Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Peer review/H-58 (Michigan county highway)
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
H-58 (Michigan county highway) edit
I would like some feedback. This is the first of what might be a taskforce of articles, and I would like to take it to WP:GA if others think it could be ready for that. I can't say that I see it ever as a FAC in the near future. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- From the western end, H-58 passes out of town by the Neenah Paper Mill seems sort of clunky to me. From the western end of what, H-58? The paper mill? The town?
- Fixed? Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- May want to feature Pictured Rocks more prominently in the RD
- I'll try tossing more mentions in. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The beginning and end of gravel sections should be noted more precisely. People with e.g. new cars may want to avoid gravel roads and find a way to bypass them.
- The issue is that Alger County is paving the roadway finally. On any given day, I don't know where to find where the asphalt ends. I'll see what I can dig up. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alger-Smith sawmill may need an en dash (Alger–Smith), see WP:MOSDASH for details.
- En-dashed. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mostly looks good so far. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Naming convention discussion
I think there is an issue with the article title, this highway isn't in Michigan county. --Holderca1 talk 19:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This follows the naming convention for Michigan. It is a county-designated highway in Michigan. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it is a bad convention and should be changed. As it reads now, it is saying that it is a highway in Michigan county. Perhaps just H-58 (Michigan highway)? --Holderca1 talk 22:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I read it as a county highway in Michigan. now if it were H-58 (Michigan County highway) I'd read it the way you do. Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That would have MOS issues since "county highway" isn't a proper name in that use. Why not just remove the possible confusion and use the naming I proposed, which would be consistent with the naming of other Michigan highway articles? --Holderca1 talk 20:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We could change the convention to X-## (Michigan county-designated highway) then. CDH is the term used by MDOT. The word county was inserted in the parentheses to differentiate the M-## state trunklines from the X-## CDHs, where X is the zone of MI and ## is the number in the grid for that zone. MDOT only administers the numbering, not the maitenance of the CDHs. They are still county roads, and may even carry another CR designation as H-37 is also CR 407 in Luce County. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That would have MOS issues since "county highway" isn't a proper name in that use. Why not just remove the possible confusion and use the naming I proposed, which would be consistent with the naming of other Michigan highway articles? --Holderca1 talk 20:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I read it as a county highway in Michigan. now if it were H-58 (Michigan County highway) I'd read it the way you do. Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it is a bad convention and should be changed. As it reads now, it is saying that it is a highway in Michigan county. Perhaps just H-58 (Michigan highway)? --Holderca1 talk 22:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(indent reset) No, that was settled in SRNC, and if it were to be changed, the correct form would be M-## (Michigan state trunkline highway). That would be too cumbersome, so I oppose any changes to the state trunkline naming convention. I don't see the confusion over the CDH convention though. They existed at those article names for 1.5 years until being merged into the list last fall. The word "county" is not capitalized. It was only included to differentiate the CDH articles from the trunklines. Unlike County Route 115 (Tompkins County, New York) CDHs in MI cross county lines so disambiguating solely on county is inappropriate or impossible, otherwise this might be H-58 (Alger County, Michigan) or something like that. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I wasn't proposing a change to the trunkline article titles, I thought you were. What I am trying to say is that they don't need the "county" to differentiate them, which is what the parenthetical disambiguation is for. From my quick look through the highway, there are no county and trunkline highways with the same alphanumeric designation, so adding "county" to it is unneeded, cumbersome, and confusing. I already stated that I thought this was a highway in Michigan county, so whether you think it is confusing or not is irrelevant. Also, the article starts out County Designated Highway H-58, is that the official name for it? So perhaps it should be at County Designated Highway H-58 (Michigan). Anyways, this is my last comment here, because obviously you aren't here looking for help. --Holderca1 talk 19:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm looking for feedback on the content of the article. I never imagined there would be an issue with a two-year old naming convention. *shrugs*. Normally in Michigan, they are called county roads. Only the CDHs are called highways, although sometimes they are called things like CR H-58. C-42 in Antrim and Otsego County is usually called "Alba Road" but it has as many C-42 shields as many trunklines do and it looks built to the same specs as state-maintained roads. So anyway, the "county" was tossed in there to differentiate that these aren't traditional county roads (or else it might be H-58 (Michigan county road) or H-58 (County road in Michigan)) nor are they state maintained like the M-## (Michigan highway) series of articles. Having said all of that, nobody but the two of us seems to care about the title. What do you think about the content of the article? Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that is a discussion for another time. The history section needs some work. The first and third sentence should be moved to the "route description" since they describe the route. Do you know when it was designated or when it was built? --Holderca1 talk 22:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.