the stuff would weigh over 500 pounds. The hydrocarbons in gasoline are a bit less dense than water. For example, n-octane has a specific gravity of about 0.7. Perhaps its density in some commonly used units was near 66 (grams per 100 ml?), but not its specific gravity. Josh Cherry 02:00, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I see that the claim about specific gravity has been put back. Could you please check what reliable sources say? As I stated above, a density of 66 times that of water, which is what a specific gravity of 66 would mean, is out of the question. From the article on density you can see that the specific gravity of the densest naturally occurring substance on Earth, iridium, is only about 23. This page shows that, with the exception of mercury (specific gravity about 13), the specific gravities of liquids don't get much above one. In particular, it gives the specific gravity of gasoline as 0.739. This number will vary among gasolines, and perhaps blends were very different back then, so it's conceivable that the specific gravity was 0.66 (perhaps referred to informally as 66). There's no way it was 66. Josh Cherry 23:03, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Likely it was .667, which is good enough for an engineer to use as "inspiration." Here's a racing fuel: Specific Gravity: .676 @ 60°F according to [1] (yeah, a gearhead forum : ) Gaviidae 06:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal - move to U.S. Highway 66

This is where all the other U.S. Highways are (including historic ones, like US 99). Route 66 can continue to redirect here, with one line at the top saying "for other roads numbered 66, see Route 66 (disambiguation)". The latter should be done anyway, as there are many route 66s around the world, but I feel the former is important too to make the name consistent with all others. --SPUI (talk) 02:04, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Metric System

The universally adopted unit system is the metric system. There can be some local variations in a few countries, but this should not appear in an Encyclopedia. I changed all measures in this article in kilometres --Ocollard 13:19, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

There's been no formal decision from this community on a system of measurement. However, since this article was originally written with US measurements, since the subject of this article is something within the US, and since all official information on the road is listed in miles with kilometers in parentheses, I'm inclined to leave it as it was. - jredmond 14:19, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Please do not be ridiculous. This is a US road; arguably, the most American of all American highways. Americans use miles and most don't have a firm grasp of metric. You may not like that, but that's the reality. To change the measurements in the article about, of all things, Route 66, a road on which (like all roads in the US) measurements are measured in miles for people who think in miles, to metric-only is absolutely unsupportable. I will take this dispute to Request for Comments if you continue to revert.
Edit: I would even support a KM first (MI in parantheses) format due to the truth that metric is the norm everywhere but the U.S. But to entirely take out references to miles in an article about Route 66? That's denying pertinent information to users of this encyclopedia. Moncrief 20:04, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it is ridiculous to use the metric system in an Encyclopedia. We are not writing an article for the local newspaper, but for the whole world. I am sorry if the locals use a non standard measurement system but here everyone use the metric system. I feel pretty bad to write an article that 95% of people can't understand due to the use of an obsolete measurement system. This is a US road right, but this article tries to shows this road to the entire world, not just the USAians. I am reverting to the standard metric system, unless there is a specific policy in Wikipedia that says the contrary. --Ocollard 21:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

It is not ridiculous to use the metric system, but in the U.S. everything is signed in miles. Thus miles should be first. --SPUI (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

We are not writing an article for the local newspaper, but for the whole world.

Right. That's why we have Metric AND the Imperial system (still, by the way, used for distance measurements in the U.K. quite commonly).

I am sorry if the locals use a non standard measurement system but here everyone use the metric system.

Why is your "here" more important than my "here"? Why can't both values be in the article?

I'm afraid your logic is really clouded, Ocollard. There are 300 million million Americans, of whom I'd generously say 200 million have no concept of Metric. This is an English-speaking encyclopedia. The USA is the largest English-speaking country in the world. This road is in the United States. If you continue to take out the mileage information, you will be reverted to infinity. I don't care if the miles go first or second, that information stays in. Whatever it takes. And there are plenty of people who have this article on their watchlist who will revert you within minutes. Moncrief 22:52, May 12, 2005 (UTC)


Edit: Okay, I'm a bit slow. I see you were just changing the order and not removing miles entirely. Oops. Still, it does make more sense that miles should go first. Moncrief 23:07, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can possibly push an obsolete measurement system in an Encyclopedia. Wikipedia is aimed at the whole world, not just one country. The whole world is more than 6 billion people. USA is about 300 million. Sorry if you use an outdated system. This encyclopedia is designed to inform people. By using a system that 95% of people don't understand, you are crippling this. Righ, this article is about a road in USA. But this article is not aimed at USAians only, it is aimed at people from the whole world, so they can know what Route 66 is. We cannot use a system that only a very small number of people know, it is un-encyclopedic. --Ocollard 08:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Once you explain how putting miles first is less informative, I'll start to give a shit about your argument. --SPUI (talk) 09:29, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Stop being defensive. Miles are used only by one country, by less than 5% of the world populations. The goal of the Encyclopedia is to inform. I suggest you to cool your head and understand than the universal measurement system is the metric system. Other locals and outdated system have no place in an Encyclopedia --Ocollard 09:38, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

  • If any set of humanity uses something other than the metric system, then the metric system is not "universal".
  • The goal of this encyclopedia is to inform, but not to force any group to conform to a particular way of thinking. cf. UK vs. US spellings, NPOV
  • All official resources on this road list miles first, then kilometers in parentheses. The miles are measured, while the km are usually calculated; therefore the miles are more accurate.
  • Any visitor to this road will find all signage and references in miles.
  • Miles are still an intelligible measurement to citizens of many Commonwealth nations, even though those nations have officially switched to metric.
  • So far, the consensus appears to be strongly in favor of the "miles (km)" format on the measurements in this main article.

Now, in light of these, please explain again why you insist on reverting and why you insist on calling us vandals for restoring the original version. - jredmond 14:40, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

"The goal of this encyclopedia is to inform, but not to force any group to conform to a particular way of thinking" Exactly. Why do you want to force the 95% of people in the world who use the standard metric system, to conform to this obsolete system ? Sorry but if a system is used by 95% of the world population, then it is considered as a standard. The metric system is universal. Almost every country in the world use it. If you write an article with non metric system, only 5% of the world population can understand it. If you write an article with metric system, 95% of the world population can understand it. Now, this is an Encyclopedia. The goal is to inform. What is the best system to put in an Encyclopedia ?

People who insist in writing in an non-metric system seem very nationalist to me. They write it in order that them, and only them can understand it. This is very selfish. I find it sad that in 2005, in an Encyclopedia, we still have to cope with an outdated measurement system. For me, forcing people to read an article written with an outdated measurement system is just vandalism. --Ocollard 10:57, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

The only person forcing someone to read in a system that they do not understand is you. You are free and encouraged to add metric to any article that includes only English measurements. But you are not free to selfishly force other people to read in your favorite system. Rmhermen 12:35, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

The metric system is not my personnal favorite system. It is the system that everyone use, except one country. We don't write article for just one country, we write article for the whole world. By constantly revert the article to an obsolete system, you are forcing the majority of people to read a system that they don't understand. --Ocollard 12:50, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

You are free to add the metric measurement. Go ahead. Please. Now. Just do not remove the English ones. That will be continually reverted as you can see by several different users who all share the same understanding of Wikipedia policy. But please add metric. We don't mind. We encourage it. Rmhermen 13:03, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
cope with an outdated measurement system.
Calling it "outdated" is YOUR POV, Ocollard. It's not outdated in the U.S. It's the system that everyone uses. It may be a minority system in the world, but as long as people use it actively, how is it "outdated"? Miles are still commonly used for distance in the U.K. When I was there two years ago, and I don't think it's changed since then, all the highway and speed-limit sings in England were still singed with miles. In other words, the two-largest English-speaking countries still commonly use miles for distance. This road is in the USA. This is an English-language encyclopedia. Deal with it. And the Metric information is already in the article - no one is advocating taking it out. What's the problem? Moncrief 19:46, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Problem is when I add metric, the article is reverted. A minority of people tend to impose their view on how we should measure things. Only USA use non metric, all other countries use metric. Why put miles first ? This makes no sense at all. --Ocollard 20:56, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

No, the problem is that you are putting metric values as the primary units of measure in an article for which it is inappropriate. You are welcome to add metric equivalents--that should not be reverted, but I (and I'm sure many others) will continue to revert your attempts to place metric measurements as the primary units of measure in non-technical articles about U.S. topics. older≠wiser 20:59, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
Problem is when I add metric, the article is reverted.
Ocollard: No one is taking metric out of this article. There are metric values throughout this article. No one is removing them. Repeat: No one is removing them. Repeat: No one is removing them. There are Metric values in every place in this article where distance is measured.
Why put miles first?
There is a rough consensus on Wikipedia that in cases of diverse conventions, the conventions acceptable in the place the article is about should take precedence. That's been codified in the case of language: American English conventions in articles about US topics; British English conventions in articles about British topics. In the case of miles and km, most people agree that for non-technical subjects, it's acceptable to put first the measurement standard used in the country being described in an article. In the USA, that's miles. Any conception you have that miles are "worse," "outdated," and so on is your POV. Miles are just miles: a unit of measurement. They are not commonly used in most countries of the world. That makes them a minority unit of measurement worldwide, not an invalid unit of measurement in articles about U.S. topics. Moncrief 21:17, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

If it's an article about the US, miles should be first since this is what that country uses. It is also what is posted on signs (the use of kilometers on US signs are practically non-existent). US 66 was also more than a highway, it is a piece of Americana. As for the percentage of people who use kilometers vs. miles is illogical. The real question is how many people on the internet use kilometers vs. miles. I think kilometers should be used in parentheses, but the main unit of measurement should be the mile. I have written numerous articles about Missouri highways and towns on Route 66; all distances are referenced in miles. I am not accustomed to using the Metric system (though it is a better system than the traditional US system), and I am not going to start using it for the sole purpose of writing articles. If the reader wishes to know how many kilometers 9 miles is, there are plenty of places to find out. rt66lt, July 22, 2005

Whether we are using metric or imperial measurements, it is my opinion that figures have to be correct anyway. It seems to me that the length of the segment from Seligman to Kingman (AZ) is far from the 160 miles / 257 km that are mentioned in the article. I do not have the exact figures, so I did not correct anything, but I guess it should be about half of it. - Jasper Knockaert.

I checked on a road atlas, it works out to about 97 miles. That works out to 160 km, which may be the original problem. I don't know who put it there. I don't think it's relative anyway, so I removed it altogether. Rt66lt 05:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah the French, they can't just accept that some people don't like their measurement system, sorry Ocollard, haha. Travis Cleveland (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect information

I don't think the argument about metric vs. miles is helpful here. More important should be removing incorrect information. The following passage from the article is incorrect: "Avery was adamant that the highway have a round number and had proposed number 60 to identify it. Even though US 60 was already assigned to another highway, Avery went so far as to have maps printed showing his road as US 60. Faced with defeat, he relented and reviewed the numbers available to him. He settled on "66" because he thought the double-digit number would be easy to remember as well as pleasant to say and hear."

1. Avery wasn't adamant that the highway have a round number. He thought the highway should have a designation ending in "0" as this designates the road as a major east-west route, which it was. 2. US Highway 60 was not assigned to another highway. No numbers were assigned at the time of the dispute. Highway 60 was desired by other states, but not assigned. 3. He was not faced with defeat. He was the pioneer of the National Highway System and knew that compromise was the only way to get the goal accomplished. He could have easily "won" but compromise was more obviously more important. 4. Saying that Avery considered the road "his" road is biased, violates NPOV (unless there is some source which says he called it "his road") and makes it seem like this was a vanity project by Avery instead of his idea of how to make our country better for everyone. 5. I haven't found any sources which state that he thought 66 would be easy to remember or pleasant to say and hear. Can this be verified?

If this incorrect/questionable information cannot be clarified or sourced, I recommed removing the offensive passage.AboutWestTulsa 17:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Avery had deep connections with US 66 (in reference to "his road" in No. 4 above). The St. Louis to Amarillo section of a road called the Ozarks Trails was a predecessor to Route 66. Avery had been an imporant figure in this road. He did argue with a delegation from Kentucky which practically demanded the number "60" for the current road (they threatened to walk out of the whole numbering scheme if they didn't get it, they also suggested "60 North" for the Springfield (MO) - Chicago road which would become 66). Avery felt very strongly about the road going through his home town (Tulsa) and the capital of his home state (Oklahoma). After the highways were all routed, he recommended the creation of the (original) Route 66 Association (no connection to the various state associations currently in existance) to promote the highway. The continuing threat of Kentucky walking out of the new federal highway system (the federal government had no authority to force them into it), and the subsequent threat to the entire federal highway system, led him to accept Kentucky getting US 60 (at the time, proposed as US 62), found out US 66 wasn't proposed for any of the highways, and accepted it. Kentucky's compromise was to have US 60 end at US 66 in Springfield, MO (the proposed US 62 was to end at US 65 south of the city in a rural area). See Susan Kelly and Quinta Scott's Route 66. -- Rt66lt, July 11, 2005

guys, this is a great page. my problem is that the length figures given in the text and under the map are inconsistent, could someone fix this? thanks - JezWegierski —Preceding unsigned comment added by JezWegierski (talk • contribs) 05:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

The infoboxes for US highways are new. I intended to also include the Will Rogers Highway as another name (doesn't display) and the decommissioning date (also doesn't display). If anyone knows how to fix this, please do. Rt66lt 03:55, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I got the Will Rogers Highway in, but until someone knows how to add the decommissing date, I added it with the "established" date, but I'm not happy with it as it is. Rt66lt 03:47, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Route 66 on the Air

This material, while related to Route 66, really doesn't fit within the scope of the article. I moved it to a seperate article because its only relation to US 66 is that it takes place on 66 (it would probably be better under an article on HAM radio). Conceviably, the "Annual Events" section could be reinstated, but would need to be more of a list of events rather than a particular one. I did provide a link under "See Also". Rt66lt 02:47, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Since Route 66 on the Air was orphaned by that change, I am reinstating the U.S. Route 66#Annual events section, with R66otA as the first (and currently only) link. N0YKG 20:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Railroads

Much of US 66 was built next to railroads:

Bah, this is harder than I expected. --SPUI (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


The Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company (called CRI&P), later just the “Rock Island”: from OKC, El Reno, Oklahoma, Weatherford, Oklahoma west to Sayre, Oklahoma (Choctaw, Oklahoma and Gulf Railroad took over a lease from McCabe & Steen Contractors track they had built); then on west to Tucumcari, New Mexico. The Rock Island meet their east bound work at Tucumcari, to Santa Rosa.
AT&SF from Las Vegas to Albuquerque. Then from Laguna west all the way to Barstow.

Grapes of Wrath - movie

John Steinbeck's epic novel, Grapes of Wrath, 1940 movie by director John Ford:

Scenes shot along the way (east -to- west):

Moved to U.S. Route 66

I have moved this to U.S. Route 66, as that is the name used by AASHTO, the Federal government, and many states. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Highways#Useful resource - AASHTO reports 1989-present. If there are no complaints about this or the other three I have moved in a day or so, I will move the rest. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

If the article is now going to be called "U.S. Route 66", then "Category:U.S. Highway 66" should probably be changed as well. The "Category:Communities on U.S. Highway 66" should be, too. The article "List of cities on U.S. Highway 66" has been changed to "List of communities on U.S. Route 66" to match the category and Highway 66 article changes.Rt66lt 01:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Length

I changed the length of US 66 to 2347 miles, about 100 miles less than shown. I got the figure from a reprint of Rittenhouse's Guide Book to Highway 66. The highway's alignment changed so much over time, I think we should go with the modern posted "historic" alignment that goes through the states and Rittenhouse's pretty much follows the same path.Rt66lt 00:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the rittenhouser book was from the 1940s and intended as a guidbook fo travellers (not as a description of the road, it's length nor of where to find it. I've changed is to the "official" (or as official as it'll ever get) 2448 miles as printed in April 1927 in American Highways. Route 66 got realigned many times and teh 2448 miles is the settle original length. All other (shorter) lengths should be connated ith the year they reflect. Significant relignments that reduced the length were done in 1937 by cutting off the Santa Fe loop. Any other length without connotation of the year results in misinformation. swa

Route 66 today

Can someone make a plain statement in the article as to whether it is possible to start in Chicago and drive along "Route 66" all the way to California in present day (2006)? Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.59.142.72 (talk • contribs)

It was there already, look in the after decertification section. I did try to clarify a little bit though. You can still drive a pretty good portion of it, there are a few long stretches in eastern New Mexico and eastern Arizona where nothing remains though. Note that many of the landmarks along it have been torn down just within the past few years as I recently discovered on my trip down Route 66 in May 06. --Nebular110 00:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

In my travels on the Route I found that if the maps don't guide correctly you ask the locals and more often than not I received excellent directions to little known/publicized sections as well as the correct way to go when confused. It IS possible to travel more than half the org first and second sections of the Route, However many sections are no longer and you will have to hop on the freeway. Alesium 04:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Alesium

Futurama Reference

There's a direct reference to Route 66 ("root" 66) in the Futurama episode Parasites Lost, screenshot here: Route 66, can we add this picture? The Hobo 01:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Possibly. Take a look at Wikipedia's fair use guidelines to make sure but it seems like it meets the conditions for fair use of a television screenshot. My question is: What does it really add to the Route 66 article? --Nebular110 16:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't really add anything really.. it's just comic and clever and a tribute to the road... oh well. The Hobo 06:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see a route 66 in popular culture with the futurama and other films.--Polysophia (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The article used to have an "In popular culture" section, but it was deleted a while back as being non-encyclopedic. mwalimu59 (talk) 04:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Which categories of external links do we want to keep ?

-> some could be expanded (e.g. the lists of associations, the list of museums, ...)

-> some should be removed entirely (the links in the general section (e.g. the DMOZ one covers all the rest already).

Or do we want it to be a link collection ?213.118.142.27 23:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now there is a link to a site under construction ! and one link to a roadside attraction (there a hundrerds of radside attractions, we cannot poor it all into one page) I like these people and what they do, but this isn't right for the wiki. 213.118.142.27 04:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


Weeded a lot of the links in the hope it'll attract a bit less spamming 213.118.141.162 18:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Seems to be a lot of juvenile foolin' around with this page lately. Might want to consider locking it for a short while until the children go somewhere else to play....StanislavJ 00:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of pages that get vandalized more than this one. I think it would have to get a lot worse before that would be necessary. But we appreciate your concern. --Mwalimu59 05:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

History notes

Obviously the detailed history should go in the state articles. Here are some general notes. --NE2 16:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

State highway numbers
  • CA: no signed routes
  • AZ: no signed routes
  • NM: 6, 1, 56, 3
  • TX: 13, 75
  • OK: 3, 7
  • KS: no signed routes
  • MO: 1F, 14
  • IL: 4

Good article review

I have listed this article for review as above. The standard of citation is surprisingly poor for such an important article. Geometry guy 22:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This article has been delisted from WP:Good articles by unanimous consensus. The review can be found here. Lara♥Love 19:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

"Alignment?"

The term "alignment" is used several times both here and on the article page, but it's not very clear what it means in this context. Perhaps someone in the know could add a definition. HiramShadraski 21:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

See wikt:alignment, specifically definition 1. It's the route of the road. --NE2 06:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

plagiarism

The removal of a lot of references in the text makes this now a clear cut case of plagiarism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.68.76 (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the plagiarism concern -- is there a copyright violation in this article?
See this discussion about spam:
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between plagiarism and copyright violation. Plagiarism is when you remove or don't mention the source of the material that's been paraphrased. Doing so isn't illegal, but it is unethical. Copyright is a crime (copying text with or without referencing the original source) In my opinion the historic66.com website really belongs here cause it's the only source of a number of interesting items such as the turn-by-turn description that's been there for many years and the forum supporting travelers. But I'll not add it back in to prevent knee jerk reactions (although that would be the right thing to do) 63.84.215.130 (talk) 12:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Animated movie Cars

I added the line below to the article.

"It also inspired many characters and places in 2006 Disney/Pixar animated feature film, Cars."

Please do not undo the change. I think (and many others also do) US Route 66's recognition in a 2006 feature film is much more important than its recognition in a TV show in 50s and 60s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.90.157.195 (talk) 07:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That reference is really poor... the relevance of the movie Cars is much much much less than that of the Route 66, which is an actual american Icon. I'll be removing it, and it'll probably get rolled back... but still some REAL thought has to be given to that. It has no place in the article. 200.127.249.222 (talk) 12:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
The highway itself is bigger than either the movie Cars or the TV show. I think having neither pop culture reference in the lead paragraph is optimal. Those mentions should come later. I think a pop culture section near the end would help these cites get their due. I guess the pop culture section was trimmed away in a recent cleanup. Binksternet (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm watching the movie Cars now and I of course began to Wikipedia it and eventually found my way to Route 66 cause of the movie. The movie is very much based on it a lot of what happened with Route 66. They even talk about interstate 40 and how it took away from it which I learned from watching Cars. Also the motel made out of cones is taken from the Wigwam Motel on Route 66. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.237.119 (talk) 03:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Runway?

A common myth exists around where I grew up (right on Route 66 in the Texas Panhandle) that Route 66 was built (or rebuilt) to such monstrous proportions (width/thickness) in places because of its intended alternate use as an emergency runway for bombers of the Strategic Air Command, presumably sometime in the 50s, when the bombers in question would've been the B36 or B52.

Is this myth common in areas of the country near Route 66?

...perhaps more importantly, is it possible that this myth is true? It seems a little unlikely, but it is true that there were several SAC bases in and around the area at that time.

Obviously this is of only tertiary importance to an article on the road itself, but I have to admit that I came to this article on Wikipedia for the express purpose of discovering if, in fact, Route 66 was ever considered in that light. 12.19.84.33 (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Were interstate highways designed to be used as airstrips? While this article mainly concerns itself with the modern interstates, one part dates back to 1944, which is probably what you're thinking of - except the landing strips were proposed to be built beside the highways. Thanks for asking - it's an interesting topic. Regards, --Manway (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the link. The circa 1944 legislation would seem unrelated to the myth in question, but this would suggest that Snopes at least has been unable to find any official data to support the idea of any highway being designed for use as a runway in an emergency. (Full disclosure: I'm only 25, so this is not something I'm remembering early childhood or anything of the sort.) I'll see if I can get in touch with any Air Force personnel who might be able to point me in the right direction as far as research on the SAC question.
One thing that troubles me about the Snopes take on this--the bit about having to divert traffic from 66 in time of war--is that you wouldn't imagine a SAC bomber would still be in Texas Panhandle under those circumstances, but rather somewhere over the USSR, or en route to Alaska, or some other far-off port of call; I cannot possibly imagine an actual bomber landing on Route 66 in wartime unless some equipment failure were to blame.
Not that I think the myth is true, mind you. I'd just like to be able to tell my old man what the real story is. Realizing of course that, if it isn't true, there's no story at all. J.M. Archer (talk) 18:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Got in touch with the local airbase. The official position was, "Our historian isn't old enough to remember that." I'm pretty sure that's a neg. :P J.M. Archer (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Will Rogers sign

The following comment by User:Grubelwas removed from the main page, where it was bracketed with those little thingys that keep it from appearing io the article. Nevertheless it belongs here on the talk page:

I've been through here fairly regularly for well over 10 years, and I sure don't remember ever seeing such a sign at the KS/MO state line

This is in reference to the following passage in the Route Description section:

A plaque dedicating the highway to Will Rogers is still located in Santa Monica, California. There are more plaques like this; one can be found in Galena, Kansas. It was originally located on the Kansas-Missouri state line, but moved to the Howard Litch Memorial Park in 2001.[citation needed]

(Since the plaque has been moved, it would be difficult (but not impossible) now to prove this either way. Probably the passe hould be deleted. Herostratus (talk) 11:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I live about 30 miles from the Kansas/Missouri border on US 66. The sign in question, at Galena, is relatively new. I have driven this section many, many times for well over ten years, and I never saw a plaque at this location. That's not to say that one of the original plaques dedicating the road to Will Rogers was never there, but it wasn't when I was through there in the years prior to 2001. Squad51 (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Picture of SM Terminus sign

I'm from NYC, but traveled out to California a few months ago. While there, I visited Santa Monica and I have a picture of the sign that marks the end of Route 66. I also have one of a sign serving as a historical retrospective of the route, situated on the boardwalk of the Santa Monica Pier. How do I go about uploading these pictures to insert into the article? I'd also need to know the corresponding Fair Use Rationale template, wherein I declare myself the author of the work and thereby release it to the public domain.

Thanks. KirkCliff2 (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

'Additions'

Assuming that the length chart under the history sub-heading is accurate, the math is not. So whomever has the sufficient access to alter it, please do use a calculator next time. Other than that, splendid job on the page everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.150.88 (talk) 08:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

66 as state route

In the list of highways numbered 66 there are a few bits and pieces of numbered road in various US 66 states which use SR 66 designators for a piece of the old US highway. Texas would appear to be the exception in that an unrelated Texas State Highway 66 (which parallels I-30 precludes the use of the number on U.S. Route 66 (which was largely upgraded to freeway in 1956 and became I-40). As TX 66 has a long history, it would seem that it must have co-existed at some point with US 66 as similar numbers on different highways in the same state? I'd have expected that would be something which states normally tried to avoid in those days by giving state routes numbering that didn't overlap in-state use of the same numbers by the US Highway system.

Unfortunate, if this is the case, as it creates an obstacle to taking the U.S. Route 99 approach of dumping a dead US highway into the state highway system under the same number in every jurisdiction (California, Oregon, Washington, British Columbia) north of México (where it was federal highway #1). US 99 has huge gaps as a series of state highways (particularly WA, where only about 50 miles remains designated) but at least the number still exists in some form in every state on the route. Any idea how TX 66 ended up on some other road? 66.102.83.61 (talk) 02:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Texas has no problems with using the same number more than once. Compare US 66 with SH 66. No relation is implied. –Fredddie™ 03:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
It's not just Texas. Prior to the 1960's most states has completely separate numbering systems for state routes that didn't care if that same number was in use for a US or Interstate highway passing through the state. In the 1960s and 70s many states started a "cleanup" effort to remove duplicate route numbers in the state, but not all states have done this. There are some examples that exist today of unrelated state routes that have the same number as a US or Interstate Highway in the same state. Dave (talk) 13:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Interstate highway numbers are rarely written without the leading I- (or H- in Hawaii), so they're less of an issue. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 17:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

SR-2

Discussion

Moabdave:

See [2] . One part says "(SR-2) originally ran along Santa Monica Blvd from Ocean Ave. in Santa Monica, then North along Hyperion Ave, then S on Glendale, and then N on Fletcher to San Fernando Road (later cosigned US 99/US 101). It was signed as Route 2 in the initial state routing in 1934. When US 66 was established, it was resigned as US 66, and remained with that signage until 1964." I believe this was a valid edit. Regards, --Manway 15:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. That statement is exactly what I suspected happened, while I admit that neither this source, nor my own logic are authorities on the subject. Per this statement, placing a CA-2 shield next to a US-66 shield is an anachronism as the two signs never existed at the same time. That stretch of road was signed either CA-2 or US-66, but never both at the same time. If someone can provide a more authoritarian source (or perhaps a photo) I will happily change my pov.
The larger point also remains, what is being proposed is a complete overhaul of the infobox, that should be discussed here, or at WT:USRD before implementation. Among many other traditions this edit is breaking is not using evenly spaced junctions (it is biased towards California) and exceeding the traditional 10 junction limit. Dave (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Agreed with Dave above. Also, why are we removing the historical terminii? Furthermore, cahighways.org is not a reliable source; in fact, it takes a lot of its information from Wikipedia, so we definitely don't want to use it. --Rschen7754 20:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I also agree with Dave and Rschen, but I think U.S. Route 66 in California is a better place to be making these edits - not here. Rschen already touched on my second point, but having all those California junctions in the infobox violates WP:UNDUE. We had nine junctions in California alone while only seven for the rest of the route. –Fredddie™ 22:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Good enough. Good points. I'm a native Californian, so of course we think the rest of the world rotates around us. I'm satisfied. Regards, --Manway 01:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

However, Manway, these edits do bring up a valid point that has not been addressed. Currently for decommissioned highways (the other major one being U.S. Route 99) we only list the historical termini, no major junctions. This is most likely for the reason I stated above, it's dang hard to do without introducing anachronisms. However, in the case of US 66 and US 99, it would be fairly easy to pick a year, say 1956, and include the historical major junctions for that year. I chose 1956 as that was the year the Interstate Highway System started to be built and essentially would be the last full year for many of the transcontinental US Routes before they started being hacked to bits (or to death in a couple of cases). Do we want to go down this road? or is this introducing to much maintenance headaches? Dave (talk) 06:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Check out U.S. Route 55 for what I've done. It's free of anachronisms! –Fredddie™ 12:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
That's exactly what I had in mind. Although that one was probably one of the easier highways to pick, only having existed for 10 years. Dave (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't disagree that it was easy to pull off, however we need to figure out what era's junctions we want to list and do the bulleted list. –Fredddie™ 22:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
In general, I would go for the last year the highway was at its greatest extent. For the main US 66 article, that would be 1964, just prior to when the highway was decommissioned at the Santa Monica end. Each of the states could have a Junction list for the year that state's section was last fully intact. For California that would be 1964, and 1976 for Illinois, 1979 for Arizona and Missouri, and 1985 for the intervening states.  VC  23:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
If we do decide to implement this, it may be wise to modify infobox road to include a parameter to modify the text "major junctions" to "major junctions (1964 routing)" Dave (talk) 02:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Also, if we do decide to implement this, we would need to have the major junctions section support a source parameter. Using VC's example, we would need to source this to a 1964 road atlas. Dave (talk) 19:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I like the idea, but I think it would be confusing to our readers. Is it safe to assume that 1963, right before California trimmed its part back would be the longest extent of the route? If so, we should use that year. –Fredddie™ 21:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, I think our readers are more interested in the pre-Interstate Highway System US 66 than what it became afterwards. I have a 1947 Rand McNally atlas that I could use to make this happen. –Fredddie™ 21:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it matters if we use 1956 or 1960 or 1947, but that we pick a year that is appropriate for that highway and be consistent within the article. Near as I can tell, there were a lot of changes to the US highway system in the 1930's (when it was still a new system, and the kinks were being worked out) and again in the mid 1960's -early 1970's when the system was revised to reflect the interstate highway system starting to supplant it as the main transportation network of the US. Near as I can tell the changes in the 1940's-1960's, the range of years we'd want to use, were fairly minor. For the record, I have a 1960 road atlas that could also be used. And Somebody has scanned a 1957 road atlas, I don't have the link handy, but I've used it in the past. Dave (talk) 21:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I have started creating a bulleted junction list (without bullets) on a subpage, feel free to add onto the later years. –Fredddie™ 22:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
And I have added the junctions from my 1960 Atlas. They are virtually identical; with the only notable difference being US-66 overlapped with I-44 in Oklahoma. As such I'm not sure we need to get the intermediate years. For the record, Hollywood is not a separate city, it is a subdivision of LA, despite the conventional wisdom. IMO here are the "major" junctions to include:

Dave (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I know Hollywood is part of LA, but so is Compton. :) The atlas I was using had an inset map of LA and from what I could tell, US 101 was a separate intersection from US 6 and US 99, so I don't know if we should combine those into one Jct entry. –Fredddie™ 22:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep, the junctions in LA are a mile or two apart, nice catch, my bad. OK, pick one =-) Dave (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
So any objections to the major junctions as I've proposed them? Also, I've protected the page as we've got a cleaver IP hopper on the loose. Dave (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Also, I swapped US91 for US 101 for 2 reasons, one as Fredddie states, 2 US 101 is going to appear as a western terminus in the infobox, so it's already mentioned somewhere. Dave (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Now we have to decide which time period we want to use...or do we want to use all four of the infobox sections? If that's the case, we should pare it down to 5 junctions per section, otherwise there would be major infobox overload. –Fredddie™ 23:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Can you do a mockup of using all four sections in the infobox?  VC  14:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see the point of using 4 sections. I presume that would be to show the junctions from different years. However, none of the 2dus appear to have moved in the time period we examined, only some 3dus, so I don't see why we'd want to do that. Dave (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I'm starting it, but I'm not going to do it all right this moment. It will be pretty obvious when I'm done. –Fredddie™ 00:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'd stick to running the infobox as the highway existed when it was removed from the system, which is how we do other decommissioned highways. The article itself should detail the full extents of the highway, but the infobox is meant to be a simple summary. Barring that, what is in the article is a simple summary of the extents of the highwayImzadi 1979 → 00:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

As Fredddie's proposal is coming together, I have mixed feelings. I get what this is trying to accomplish. However, I feel this would have more value on a route that has had drastic changes through the years, as opposed to seeing the same junctions in all 4 boxes. However, one plus to Fredddie's idea is it would drive home the point that this infobox is appropriately researched, and US-66 never intersected Interstate 15 in Rancho Cucamonga. Dave (talk) 06:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Also, Fredddie, I forgot, I also have the 1979 edition of the Rand McNally Atlas at my disposal. I gave it a quick glance and no surprises. But if you REALLY want me to, I can supply the junctions from it. It shows US-66 beginning at Topcock, AZ as the wikipedia article currently states, and the Interstate replacements are largely in tact, but gaps peppered throughout the length of US-66. Dave (talk) 07:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

U.S. Route 66 intersects all the junctions I put in there. We should put US 101 Alt as California State Route 1. We should add junctions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.139.120 (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

That's nice that you are finally talking to us. Please, first, respond to the Sockpuppet allegations that have been made against you at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Route 6654152. Once we have that cleared up, we can discuss what is right and wrong with the edit you are proposing. If you take the time to read what is above, you will see some pretty-hard-to-refute arguments against putting the junction list as you have proposed. Dave (talk) 01:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
So where are we at with this? My opinion is to use the junctions from the 1947 entry, as that is our most recent list available (so far) before the Interstate Highway System started the takeover of US route designations in the west. Objections? Dave (talk) 03:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Infobox junctions

Now that the last discussion has died off enough that it was archived, what should we do about the list of major intersections in the infobox? –Fredddie™ 23:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

My vote was and is that we list the junctions for a year when the highway was at its full extent and state something to that affect in the infobox (i.e. Major intersections (in 19xx)) With the years that were researched when we looked at this, my preference would be 1947. If we had sources for 1955 or 1956 that would be my "wish list" choice. Thanks for bringing this up, I was about to myself. Dave (talk) 23:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Maybe a few of us should do some digging and see what kind of map record is out there for each state. Maybe we'll get lucky and find 1956 maps from every state. –Fredddie™ 02:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
We could always put the 1947 junctions up now, and replace with the 1956 junctions once available. I think we put some markup tags to flag this section for no archiving and use this topic as a workspace, right? Any objections? Dave (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Go for it. –Fredddie™ 20:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I have made all the shields needed to take the 1947 junctions live. Let me know when it's a good time to take it live. –Fredddie™ 00:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This should about do it, no? If so just need to drop in the source details for the map used (I'd do it but it was your map. =-) Also the US 71 shield isn't showing.) Dave (talk) 05:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I swear I uploaded all of them, but I guess I shouldn't swear. Also, I added the ref including page numbers of every state and relevant inset map. –Fredddie™ 05:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Photo cleanup

Now that the infobox issue is resolved (knock on wood), another problem is this article, IMO, has too many photos. Many of these photos actually have little to do with US66, but are some random object with a US 66 shield. Any objection to pruning the photos? Dave (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I've removed a few (mostly photos of signage) and tried to redistribute the others a little more evenly through the article as certain sections (decline and revival in particular) had most of the images. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 14:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Fixed obvious error

In the Decline section there is a picture with the caption "Route 66 in the Painted Desert, Arizona - the road is gone but the wireless poles are still there." I corrected this to "telegraph poles". Andrew Hennigan (talk) 13:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the original caption meant "wireless" in the sense of not having wires anymore, not "wireless" in the sense of using radio spectrum (e.g. "wireless router"). Having said that, the revision is probably a better choice of word. mwalimu59 (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
The bigger question, IMO, is why is that photo there in the first place. No direct connection to US 66 and the telephone poles look to new to date back to the telegraph era. My guess is these poles are for railroad communications links. Dave (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Great Depression

11/23/2013

This page does not have enough information to help me research the history of Route 66, i.e.the Great Depression It would be generous to see some improvements to that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.154.68 (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

C/Start

Why are some state-detail articles that are supposed to be Cs (or Bs, even though I changed all of them to C, I'll change some to B later) Starts? I had to go and change them to Cs. Philroc (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

USRD hasn't systematically audited articles in a while. To be a C (or a B), USRD requires that the article possess a Route description, a History, and a junction list; if these are in substantially complete form with decent citations, then the article can be a B. If any of those three sections is in very poor shape, it's discounted from the assessment, and the article is listed as a Start. (The RD section, for example, should have a length appropriate to the length of that state's segment of the highway accounting for the terrain. Writing a single paragraph for hundreds of miles of roadway is not sufficient, but at the same time, we don't want to provide monotonous prose if the highway passes through unchanging landscapes.) Imzadi 1979 → 01:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Regardless, this is not the place to discuss assessments of other articles. –Fredddie™ 03:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Image

I think it could replace the similar File:OldRoute66PavementMark.jpg, currently used in the article. I once proposed pruning the images in this article anyways, and if you do swap feel free to do so. I think other candidates for removal or replacement are the picture of the "telegraph poles", which has no direct relevence to US 66, and the picture of the drive-in, which again I can't see as being directly relevent. Dave (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Nobody objected so I did an image prune, and replaced the San Bernadino image with the above mentioned Amboy image. I pruned about a few so images and my criteria were the following:
  • pruned redundant images - There were 6 images that were basically of the shield (some painted shields, some photos, some bitmaps)
  • Pruned those that did not show the highway, that of the utility poles and of the drive in.
  • pruned the video. however I could be persuaded that this one does belong and it is a different one that should be pruned.

However, I defend the images needed to be pruned. There were so many they were stacking. Dave (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Good start Dave, though IMHO more could be pruned. --AdmrBoltz 19:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Infobox junctions redux

U.S. Route 66 marker
U.S. Route 66
Route information
Existed1926–1985
Major cities
FromSanta Monica, Cal.
Major intersections
  • Los Angeles, Cal.
  • San Bernardino, Cal.
  • Ash Fork to Flagstaff, Ariz.
  • Albuquerque, N.M.
  • Amarillo, Tex.
  • El Reno, Okla.
  • Tulsa, Okla.
  • Joplin to Carthage, Mo.
  • St. Louis, Mo.
  • Normal, Ill.
ToChicago, Ill.
Location
CountryUnited States
Highway system

I was thinking that instead of listing the junctions, that we could only list the major cities (read: where the major junctions are located). My rationale is that the road designations were in flux during US 66's time in service, but the cities it served essentially stayed the same. –Fredddie™ 23:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Mixed feelings, I agree with your larger point, with the clarification that most of that instability was at the ends, the junctions in the center states were fairly stable. However, the infobox has been relatively stable since we put the 1947 junctions list up, and this info box has had stability issues in the past (mostly people inserting anachronisms in the California section). So I think that is proof that the current version is working. Second concern, if we change the list to be cities only, you know it's a matter of time before someone duplicates the list in the Bobby Troupe song, including "don't forget Winona". =-) Dave (talk) 02:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

East to West?

I'm sure this has come up before, but since the iconic journey was TO California, shouldn't this whole set of pages (i.e., the individual state pages) been arranged from east to west? Casey (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

See my answer to a similar question at [3], the same basic idea applies here. Dave (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

No mention of Natural Born Killers? #disappointed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.198.183.181 (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Almost as disappointing as finding out that hashtags have no meaning on wikipedia. Dave (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Counties

Should the counties parameter be added in Template:Infobox road ? If so, it doesn't work. TheWombatGuru (talk) 12:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

No, for two reasons. 1) The list would be too long to be useful. Imagine if we put counties on Interstate 90. 2) The parameter only works for state-level articles anyway because of reason 1. –Fredddie™ 15:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok thanks, but should it have the states parameter? Because Interstate 90 doesn't have it. TheWombatGuru (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I would say yes in both instances. –Fredddie™ 16:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent addition that perhaps belongs elsewhere....

The following text was recently added to the article: In 1903, Horatio Nelson Jackson became the first documented person to drive an automobile from San Francisco to New York using only a connection of dirt roads, cow paths, and railroad beds. His journey, covered by the press, became a national sensation and calls for a system of long distance roads.

IMO, this is very well written and a fact that merits coverage in a wikipedia article about roads. However, I'm not sure it belongs in the US 66 article. I think it's more appropriate for the article on U.S. Highways, as this statement is advocating for highways in general, not US 66 specifically. (Especially given that US 66 does not go anywhere near San Francisco or New York). Any disagreements with me moving this statement to a different article. Dave (talk) 05:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I saw that addition, and I was thinking the same thing that it should be moved. It would also help to find a source for the basic facts of that text. Imzadi 1979 → 07:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
done Dave (talk) 19:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Amboy (California, USA), Hist. Route 66 -- 2012 -- 1.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Amboy (California, USA), Hist. Route 66 -- 2012 -- 1.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 12, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-08-12. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

U.S. Route 66
Historic U.S. Route 66 outside Amboy, California. Established on November 11, 1926, it was one of the original highways within the U.S. Highway System. It served as a major path for those who migrated west, especially during the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, and was a part of 1960s popular culture.Photograph: Dietmar Rabich
Archive – More featured pictures...

Regarding Governor Hannett and Route 66

Regarding Governor Hannett and Route 66, here are notes for considering correcting timeline for his term of office and dates for Route 66 federal designation not constructed in 1937 but in 1927 then officially designated Route 66 after paving in 1937 some ten years after A. Hannett left office.

A correction is needed for your Route 66 history incorrectly stating A. Hannett was governor in 1937 and that a roadway from Santa Rosa directly west to Albuquerque, bypassing Santa Fe, was completed in 1937. Hannett was governor from January 1, 1925 until January 1, 1927; he was not governor in 1937. The roadway bypassing Santa Fe was completed in 1927, not 1937; it was paved and was designated officially as Route 66 in 1937.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_66

From west of Santa Rosa, New Mexico, to north of Los Lunas, New Mexico, the road originally turned north from current I-40 along much of what is now US 84 to near Las Vegas, New Mexico, followed (roughly) I-25—then the decertified US 85 through Santa Fe and Albuquerque to Los Lunas and then turned northwest along the present New Mexico State Road 6 (NM 6) alignment to a point near Laguna. In 1937, a straight-line route was completed from west of Santa Rosa through Moriarty and east–west through Albuquerque and west to Laguna. This newer routing saved travelers as much as four hours of travel through New Mexico. According to legend, the rerouting was done at the behest of Democratic Governor Arthur T. Hannett to punish the Republican Santa Fe Ring, which had long dominated New Mexico out of Santa Fe.[29]

29. ^ "Santa Fe, Pre 1938 Rt. 66 Alignment". Shadows of Old Route 66. Retrieved April 15, 2012.

Flawed reference with incorrect history. When Route 66 was first laid out in 1926, everybody knew it would go through the capital of New Mexico and indeed it did. Route 66 followed the Old Pecos Trail from Santa Rosa through Dilia, Romeroville and Pecos to Santa Fe. From Santa Fe it went over La Bajada Hill and down into Albuquerque. That was the way it was aligned and constructed and that was the way it was supposed to stay - forever. But it didn't. But why was it moved? In 1937 the then governor of New Mexico, Governor Hannett lost the re-election. Hannett blamed this on the politicians in Santa Fe. In one great last act of defiance before the new governor was sworn in he vowed to get even with this Santa Fe ring. He had until January to institute his revenge. And he did!

See governor Hannett’s term office: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_T._Hannett

After serving as a member of the State Highway Commission from March 1923, until December 1924, Hannett was elected Governor of New Mexico and served from January 1, 1925 until January 1, 1927. …..He was NOT governor in 1937!

https://www.nmlegis.gov/Publications/handbook/govs_and_lt_govs.pdf

1925 - 1926 Arthur T. Hannett D Gallup

Correctly described as Route 66’s timeline is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_66_in_New_Mexico

New Mexico had long been controlled politically by the Santa Fe Ring, a group of businesspeople and officials with close ties to the Republican Party. In 1924, Democrat Arthur Thomas Hannett was unexpectedly elected for a single term (1925–1927) as governor, only to be defeated with various dirty tricks in the next election. Blaming the Republican establishment in Santa Fe for his defeat, Hannett used the lame duck remainder of his term to force through a sixty-nine mile cutoff from Santa Rosa directly to Albuquerque, bypassing Santa Fe entirely. The hastily constructed new road opened January 3, 1927, while incoming governor Richard Dillon was still trying to get construction stopped.[7] Dillon was replaced by Arthur Seligman, a Democrat, in 1931.

This new NM 6 was approved as a future realignment of Route 66 by 1932, and in 1933, a new bridge over the Rio Puerco opened. Once paving was completed in 1937, with AASHO approval given on September 26, 1937,[8] Route 66 was moved to this shorter route, known as the Laguna Cut-off west of Albuquerque and the Santa Rosa Cut-off east of Albuquerque.[9]

…..reference [8] is no longer available I found. 8. ^ James R. Powell, A Brief History of U.S. Highway 66 and The Route 66 Association of Missouri

A good reference is the National Park Service’s web site:

https://www.ncptt.nps.gov/rt66/history-and-significance-of-us-route-66/new-mexico/

and the National Park Service has a good article about Hannett’s “Trace” or “Santa Rosa Cut-Off” that did become adopted as federal Route 66 in 1937 but it was not Route 66 before that.

https://www.ncptt.nps.gov/rt66/new-mexico/

excerpt: Despite widespread acceptance that New Mexico’s primary orientation continued to be north-south along the corridor that the Camino Real, the Chihuahua Trail, the early Santa Fe Railroad, and NM 1 had followed, by the late 1920s many leaders had begun to advocate the future importance of east-west travel. This advocacy was particularly strong in cities such as Albuquerque and Gallup, which saw their future growth tied to the potential for east-west automobile travel. The first step toward realizing this goal occurred in 1926 when outgoing Governor Arthur T. Hannet, the former mayor of Gallup, ordered highway department crews to cut an earthen trace due west from Santa Rosa to the Estancia Valley.

Although the state lacked the funds to improve roads that were not eligible for federal funding, some motorists began using the trace west from Santa Rosa, especially during good weather. Termed “the Santa Rosa cut-off” the new road siphoned traffic away from the Route 66 alignment, further reducing the number of cars using the highway and, as a result, weakening the priority that had emphasized improvements to the road north from Santa Rosa to Romeroville. A similar development occurred west of Albuquerque, when the city’s boosters, led by ex-officio mayor Clyde Tingley, advocated the creation of an improved road running directly west from the city. With the completion of a bridge across the Rio Grande just west of Old Town in 1931 and the funding of a through truss bridge across the Rio Puerco (completed in 1933), this new route, termed “the Laguna cut-off,” also served to reduce traffic along the Route 66 alignment from Los Lunas to the Laguna Reservation.

As a result of these increasingly aggressive lobbying efforts to realign Route 66 directly west across New Mexico, by the early 1930s even engineers for the BPR were studying the possibility of realigning Route 66. Normally loath to approve federal funding for new roadways if they were seen as duplicating previously funded projects, they saw the value of a more direct route across the state. Despite protestations from supporters of the original route, especially boosters in Santa Fe, by 1932 the BPR had accepted the request of the State Highway Commission to realign Route 66 at some point in the future. The completion of the new bridge across the Rio Puerco in 1933 opened the way for realignment, and when the last sections of hard surfacing were completed in 1937, the original alignment was replaced by the shorter east-west alignment. This realignment was accompanied by several other shorter realignments, especially in the western part of the state, as several railroad grade crossings were eliminated by realigning Route 66 south of the Santa Fe line from Grants to Mentmore west of Gallup.

Ciao, Jack j.bresenham@computer.org

Yours is not the only mistaken recounting of Route 66 and “Hannett’s Joke” or “Hannett’s Revenge”. If you’re curious, here are several URLs you may want to peruse. Some correctly use 1937; others incorrectly use 1927 for the “official” Route 66 designation and a few, like Wikipedia, incorrectly state Hannett was governor in 1937. 😊

You may notice also that Hannett’s surname is, in some accounts, misspelled.

97.123.21.102 (talk) 01:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on U.S. Route 66. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Add proposed redirect

I would like to suggest that you create a redirect from Will Rogers Memorial Highway to U.S. Route 66. -- Storybox03 (talk) 06:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Issues with two sources

Large parts of the text of the article are verbatim with this and this source. I suspect (hopefully) that these sources copied from wikipedia (Backwards copy) and not the other way around, but then why cite them as sources? I'm not very sure how to find out for sure and what steps to take. Asking for feedback here and in Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems. Thanks, --Alan Islas (talk) 23:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Route 66 Centennial Commission Act

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1014/ This has become law. Mapsax (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The Mother Road?

The suggestion that Route 66 is known as the Mother Road should probably be removed. Is there any citation to this being a name actually used? Denisrodman88 (talk) 07:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Among other sources, the History Channel says: "In his Pulitzer Prize-winning 1939 novel The Grapes of Wrath, about Dust Bowl migrants of the 1930s, Steinbeck devoted a chapter to Route 66, which he dubbed 'the mother road,' a nickname that stuck." There's also Time magazine, PBS National Geographic and the National Museum of American History (part of the Smithsonian) that all use the nickname. Imzadi 1979 → 05:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move of Route 66

This is a courtesy notice that I have opened a discussion about moving the disambiguation page Route 66 to Route 66 (disambiguation) and turning Route 66 into a redirect to U.S. Route 66. Interested editors may participate at at Talk:Route 66#Requested move 29 December 2021. Rublov (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:U.S._Route_66/Archive_1&oldid=1137277016"