Talk:Maryland Route 166

N. Rolling Road

Somebody with more familiarity with that segment should fill in the rest of the route description. I wish Baltimore County posted HLRs that could be used to fill in the entire roadway, not just the MDOT SHA-maintained portion. -TheOneKEA (20080924 03:09 -0500) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC).

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved to reflect the change to the article's content. DrKiernan (talk) 10:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Rolling Road → Maryland Route 166 – This article has been rewritten to focus more on MD 166 rather than Rolling Road.  VC  14:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support - The route number should take precedence. Dough4872 18:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Why? Shouldn't the most common name take preference per WP:UCN (use common names)? —  AjaxSmack  20:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
    • The focus on the article is more of MD 166 than Rolling Road. Not all of MD 166 is called Rolling Road. Dough4872 21:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
      • There are other instances of Rolling Road, such as SR 638 in Fairfax County, Virginia, which is a suburban arterial highway. It is not inconceivable the Virginia route could have an article. Using the route number avoids the headache of having to move the article again when Rolling Road has to be made into a dab page, which is likely not only due to different highways named Rolling Road, but also because a different case version, Rolling road, redirects to a railroad article.  VC  13:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support per VC's reasoning. Since the article is now focusing about the state highway, that designation should be the name as it is both the common and official name of the subject. Imzadi 1979 → 19:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose A very small portion of the route has the 166 designation. The name Rolling Road is actually split between different routes, and the main one does not have the designation. Sebwite (talk) 01:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • But the article is focused on MD 166, including the part that is not Rolling Road. Therefore, Rolling Road would be a misleading title. Dough4872 02:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I could take the North Rolling Road information out of the article. That would solve your issue.  VC  02:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Rolling Road, including the north section, is notable. There are sources describing the road's history, including the origin of its name. Sebwite (talk) 03:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

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

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maryland Route 166. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121025170746/http://www.baltometro.org/reports/Major%20Transp%20Milestones%20Since%201940.pdf to http://www.baltometro.org/reports/Major%20Transp%20Milestones%20Since%201940.pdf

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) 14:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)