Talk:Pennsylvania Route 2

Comments

IMHO, I don't think the these old decommissioned routes should have the infobox linking them to the sequence of routes. I think that should just be reserved for the active routes. The decommissioned routes are all linked from the List of Routes page anyway, and I feel that's where they should stay. Besides that, these routes never had the modern-day route shields on them anyway -- they should have historical shields, but again, not in the whole infobox/linking sequence.

Anyone else care to chime in on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homefryes (talk • contribs)

My stance is the same one I've maintained over at WP:NYSR: If an article exists for the decommissioned route in question, then it belongs in the browse sequence. This article would have to be either a standalone (such as PA 2) or a redirect that does not break the numbering sequence (such as US 30 in PA, which maintains the browse as PA 1). --TMF ^{T - C} 03:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't even agree with the automatic redirect for PA 1, since this route also followed part of current-day US 1. The History section on List of State Routes in Pennsylvania has the routes listed, and that should be sufficient, with manual return links at the bottom of the page and links to US 1 and US 30 (using PA 1 as an example). --Homefryes 11:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

For where the PA 1 article should redirect to, you'd probably gain more mileage by discussing that one on the PA 1 talk page. As for the "manual return links", these, IMO, should never be placed at the bottom of an article (a situation that used to exist on the NYSR project and is currently being phased out). Worst case scenario is that PA 1 is given its own routebox in a standalone article. --TMF ^{T - C} 16:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)