Talk:List of state highways in Texas

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Imzadi1979 in topic Split Request

Discussion edit

Fixed directions as noted on the cleanup banner and removed the banner. Also deleted empty table of highways from this page...feel free to put it back if it serves a purpose here. When I fixed the "NW/SE" and variants, I used the convention that even-numbered roads run E/W and odd-numbered roads run N/S, so if there is any exception to this convention, it will need to be fixed. TNLTRPB 11:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Texas doesn't follow that convention at all, the highways were numbered in the order they were designated regardless the direction they ran. Reverting for now since you just changed the directions, the corresponding termini need to be switched as well. --Holderca1 12:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Merge Proposal edit

List of State Highways in Texas copies the pages for List of state highways in Texas, List of U.S. Highways in Texas, and List of Interstate Highways in Texas, all of which are already more fleshed out, while the separate Loops and Spurs pages are already much further established and completed. The other State Highway page should be merged and redirected here. 25or6to4 (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

A suggestion from Michigan might be in order. There are 4 related articles for the state now: Michigan Highway System, List of Interstate Highways in Michigan, List of U.S. Highways in Michigan, List of Michigan trunklines. There are additional lists for the county-designated highways and the heritage routes as well. The system article describes the whole system, leaving the details on the specific highways to the lists. (I plan on adding full leads to all three lists, but that's the last step so I can preserve them for a combination DYK hook.) For TX, obviously you'd end up with addition lists for the various types of highway all linked into the system article. Imzadi 1979  07:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Overhaul edit

It took the better part of two days, but I gave this list the overhaul it needed. While WP:NOTPAPER says we're not limited by size, I was having trouble loading the page even with my broadband connection. The changes I've made to this list have reduced the page size from 114 KB down to just under 50 KB. Here's what I did. –Fredddie 06:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

  • Removed unnecessary instances of {{Jct}}. WP:ICONDECORATION recommends not using too many icons, in this case, the route markers. I eliminated the route markers that were in the termini columns so only the routes that we're listing have them.
  • Created consistent links to articles. Going along with the above point, I replaced as many links as possible with {{Roadlink}}. It's just like Jct, but it will never produce a route marker. It also handles locations, which helped reduce page size by a lot.
  • Removed the direction column and renamed the termini columns to the non-specific "From" and "To".
  • Removed the remarks column. Most of this information was random and inconsistent. Information like which route the current route replaced or what street names the routes has don't belong in a giant list like this. I utilized {{Ref}} and {{Note}} to notate the longest and shortest state highways, which were in the remarks column.
  • Removed the maps. Clutter.
  • Stripped the colors in the lower tables. Per WP:COLOR, any use of colors should be explained with a legend or a note. None of the tables had either.
  • Removed redundant words. The decommissioned table had the word decommissioned, which is a neologism and should be avoided, on every line. TXDOT uses the word cancelled, so that column is now called 'Year cancelled'.
  • Removed the links in the unused highways section. It was a sea of redlinks.

Troup-Arp Spur cancelled 1924 edit

https://publicdocs.txdot.gov/minord/MinuteOrderDocLib/003676884.pdf Alexlatham96 (talk) 08:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Split Request edit

This article is getting too long and be split 2600:1700:6180:6290:60CB:CA76:257F:41DC (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I would not split this at all. This serves as an index to all of the state highways, and splitting the table would be problematic. For example, by splitting it, it would make it impossible to sort them in one place by various attributes. So reader wouldn't be able to determine the shortest, longest, oldest, newest, etc. highways in the state. Imzadi 1979  21:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply