Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 17

AWB to eliminate uses of {{Jct}}

Would someone with AWB care to look at the following articles and remove each instance of {{Jct}}?

Too many expensive parser function calls

• List of auxiliary Interstate Highways
• State highways in New Jersey (This list is getting reworked, but it's taking some time)

Unnecessary repetition

• List of state highway spurs in Texas (Route marker can and should instead be explained in a paragraph)

Images are distracting

• List of crossings of the Upper Mississippi River

The goal of this is to remove these pages from Category:Jct template transclusions with missing shields. —Fredddie™ 18:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd do it, but 1) it's not as easy as it seems and 2) at least in the case of the NJ state highway list, it's like putting lipstick on a pig. For one, I don't get why the lengths are sourced to every individual SLD instead of just to the main SLD page, from where the individual SLDs can be accessed if someone wants to verify the length of a route. The 160 references on the page, in conjunction with the over 400 transclusions of jct, is why that page takes ages to load. – TMF 16:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Heh, forgot about {{roadlink}}. That should do the trick, but will they take just as long to render? I don't know, but I suppose the only way to find out is to change them over. – TMF 16:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I, too, forgot about {{Roadlink}}, which is ironic. I replaced {{Jct}} with {{Roadlink}} and put in {{Infobox state highway system}}. That should take care of that Texas list. –Fredddie™ 23:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

List of crossings of the Upper Mississippi River is now done as well. –Fredddie™ 00:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of streets along the former U.S. Highway 99 in Washington. Dough4872 01:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grace City Road. Dough4872 01:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Route 1E (North Dakota). Dough4872 02:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastshore Freeway --Rschen7754 20:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Another: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Memorial Drive (Atlanta) –Fredddie™ 06:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

And: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baxter Boulevard (2nd nomination) Imzadi 1979 → 07:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

A favor

I'm asking for some input on an article I've spent the last week re-researching and rewriting in a sandbox. The article on the Capitol Loop has already been rated at A-Class through our ACR process. I'd like a few editors from the project to give the article a once over and review it on the article's talk page. If there are any copy editing suggestions that you have, just go ahead and make them to the article. Most of the History section was rewritten from the new research and expanded. In fact, none of the history relies on MDOT sources except the date the roadway was transferred to state control. (It's been a project from long ago to find the proper newspaper articles to re-cite this article to remove the press releases previously used to cite the history.) I've expanded the lead, updated the traffic counts and tweak the RD a bit as well. My goal is to take this article to FAC at some point, but I'd appreciate some feedback and copy editing first. Imzadi 1979 → 08:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I opened a Peer Review for the article tonight. Imzadi 1979 → 03:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal backlog

Category:U.S. Roads project articles to be merged is full of merge proposals, some of which have gone stale due to inactivity. Comments on the proposals (at the proposal location for simplicity) would be appreciated. – TMF 17:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

New discussion: Talk:Florida State Road 24#Merge proposal. Since a certain FL/NY editor is involved, it'll probably get contentious fairly fast based on past precedent. – TMF 16:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Bridge articles

Unless a highway designation is a redirect to a one of the bridge-related articles that were tagged in the project, I untagged them this evening. My reasoning is simple: there's already a project on Bridges that specializes in these subjects. The mere fact that a bridge carries cars doesn't make it fall under the scope of a project devoted to state highways. (The fact that a road carries cars doesn't make it a signed state or county highway either, and we don't tag those articles.) Some bridges though are the entirety of a state highway designation, and those I left alone. Basically, I was following what kind of infobox would appear on the article. If a bridge infobox is more appropriate, it was untagged. Imzadi 1979 → 05:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

My thinking has always been that we write about the road on the bridge, not about the bridge itself. –Fredddie™ 05:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, bridge articles should not be tagged USRD unless they form the entirety of a numbered route. Dough4872 15:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The project scope is pretty clear on this matter. "Articles not maintained by this project, with some exceptions, include: ... Bridges, which are maintained by WP:Bridges. (Where the entire length of a numbered route exists solely on a bridge, WP:USRD will also maintain the article.)" I agreed with this take when it was first drafted, and I still agree with it. – TMF 15:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's my opinion; its rather contradictory. I think that all bridges should not be under USRD, no matter whether it is the complete route designation or not. I think the article should go under the route name, and bridge article for WP:Bridges. --PCB 16:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

So in cases where the SR is the bridge, the whole bridge, and nothing but the bridge, you advocate having two articles covering substantially the same topic? What is the utility in that? That's why the scope says that in cases where the SR and the bridge are one and the same, the article will be joint-maintained. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it would behoove us to add in some <!-- comments on talk pages --> so we don't overzealously un-tag bridge articles which should be under USRD. –Fredddie™ 18:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I tried to double check the "What links here" list for each article before untagging it. When I pulled up the list, I clicked to "Hide links" which had the effect of isolating any redirects. If that list had a state highway designation redirect, I left it alone and moved on. If "the SR is the bridge, the whole bridge and nothing but the bridge," as Scott says, but didn't have a redirect in place, then I apologize for untagging it. Of course in that case, the redirect should be made tout suite at any rate. Imzadi 1979 → 19:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

By-county categories for state highways only

Category:State highways in Florida has 69 subcategories, all of which are titled "State Roads in <county> County, Florida". To me, this seems like far too narrow a scope for a category. Thoughts? – TMF 21:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Imzadi 1979 → 21:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:MOSNUM

Regarding the distance columns in junction lists. Wikipedia_talk:Mosnum#Permitting_metric_distances_in_road_tables –Fredddie™ 21:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at wp:mosnum about metric units

Please see discussion at wp:mosnum about metric units. Lightmouse (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

{{USRD}} type for interchanges?

What does everybody think about there being a new type= for interchanges on {{USRD}}? –Fredddie™ 05:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that could be a plausible idea, since interchanges are a special type of article for USRD. However, an interchange should also be tagged for what state it is in and what highway system it is along. Dough4872 00:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I support the idea. This is more like |type=I or |type=US. We still add |state= to those articles as appropriate to tag their location. It would be helpful to have them classified separately, maybe as a "pseudo" task force so we can work on assessment and standards for them a bit more. Imzadi 1979 → 01:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

My only question is how many articles on interchanges exist, and of those how many should exist? – TMF 02:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, certainly the situation in the US is better than Malaysia. [1], and most of the ones that do exist should, unlike Malaysia. That said, I"m sure we could come up with a few other article types and map them out first before implementing any, as TMF suggested on IRC. Imzadi 1979 → 02:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe I've mentioned this before (in the form of presenting a task force). The thing is, I think there is a need to create standards for what sections need to go into an interchange article. TMF, the purpose of taking these would help us count how many exist and should exist. --PCB 16:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

There has to be enough to justify making a separate topic in the first place. I know I probably won't support it unless there's several dozen. – TMF 16:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Just by looking for interchanges tagged under USRD, there are 24, including pictures. I'm sure digging deeper will find more. –Fredddie™ 16:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me state it this way, each state probably has a notable interchange. By that, I mean it's large or unusually designed. It has a name used by the public or the DOT. I know Milwaukee has two, the Marquette Interchange and the Zoo Interchange. Chicago has the Circle Interchange. There's a few Spaghetti Junctions out there. Michigan has "the Mixmaster" name applied to the I-96/I-275/I-696/M-5 interchange. There are currently 66 articles* that use [[tl|infobox road junction}} at the moment, with only 2 or 3 that aren't in the US, IIRC. Some of these are New Jersey's notable traffic circles, which I'd also include with the interchanges. Maybe the combined type should be junction instead. (*Malaysia currently has its own interchange template, which in all likelihood will get further revamped and merged into the generic IRJ. Before that happens though, there should be an AfD of probably 75% of the current articles because they fail WP:GNG. The transclusion count on IRJ may increase in the near future as a result. )

Looking at Category:Stub-Class California road transport articles (for some reason i was unable to wikilink it) there are quite a few California interchange articles; I know for a fact Arizona has 2 and Colorado 1. --PCB 17:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

PCB, to link to a category or a file without tagging the page or displaying the file, place a colon in front of the link. Imzadi 1979 → 18:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussion: Farm to market Road 752

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farm to Market Road 752 has been opened. Comment there if you wish. Imzadi 1979 → 10:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussion: County Road 1555 (Leon County, Florida)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Road 1555 (Leon County, Florida) – TMF 21:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Two more Florida county roads: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Road 1557 (Leon County, Florida) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Road 1559 (Leon County, Florida) – TMF 23:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Plus Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Road 2196 (Leon County, Florida) Imzadi 1979 → 03:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Another deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Route 857 (Monongalia County, West Virginia). Dough4872 00:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Memorial Drive (Atlanta) is still open. Imzadi 1979 → 12:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Mass Change of Reference URLS Redux

The Maryland State Highway Administration has once again made changes that have caused hundreds of deadlinks in Wikipedia references. SHA has made the filenames for all Highway Location Reference files shorter and more consistent, as well as streamlined the interface on their website for accessing individual county HLRs: [2].

The new URLs are of the form www.marylandroads.com/Location/YEAR_COUNTY.pdf YEAR is the four-digit year in the range 1999 to 2009. COUNTY is the name of the county in all-caps. For instance, the URL for the 2009 Caroline County HLR is www.marylandroads.com/Location/2009_CAROLINE.pdf Note the following special cases:

• Baltimore City only has an HLR for 2005. Its COUNTY value is BALTIMORECITY.
• The COUNTY value for Prince George's County is PRINCEGEORGES.
• The COUNTY value for St. Mary's County is SAINTMARYS.
• The COUNTY value for Queen Anne's County is QUEENANNES.
• The COUNTY value for Anne Arundel County is ARUNDEL, not ANNEARUNDEL.

The old URLs for 2000 through 2009 were of the form apps.roads.maryland.gov/KeepingCurrent/performTrafficStudies/dataAndStats/hwyLocationRef/YEAR_hlr_all/coCO.pdf YEAR is the four-digit year in the range 2000 to 2009. CO is the two-digit county code explained in the collapsed table below. For instance, the 2008 HLR for Anne Arundel County was apps.roads.maryland.gov/KeepingCurrent/performTrafficStudies/dataAndStats/hwyLocationRef/2008_hlr_all/co02.pdf

The old URLs for 1999 were of the form apps.roads.maryland.gov/KeepingCurrent/performTrafficStudies/dataAndStats/hwyLocationRef/Allint_99_hlr/coCO.pdf, where CO is the two-digit county code.

Maryland Two-Digit County Codes
County Code County Name 01 Allegany 02 Anne Arundel 03 Baltimore 04 Calvert 05 Caroline 06 Carroll 07 Cecil 08 Charles 09 Dorchester 10 Frederick 11 Garrett 12 Harford 13 Howard 14 Kent 15 Montgomery 16 Prince George's 17 Queen Anne's 18 St. Mary's 19 Talbot 20 Somerset 21 Washington 22 Wicomico 23 Worcester 24 Baltimore City

Anyway, this is another project that would probably best be done via AWB, so I would much appreciate someone or a group proficient with that utility go through all of the Maryland state highway articles and update the reference URLs. — Viridiscalculus (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

MTF discussion

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Maps task force#Townships and jurisdictions on regional maps. – TMF 00:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

infobox major junctions

The wording in the former WP:IH regarding infobox junctions found here was not merged to the new standards. Is this deliberate? I've not been following all the recent discussions closely but I don't remember having this wording overturned. Also, now that a major cities box is gone, it is all the more a good reason to list junctions in major cities in the infobox. There might be a potential issue in Interstate 95 regarding this. --Polaron | Talk 14:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I see it in WP:USRD/STDS. Also, we've eliminated major cities lists in both the box form and the infobox form because it's entirely subjective - this has been discussed extensively at WT:USRD and you can look in the archives for the discussion. --Rschen7754 17:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm referring to the wording relating to junction in or near the central cities of major metropolitan areas:

Only major junctions go into the Interstate routebox. These would be junctions with other Interstate Highways and/or junctions located in or near the central cities of major metropolitan areas with other important highways such as turnpikes and U.S. routes. Listing of multiple junctions in the same location should be avoided if possible. If any routebox has over 10 junctions, then some of the junctions need to be removed.

Since the major cities box is gone, it would be even more crucial to indicate in the infobox what cities it passes through. You can stipulate that only truly major cities where there is no disagreement that it is a major city can be included. --Polaron | Talk 19:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to the practice of selecting major junctions in different cities? --Rschen7754 19:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Compare an old version around the time the text above was inserted to WP:IH, and a recent version implying that only Interstate highways ending in 5 or 0 can be included. Which one is more helpful to the reader? --Polaron | Talk 23:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to defer this question to Scott5114, who wrote that part of STDS. (I think I was gone or something when this part of the guideline was written, because I don't remember anything about it.) But yes, I see the concern. --Rschen7754 04:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't a clue, I just merged what was there. Why not check through the history of the page and see if it was present in the first version of STDS, and if it was there then, see who removed it and when? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It was not in the first version of STDS. --Rschen7754 05:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, some clueless editor is using a warped interpretation of the standards on I-99. See [3]. – TMF 15:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible sock-puppeteer at work

See [4] and [5]. Too bad this situation probably doesn't warrant a checkuser...yet. – TMF 13:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe the user has struck I-97 as well. — Viridiscalculus (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Does this fall under "Contributing to the same page with multiple accounts" at WP:SOCK? --Rschen7754 21:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

All indef'ed. Let me know if more pop up. --Rschen7754 05:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/P920398 --Rschen7754 05:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Utah assessment help

Please see WT:USRD/A. --Rschen7754 04:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Route child route navboxes

See [6]. In short, a user replaced the actual child routes with the routes that replaced them, and I reverted for one simple reason: those routes aren't related to the parent route (here US 66), the routes they replaced were. It's been changed and reverted twice in the last week, so I figured I'd bring the issue here. – TMF 15:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the version that shows the former route numbers (i.e. 666 not 491) makes more sense, as the "491" number is not related to 66, whereas the old "666" number is. Dough4872 19:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Reviving AID?

Note: I am not advocating restarting WP:USRD/AID as it was. I think it was flawed and doomed to fail from the beginning. However, we can learn from AID's mistakes and improve upon them. –Fredddie™

OK, here's a little background. I was looking at the leaderboard tonight and I saw that Florida has almost moved out of the bottom 15. I was shocked, too. That got me thinking of starting up a part of the project for collaborating to get a state out of the bottom 10. Then I remembered AID.

WP:USRD/AID, if you recall, was the early incarnation of project collaboration which intended to get selected articles up to featured status. I think Ridge Route is the only article which AID worked on that became a FA; correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it was a direct result of AID.

Anyway, I'd like us, as a project, to select the state at the bottom of the leaderboard (currently Georgia) and spend 2-3 months destubbing and generally improving the whole lot of articles. The first week or so would be dedicated to finding reliable sources, to proposing ways to handle each state's special cases, to figuring out which articles needed the most attention first, and to setting goals to measure the success of the drive. After the first week, we can really get down to business improving articles.

The ultimate goal is to improve the encyclopedia, and I think this can work if we don't try to rush things. –Fredddie™ 03:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that would work. --Rschen7754 03:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

This sounds good. I wasn't too active with USRD at the time AID was around. I like the idea about gathering resources first, because that's the biggest impediment to working much outside of Michigan for me. Imzadi 1979 → 04:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. Getting people to work outside of their home states is a pretty big endeavor though. Also, I've encountered some problems with quality when involving people not familiar with the area. Seems that people from the northeast tend to have problems with unincorporated areas, cities having incorporated area that is not called "downtown", and things like that. Contrariwise I inevitably fuck something up whenever I create a map for an unfamiliar state; apparently Michigan has way fewer incorporated places than I'm comfortable with, and New York has some county seats that aren't incorporated (shocking!). Meanwhile, townships vary in function from place to place—in some places (mainly the East) they're really important and have their own governments, sometimes even passing counties in importance, and in others (the West) they only exist for survey purposes.

Well, if nothing else, this'll give the taskforce pages some use. Here's hoping that this works... —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly why there'd be a coordinated research period. –Fredddie™ 23:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it'll work, even if the format is revised. The only way an AID works is if there's a committed editor base that works on it, and historically there hasn't been. Every road-related AID that was developed - the USRD one, the NYSR one - both eventually went away for that reason. – TMF 16:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think we can start a drive to destub articles from a specific state. From my personal experience, I was able to do something along those lines for Mississippi. I had noticed that the state was near the bottom of the leaderboard and was able to find the length and historical sources from MDOT to expand a few of the state's articles. I really think we could do the same for other states, as long as we are able to find sources. Dough4872 16:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You still need a set of editors that will be committed to the drive for a while. If there's enough, then go for it, but I'm not confident that there is. Myself, I'm not interested in any of these drives - I prefer to work in states where I've already done extensive research and have substantial experience with the state's layout, government structure, etc. And until my work in those states is "finished", I don't plan on doing work in other states. – TMF 16:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I never said joining the drive should be compulsory. If you don't want to help, that's fine; but please don't dismiss the idea because you won't have any part of it. –Fredddie™ 23:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Uh...I never said I was dismissing the idea. The only way to gauge if there's a solid editor base for this is for editors to solicit their opinions on it, and that's all I did above. – TMF 00:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm thinking it's a great idea to start with identifying sources for different states' highway systems. Creating those source directories will benefit current and future editors, and the whole process should help supplement the stub-reduction drive as a whole. Imzadi 1979 → 03:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I also agree that a source directory of some sort would be a good idea; I know I've had a hard time finding sources for several of the states, particularly in the South (if anyone can find any history of West Virginia state routes, or lists of WV county roads in general, I would be very grateful). Even getting the DOT map and route log sources would be an accomplishment. Since I also tend to focus on certain states (Illinois and Wisconsin), I don't know how much I could contribute to a de-stubbing effort in another state, especially since my writing time is spread across four projects as it is; therefore, I'll leave it to the more dedicated editors to decide on that one. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Would it be better to scrap refocus my idea as a mission to find and update reliable sources for each state? –Fredddie™ 03:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

For now, I think it may help for us to focus on getting reliable sources for all states, and then we would have the resources for editors to improve road articles in every state at their own leisure. Dough4872 15:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Such a directory would be very helpful. One of my frustrations is dealing with Texas roads that cross into New Mexico. It's easy to get reasonably good documentation of Texas routes through their TxDOT highway designation files and through state archive maps, NMDOT only provides good information for current routes in its route logs with no historic context. The only Internet source I've been able to find is Steve Riner's Unofficial New Mexico Highways site, but that site only provides unreferenced material with only broad, sweeping histories and has a disclaimer that some of its information is based on inference, recollection, and includes uncertainty. There is no roads task force and no project page that would list any resources. The article List of highways in New Mexico has an external links section linking to the route logs and unofficial page already mentioned plus a dead link and a link to a spam site banned by its ISP. Only three New Mexico State Road articles rate above stub class. Sometimes search engine results is a bust, too. For New Mexico roads in suburban El Paso, search results for El Paso Times articles with summaries that offer promise of useful information lead to dead links because the newspaper changes the URL of the article when it puts them into archives or deletes them. Fortguy (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Come to think of it, we already have a page for the source directory at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Resources, though it's missing most of the states right now. We should probably focus on expanding that, since it already has some useful resources. Everything should probably be consolidated on one page though, to the extent it can be. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it would help to centralize all the highway resources for every state on the USRD Resources page. Currently, it lists only resources for those states without a subproject, while the other states may have a list of resources on the subproject page. For editors willing to expand US road articles, it would be better for all the info to be in one easy place. Dough4872 03:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of filling out the Resources section of the USRD page. It does not seem an AID-type project is going to get off the ground now, but taking the time now to list resources would be helpful for getting such a project off the ground later. I also think we should link to the Resources sections of states with WikiProjects for completeness, instead of asking users to find the particular WikiProject. For instance, Maryland would have a header in the USRD Resources section with Main Page: WP:MDRD#Resources. The inclusion of only some of those states with task forces now suggests resources for other states are lacking, which could deter new editors from working on their state of preference. — Viridiscalculus (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I like that idea. Perhaps a separate section should be made for states with projects, where all of the links to those project's resources could be listed. IMO, that's better than having 20 or 30 sections with just one link. – TMF 17:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

RJL converter program

I have written a program designed to convert hardcoded RJL table syntax into RJL template syntax! The first version is at http://www.rschen7754.com/programs.htm. The program is in the alpha stages but is being developed. --Rschen7754 19:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Version 0.1.2 is released, which processes the hatnote; you no longer need to specify arguments. --Rschen7754 17:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

California State Route 41

Is there anything we can do about this? I've tried to warn the user quite a few times, to no avail. --Rschen7754 21:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If I could, I'd get out the ban hammer. The IP's been warned for unconstructive edits before, so I don't think a range block would be out of line.

As far as the junction list itself, I'll work on converting it to the templates. –Fredddie™ 21:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this is my primary reason for supporting conversion to the templates (IP addresses who don't understand table syntax). --Rschen7754 21:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ouch. I'd say revert for now and, now that the user's been issued a final warning for this specific issue, block if/when it happens again. – TMF 23:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

[7] Sigh. Blocking for 24. --Rschen7754 00:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

[8] They just don't learn... --Rschen7754 02:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Mile/km conversion on the bottom of junction lists

See Utah State Route 79. What is the purpose of this? There should be a discussion somewhere that decided to implement this... can someone link me over to that? CL (T · C) — 16:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the result of a discussion at WT:RJL. The purpose was to find a way to accommodate the MOS requirements on measurement conversions. According to MOS:CONVERSIONS, when a system of measurement is innate to a topic, conversions are not required at each instance, so long as a note with the measurement conversion is provided. That new footer meets that requirement. {{legendRJL}} has a similar conversion line added to it as well in addition to the color key. Any junctions lists that don't have {{jctbtm}} need it added to produce the conversion footer. If the table uses background colors, then the color key template, {{legendRJL}}, needs to be added. Imzadi 1979 → 16:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well alright. I'm not sure I totally agree with it but what's done is done. CL (T · C) — 20:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone totally agrees with it other than the MOS hard-liners, but it's sure better than a footnote (which would horizontally bloat the mile column) or a second column devoted to kilometers. Unfortunately, keeping the status quo wasn't really an option. – TMF 23:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly a fan of it either. If the conversion text was in small text, it might be slightly better. -- LJ ↗ 07:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. When I advocated for the table footer on WT:RJL, I did it with the thought that it'd be in the same text size as the color key. I'd change it, but I'm not sure if it was left at full size for a specific reason (other than editorial decision). – TMF 17:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Assessment woes

[9]. --Rschen7754 17:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't really understand why he cares whether some random Ohio route's assessed as a stub or not. But yes, that's clearly a stub by our assessment criteria. Maybe I'll remove the History subheader to help him see the light. After all, that's why we assess articles with only one of the big three as a stub - the lone section could easily be folded into the lead, which would clearly make it a stub. – TMF 17:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

! --Rschen7754 17:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Good grief. "Harassment"? From what I've seen, he picked the fight... – TMF 17:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Open nomination reminders

The following items have open nominations:

• Capitol Loop at Featured Article Candidates
• Portal:U.S. Roads at Featured Portal Candidates
• Eisenhower speech, October 9, 1954 at Featured Sound Candidates
• U.S. Route 30 in Iowa at A-Class Review
• M-15 centerline 1917 at Featured Picture Candidates

Please comment or review these items if you're interested. Imzadi 1979 → 00:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Talk:Ohio State Route 814#Merge proposal – TMF 07:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

More: Talk:James River Freeway#Merge proposal, Talk:Mount Hood Highway#Merge proposal – TMF 17:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Another one: Talk:Interstate 55 in Missouri#Merging Rosa Parks Highway Dough4872 03:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

New AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York – Chicago Toll Road system. Imzadi 1979 → 20:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Should the U.S. Roads portal be linked to from PR highway articles?

User talk:Marine 69-71#Roads Portal Links --Rschen7754 20:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Tony, can you check out this message in my Talk. I am better at actual articles, and had been using whatever template was there already, and just expanded the articles or copied the See also portal part over to new road articles. Believe Quazaa may have added portal info also. Anyway, I will leave these decisions to you and the other admins. Can you answer this user yourself instead? I'll use whatever template you guys decide. Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 22:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: Uff,,, looks like someone from the US Roads project went in there and changed them ALL to point to US Roads...
I don't get it, what is the difference anyway? Will we get better treatment (what ever that might mean) with the US Roads project people than with the global Roads project people? Or, to start with, is there such thing as a "global roads project people" if we are talking about portals ??? Seems this is just a matter of pointing to one portal vs the other portal...why would anybody care? what diff does it make? and for that matter, why not just point to BOTH portals, the "global" roads portal and the US roads portal as well and live happily ever after? Again I don't understand half the technical/wiki-reasoning stuff behind this, but seems to me there must be a significant reason and difference if this user TwinsMetsFan bothered him/herself enough to run a script to change them all. Thanks mentor, Mercy11 (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response which I always look forward to with great anticipation. It's just that you understand the workings of wikipedia much better than me and so I prefer to defer to you when in doubt. To my credit (pat on my own back - haha) it appears my understanding this time was not that far off! As for that user, no, I never thought s/he might have any political agenda, and in fact my prior interactions with him/her have been uneventful. The other editor (Imzadi), however, I am not yet sure what his/her motives are, but I suspect s/he too is just trying to help also. An editor called Fredddie is VERY helpful and easy to work with, boy he's got a good head on his shoulders! Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 04:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• If I may add to this Discussion... as I understand it, PR does not receive any funding from the US for its Roads from the US Dept of Transportation (due to the drinking age still being 18?). If this is the Case (its why I only added Roads Portal and not the US Roads portal), I am inclined to say that all the edits by TMF should be undone. Thoughts?QuAzGaA 10:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Puerto Rico receives hundreds of millions of DOT dollars for road construction and maintenance. It loses about 5% of that (I believe $10-15 million per year) for being the only state-level jurisdiction to "put its money where its mouth is" defending the "states' rights" that most other states pay lip-service to, by refusing to cave in to improper Congressional attempts to impinge on states' rights to determine the minimum drinking age. In Puerto Rico, the civil rights of young adults who can vote and serve in the Armed Forces are not up for sale to the highest bidder. We do limit legal blood alcohol levels in 18-20 year old drivers to 0.02% (which rises to 0.08% for drivers 21 and older), in recognition that inexperience requires greater focus on the road. Sorry, but I feel strongly about this issue, as you may have guessed! Pr4ever (talk) 12:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Highways Authority budget for road constructionthis fiscal year:

Mejoras Permanentes Fondo de Mejoras Públicas 0 Fondos Federales 116,733 Otros Ingresos 0 Préstamos y Emisiones de Bonos 38,119 Fondos Federales ARRA 63,055 Subtotal, Mejoras Permanentes 217,907

Federal funds ($116,733,000 in regular appropriations and $63,055,000 in special ARRA funds) represent over 80% of the total investment of $218 million. Pr4ever (talk) 12:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Then I don't see a problem with adding US Roads portal at all if this is the case. Thx Pr4ever for your enlightenment!QuAzGaA 13:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

IF THE ARGUMENT IS HAD that the PR road articles should have the US Roads portal link using as the basis the argument of (i.e., "BECAUSE OF") Puerto Rico's receiving of federal funding for roads, then (for the benefit of complying with the NPOV policy) we must also allow for the argument that Puerto Rico sends more money into the U.S Treasury than it receives back via all US programs combined (including highway construction and maintenance funding)... My point is, both these arguments (plus all the others taht will inevitably follow) will fill hundreds of Talk pages and lead nowhere.

I proposed we stay away from political arguments while being sensitive to the underlying political views of all editors so we can move the work forward. Unfortunately the US Roads project people may not be as tuned to the political environment currently brewing in (and out of) Puerto Rico; so let's just say they innocently messed up.

I don't think anyone will get pumped up if we said the PR belongs to the world, but check out editors' reactions if we stated that PR belongs to the US (Note: I am not stating this is a fact or not a fact; I am simply stating it raises up the "guard" in editors)... This is why I propose the PR highway articles show (for those of you new to this: "as those articles always showed before"), ONLY the World Roads portal link. To include the US portal is likely to introduce an underlying political view that would be detrimental to moving forward with the project.

As for PR wikiproject's interaction with the US Roads group,,, that wouldn't be affected a bit: the PR road articles will continue to include the "This roads-related article is within the scope of the US Roads Wikipedia project" banner in the discussion page, and the articles would continue to be improved according to their well-documented standards.

If we were to arrive at a consensus on this, seems to me any decision, vote, preference, etc, should then be passed by the (very helpful) folks at the US Roads project to ensure we also get their views - if they have any further views to proffer - and from that point forward a final Resolution to the matter could be tendered by the PR Wikiproject group. Just my opinion on how this could be handled.

I vote the US Roads Portal NOT be included in the PR roads articles. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC) and I approve this message.

*For the first time ever, I find myself in disagreement with Mercy11 (just his vote, there are valid points above). Bottom line, I think that for the benefit of the articles, inclusion in the US Roads Portal will actually be more beneficial than controversial. It's just a portal link in the "See Also" section and IMO does not conotate any political overtones (even the portal image seems a little mundane..No offense to US Roads). Now as for the Funding argument, whether they offer, or we accept- we give, they take; I don't think the Roads care. And IMO, the articles about the roads should not either.

I Vote for Inclusion of both portals. _{Should this vote be moved to WPPR? (sorry Tony!)} QuAzGaA 16:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, since this is the proper forum for this type of discussion, I will comment here, and not there. They should be linked. Ideally all of the articles on highways in the US should be linked to Portal:U.S. Roads. Let me clarify that with one exception. If a USRD subproject creates their own portal, which is in turn linked to P:USRD, then that articles in the scope of that subproject should link to the other portal. Yes, there is a Portal:Roads that aims to cover roads globally. Their content is not updated regularly, and the last edits to that portal excised all US content except one photo. I think that's a pretty clear indication of the scope of that portal. P:USRD in the future will continue to update on a monthly basis, and it will accept any nominations of any selected content from any part of the United States, regardless if that is a state, a district, an Indian reservation or a territory. That's my $0.02. Imzadi 1979 → 20:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe that PR should have links to the USRD portal since Puerto Rico is technically United States territory. I also advocate any portal links from the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa to link to USRD as well for the same reason. Dough4872 23:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

All of this discussion about fricking portal links?! Really? Just delete the damn things if they're so contentious, it's not like it's a necessary thing to have! —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If Puerto Rican editors don't want to be associated with anything US-related, that's fine. Perhaps they can open up their own road project with map and shield task forces as well. (But really...I find this whole topic absurd beyond belief. This is all I have to say on the matter; anything more is a waste of bytes.) – TMF 01:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• No need to be sarcastic. This is not a "Puerto Rican" thing as you seem to indicate. We are all trying to figure out what is the best option and proper thing to do, simple as that. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't a clue who you're replying to, but if it's myself, then no, I'm not being sarcastic at all. This is a Puerto Rican thing as far as I'm concerned because it involves (I'm assuming) Puerto Rican editors and Puerto Rican articles. If the Puerto Rican editor base does not want to be associated with anything US-related - which is the impression I'm getting from what I'm seeing above - then I suggest they start up their own roads project independent of USRD. Since they would no longer be associated with USRD, they would then need to develop their own shield and map task forces. – TMF 20:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did mean you, but now I see that I assumed incorrectly and I take it back. I see your point. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

YES, imo, the U.S. Roads portal should be linked to from PR highway articles. This is my vote. And this represents my new conviction that doing this will be beneficial to both projects. (When I figure out how to cross-out my earlier "NO" vote, I will do it).
Mercy11 (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

<s>Text</s> will get you Text –Fredddie™ 02:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Aaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! thx! Mercy11 (talk) 02:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Suffolk CRs merge

Beating a dead horse here, however, now that List of county routes in Suffolk County, New York (1–25) exists. I have gone around and finished proposing merges of County Route 9, County Route 10, County Route 11, County Route 13, County Route 14, County Route 16, County Route 17, County Route 19, and County Route 21's articles. The merging of these articles has been a long debate and I think using the Rockland County Scenario, we can put this long heated discussion to rest.Mitch32^{(Growing up with Wikipedia: 1 edit at a time.)} 22:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I still see the Suffolk CR 9 and 10 articles up, and I tagged those for merging quite a while ago. While some of the county roads that were tagged for merging I agree with, 16 and 21 are two that I don't agree with at all. I'm kind of on the fence about CR 19, though, and I still have work to do on the other lists. ----DanTD (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with Mitch. The whole point of making RCS lists for county routes is to eliminate virtually all of the standalone articles. – TMF 23:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mitchazenia and TMF. I don't see anything resembling notability on the articles DanTD would like to keep. CR 16 goes east-west if you don't feel like getting on I-495, CR 21 serves a golf course, and CR 19 was really difficult to find on a map. Merge all. –Fredddie™ 23:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

16 has about 5 different streets to it and the article has detailed history that would crowd up the Rockland County-style list, and 21 serves more than just a golf course. 11 serves the Port Jefferson Branch of the Long Island Railroad, and was proposed to be replaced by the never-built North Shore Expressway. ----DanTD (talk) 00:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The history of 16 isn't that detailed and its RD is full of filler. It could easily be pruned down (i.e. cleaned up) and merged in. – TMF 00:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

They're all full of filler. Who cares how many streets a route follows? Maybe I've traveled to the wrong states, but wherever I've gone, county roads are not major roads and certainly none of them are worthy of inclusion. –Fredddie™ 00:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe you have traveled in the wrong states. I've mentioned this before, but county roads are different in downstate New York than they are in Utah or rural Florida. ----DanTD (talk) 11:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You want a major county road worthy of inclusion as a full article? It needs something notable about it. Brockway Mountain Drive is a county road in Keweenaw County, Michigan that is quite notable as a tourist destination, with history that dates back to the Civilian Conservation Corps during the Great Depression. No other county road in Keweenaw County will get an article, but that one does. County Road 492 in Marquette County will also have an article when it comes out of my sandbox. (I'm waiting to find a realignment date for the history first, but the article is otherwise ready.) Why does that get it's own article? Dead Man's Curve along that road has a Michigan State Historical Marker as the site of the first highway centerline when that road was M-15 in 1917. Special histories or peculiarities lend notability to a roadway, mere existence does not. The only other county roads in Michigan that will get full articles are parts of the County-Designated Highway System, which is numbered by MDOT but maintained by the counties. Most won't get full articles, but several that are former major highway alignments will. Some of the rest might as part of a state-wide system, but only if B-Class articles can be created for them. The rest will stay merged into the RCS-style list, which predates the RCS concept by a year. Imzadi 1979 → 16:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Who's saying I'm going by mere existance? I've already mentioned that there are county road articles I won't bother with. I've tagged two others for mergers, and when I finish the other four lists, there are a few county road articles I'd like to see merged into them. Just not all of the articles. You mentioned special history giving article notability; Fine. I already pointed out those of Suffolk County Road 11, and Suffolk County Road 21 has runs through historic Yaphank, two County parks with pine trees from Quebec, the old RCA Transmission site, and other areas. Suffolk County Road 83 has a Vietnam Vets Memorail between two high hills that used to be overlooks near the former Bald Hill Ski Bowl. Suffolk County Road 104 used to by New York State Route 113. Would you dump that strictly because it's a county road today? Many of the others are four-lane divided highways and even undivided highways, which puts them above two-lane state highways. Some 20-odd years ago, there was a political candidate in Suffolk County who vowed to acquire all state highways, in order to make improvements on them that the NYSDOT wouldn't. If he had succeeded, would you reject articles on any of those roads? Speaking of New Deal-related roads, between Brooksville and Hill 'n Dale, Florida, there's a dinky little two-lane street called W.P.A. Road. I wouldn't put that one in, would you? Until you mentioned Marquette County Road 492, I considered this nothing more than an anti-county road hate fest. In spite of the two articles, I still have a suspicion there is. ----DanTD (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Those trees make the park notable, not the road. That transmission site itself is notable, not the road leading to it. The memorial itself could be notable, but that doesn't automatically make the access road notable. CR 104 can be merged into SR 113 then as part of the history section. There has to be something specific to the road that makes it notable, not the parks to buildings along it per se. If that WPA Road were famous for its creation by the WPA or notable for other reasons, then give it an article. Otherwise, mention it in the WPA article as being named for the WPA as part of that agency's legacy. As for state highways, they're usually notable. All of the minor ones that the MSHD designated in the 1930s as former alignments of other highways that spurred into a community have been merged into a list, Former Michigan spur routes. They will probably never exist as stand alone articles. In fact, when I get these last few MI highway articles up to B- or C-Class, I'm going to work on dismantling that list by merging them all elsewhere. The merger targets will probably be the original highways from which those routes all spurred. A few that were ferry-related might be instead merged into a separate list of Former Michigan highways that served ferries once M-168 and M-108 are decommissioned later this year. They just really aren't notable on their own. My rule is this: state highways are presumed notable until proven otherwise; county roads are presumed non-notable until proven notable. Imzadi 1979 → 13:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If Cathedral Pines County Park, Prosser Pines County Park, and the RCA Transmitting area diminish notability for Suffolk CR 21, and the Vietnam Vets Memorial diminishes the notability of Suffolk CR 83, then Lake Superior takes away any notability of Brockway Mountain Drive. I prefer to use common sense when it comes to the notability of a road article, which is why I wouldn't bother with an article like County Route 43 (Suffolk County, New York) if it hadn't already been written, nor would I waste my time with some dead end dirt road in Sumter County, Florida that doesn't even have a route marker. In fact, I'd like to merge Suffolk CR 43 to the Suffolk County 26-50C list when I'm finished with it. When I'm done with the list for Suffolk CRs' 51–75, I'll gladly merge CRs 55, 63, 73, and maybe even 58 to that one. For the Suffolk CR list from 76-100, I'll gladly merge CR 100. I'm even going to merge Suffolk CR's 9 and 10 to the 1-25 list today after a few adjustments. A few of the others, I still think can stand up on their own, and shouldn't be trashed just because they're county roads. ----DanTD (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

In New York, different incarnations of route numbers are covered in separate articles. Thus, I don't envision CR 104 being merged into NY 113 anytime soon. The only two plausible scenarios is to 1) merge CR 104 into the RCS list whenever it's made or 2) rename the CR 104 article for the former state route. – TMF 13:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Renaming Suffolk CR 104 as former NY 113 seems kind of absurd, although the fact that it used to be NY 113 makes it worthy of a stand alone article. ----DanTD (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The first is the standard for former NY state routes, and also for most former state highways in the United States. The latter is not necessarily true; for example, the original NY 359 in Niagara County redirects to a section of Niagara County's RCS lists. The second NY 363 redirects to an entry in the NY reference route list. And there are dozens more examples where these came from. No state route, active or former, automatically gets a stand-alone article; it all depends on how much can be said about the route, mostly in regards to its history. – TMF 19:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I see what you're getting at when it comes to the ex-NY 359, and I suppose it's okay, although I can't understand why there are no shields for the Niagara County lists. I suppose I can live with it. I'd still like to find proof of the former CR 104A, and I'll have to get back to you on the others, and it doesn't change the fact that I still think there are Suffolk CR articles that should stand alone. ----DanTD (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

County routes in Niagara County aren't signed at all and are nothing more than internal inventory designations. If a route isn't signed with shields in reality (shields as in reassurance markers, not reference markers), the articles on them should not have shields. – TMF 03:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Merge them all and move on. End of story. Imzadi 1979 → 00:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Merge all. Surely the California county routes are more notable than these, but they got the RCS treatment too. --Rschen7754 00:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Merge all county routes into a Rockland County-type list or multiple lists. However, if there is sufficient sourced information on one of the highways to merit its own article, such as CR 19, then I am fine with that route having a standalone article. That article should be linked from the Rockland County-type list with a Main Page: template and have a short summary. — Viridiscalculus (talk) 02:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Question - What is it about the Suffolk CR 19 article that you think needs more sourced info? There may be some that already exist on other articles, and/or I could have some stashed away in a file somewhere? Otherwise, I'm willing to consider a merger of that one. ----DanTD (talk) 12:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• Merge - The Suffolk CRs do not need individual articles. Dough4872 03:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Merge, county routes are rarely notable and seldom worth the effort to provide them with full articles. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highways numbered 500 – TMF 15:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Article within scope?

I removed Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices from the project and reassigned it to WikiProject Transport because I believe it is not within the scope and expertise of the project, but I was reverted, so I pose it here for a consensus decision. The project's scope is "articles relating to roadways of national or regional significance in the United States." The infrastructure of the project, including its assessment scale, is designed around articles about the roadways themselves. Looking at the articles within the project, I couldn't readily identify others on the subject of regulation. If this article were included, there are other similar articles concerning government agencies and transportation regulations this would be within that redefined scope. --Bsherr (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The primary focus of the national project and state subprojects might be the physical roadways themselves, but all of the articles on the state departments of transportation are tagged. The articles on the different highway systems are tagged. There's even a court case from the Supreme Court that is tagged. The MUTCD is very much a part of US highways, and it should be tagged under this project. You're free to dual-tag it for WP:Transport if you like, but it should stay as part of WP:USRD. Imzadi 1979 → 15:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Should articles like DOT pictograms come in too? Is there a way to clarify the scope statement to reflect these accessory articles more specifically than "related to", or to include these articles as examples? --Bsherr (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

As for that article, even though US DOT created them, they aren't used on the highways in the US though. The MUTCD has its own set of pictograms. On that basis, they aren't related to highways. That's just my $0.02, Imzadi 1979 → 19:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Portal:U.S. Roads

Although I made the nomination, the credit really goes to the whole project for creating and finding content for the articles, nominating features and ultimately maintaining the Portal. So thank you to everyone, you deserve pats on your backs for helping create a Featured Portal. Imzadi 1979 → 19:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Maryland former route list

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Roads in Maryland#Route Lists: Former Maryland State Highways Dough4872 20:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Road construction in Houston, Texas --Rschen7754 03:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion

I don't see why Central Texas Turnpike System requires a separate article from Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority which builds and maintains the tollways in that system. Fortguy (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The relevant discussion location is here. Imzadi 1979 → 19:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Pulaski Skyway FAR

User:Dream out loud has nominated Pulaski Skyway for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. JJ98 (Talk) 07:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

IP adding CRs

This IP, 66.66.117.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), has been inserting county roads into pre-existing instances of {{Jct}}. It's more annoying than troublesome, but it's made Category:Jct template transclusions with missing shields light up like a Christmas tree. Just another thing to keep an eye on. –Fredddie™ 02:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Lessons learned from I-15 in AZ on front page

I've not seen a road article that had a more contentious tenure on the front page then our recent experience with Interstate 15 in Arizona. I suspect this is just a symptom the amount of article rot from the time of FAC review and the time featured on the page (this is one of our older FA's). If you compare today's version from 3 days ago, the article is substantially different. However, I think some good things have come out of this, that merit some wider discussion:

• What does transcontinental mean? In the US it's pretty clear that an east-west coast-to-coast highway can be called transcontinental, but what is the criteria for a north-south highway? Does it need to connect to a major highway in both Canada and Mexico? (In the case of I-15 it connects to a major highway in Canada, and comes very close to the Mexican border, but does not cross)
• What is the defining mileage for an intersection? For states that give the milepost of the offramp, bridge and on-ramp, what is the appropriate figure to use? (For the record, I've used the bridge, if available, offramp if not)

Thoughts please? Dave (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• For the first question, I would say "transcontinental" for east-west highways is a road that runs from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean, such as U.S. Route 30, or from a state along the Pacific Ocean to a state along the Atlantic Ocean (but not necessarily near the ocean), such as U.S. Route 6. For north-south highways, I would say that "transcontinental" is not a valid term, as these highways do not expand a length of the North American continent like east-west highways do. Maybe the term "border-to-border" can be used for highways that run from near the Canadian border to near the Mexican border, otherwise the term "cross-country" can be used for roads that run from Canada to either Mexico of the Gulf of Mexico, as they do cross the country in a north-south sense. For the second question, I generally would use the milepost for the overpass/underpass at an interchange versus the off-ramps. If the interchange is a slip ramp in which the roads interchanging do not cross, I would use the off-ramp for the milepost. Dough4872 19:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

My brief thoughts: transcontinental only applies to east–west highways that literally cross the continent from ocean to ocean. Transnational applies to the north–south highways that run border to border, or Gulf of Mexico to Canada. Dough's other terms, cross-country and border-to-border are good too, so there is variety. As for the mileposting issue, there are three options. Get the MP for the over-/under-pass, average the MP from the two ramp locations, or express the MP as a range. Using the comment's data from the talk page, exit 9 could be expressed 9.83–10.03. Then there is no ambiguity. As for those that claim false precision, we need to educate people that yes, the DOTs do measure to the thousandth of a mile which is only a precision of 5.2 feet. (I had someone tell me in a FAC that the numbers were falsely precise, that MDOT couldn't measure to the half-inch increment, which would be 5 decimal places, not 3.) Imzadi 1979 → 19:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Second point. When I create junction lists for Iowa, I'm given an entry like this: CO RD M47 INTERCHANGE. The DOT don't say exactly where the measurement takes place, but a safe assumption can be made that it's the point where the hypothetical centerlines of each highway cross. YMMV in other states, but that's how I've handled it. –Fredddie™ 01:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Idea

Would anyone be against automatically sending (after a time period we determine) older Featured Articles to ACR? It could be a safeguard against article rot. I'm not proposing a full-on FAR, but ACR could help iron out the kinks that emerge. –Fredddie™ 01:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I think our ACR could help improve older FAs, but I do not think the venue is active enough. If an article truly does not meet the FA criteria, then sending it to FAR is probably the better option. Dough4872 15:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea in theory, but it is not going to work unless we actually have people reviewing stuff in ACR in a reasonable amount of time. — Viridiscalculus (talk) 17:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The idea is more of a pre-emptive strike. FAR has two steps, and if the article isn't fixed (if needed) in the first step, then it moves to the second step to be delisted. ACR by definition has highway-based editors watching it, and we all should be providing reviews and comments there, even if we don't make declarations of Support or Oppose. A refresher ACR would be more of a forum to comment on changes needed to the article, or a place to declare Send to FAR. Imzadi 1979 → 20:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I also like the idea in thoery. I think the time for "automatic ACR send-back" should be set to at least a year, of not longer. I agree with Viridius's concerns. However, if we had a more steady stream of articles coming into ACR, perhaps it could motivate some people who haven't participated in a while (like me) to become more active. Dave (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I had 18-24 months in mind, but I thought letting the group decide would be best. –Fredddie™ 02:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

U.S. road transport articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the U.S. road transport articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

DYKs

It's the 20th of the month, and we only have 10 days left. We could use some DYK hooks for the portal for October. They can be anything that has run on the Wikipedia Main Page, or stuff that might have been nominated, if only the article met WP:DYK's requirements. Our portal doesn't require recent article creation, or specific amounts of expansion. All that's really needed is a catchy hook that's cited in the article. Any takers? Place your nominations here. Imzadi 1979 → 07:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on an update to WP:USSH

See here for details. Imzadi 1979 → 03:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Pulaski Skyway

The article has moved from the first stage to the second. It is now up for removal as a Featured Article, instead of just being reviewed. The areas of concern are: "referencing, comprehensiveness, updatedness, lead, formatting". If anyone is in a position to help clear up those concerns, the article could be kept, but if not, it could be delisted in about 2 weeks. Imzadi 1979 → 06:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

AFD

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gainesville Interchange. Dough4872 15:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Exit number inserter

66.66.117.141 is inserting exit numbers into infoboxes using the |name#= parameter of {{jct}} and doing the same to junction lists. I've reverted 4 articles in Michigan, and moved the exit numbers into the notes column as appropriate, but be on the lookout. My Internet access will be probably limited for the next week or so. I wouldn't exactly call this person's actions vandalism yet, but I have left a note on the IP's talk page. Imzadi 1979 → 23:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

We've blocked this guy before for making a mess of articles - wouldn't hurt to do it again. --Rschen7754 23:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

That's the same IP that was adding county roads to Iowa articles. Time to drop the banhammer. –Fredddie™ 02:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Road Biographies

I realize that the focus of the Project is to improve articles on specific U.S. roads and highways, but there seems to be a gap on Wikipedia when it comes to individuals essential to the history of those roads. I've noted in my research that many people important to the development of auto trails, U.S. numbered highways, and other important roads either have no article, or the article is no more than a stub. For example, Anton L. Westgard, pathfinder for the National Highways Association and AAA, was perhaps the most important individual in the layout of auto trails and later U.S. highways. He lead the National Park to Park Highway motorcade after pathfinding it, named the Midland Trail, criss-crossed the country numerous times, etc. He has no article at all. His brother W. O. L. Westgard was also an important pathfinder for AAA. Other important people such as John Hollis Bankhead, author of the first (1916) federal highway act, and for whom the Bankhead Highway was named, have very short articles indeed. - Parsa (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that's because most of the people who are actively involved with this project are either engineers or "engineering-minded" people. In other words, I suspect most people here are more interested in the physical and technological aspects of transportation than the political and managerial aspects. With that said, this project has traditionally taken a confrontational approach to the inclusion of articles which are not highways, but highway related. I find this unfortunate. However, if you create an article for Mr. Westgard, I will defend that it is within the scope of the USRD project. I might lose, but I'll defend it =-). Dave (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree and disagree with Dave's assessment. I just don't have much interest in biographical articles, and all of the necessary considerations that go along with them. Having said that, there are non-highway articles that fall under the project's scope, the individual members just don't focus on them much. Imzadi 1979 → 20:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I should modify my statement. I've seen passionate removals of certain articles from the state task forces and sub-projects within the USRD project umbrella (such as Auto Trails and bridges). I have not seen that from the USRD project as a whole. Dave (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal

See Talk:Kansas Turnpike#Merge proposal. Dough4872 20:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Florida SR 9A merge proposal

See Talk:Florida State Road 9A#Proposed merger to Interstate 295 (Florida). –Dream out loud (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Highway Route Marker Bot

I have created a new bot that can create and upload a full sequence of highway markers. I have already used it to complete Alberta's highways markers and I am looking for new projects. If you provide me a completed SVG template and which signs you are requesting, I will run the bot. At this point this bot only runs on Commons, and will only create "free" images. --Svgalbertian (talk) 22:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This is interesting. A few months back, I had a plan to create new elliptical markers currently used by Circle sign X.svg, and then replace the Circle sign X.svg naming scheme with actual circles. This plan basically fell through because it was tedious as all get out to make the new markers by hand. This would significantly reduce the amount of effort. Count me in, but I think we should have consensus to actually do this. –Fredddie™ 22:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This is my dream come true. I'll be making a request for county systems in Ontario sometime soon. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this bot will be useful as it will save our editors time from having to create shields. Dough4872 15:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Shields don't take very long when you're only making one or two. When you're making hundreds, that's the issue. –Fredddie™ 22:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

AfD proposal

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Road 337 (Florida) (3rd nomination) –Fredddie™ 23:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia State Route 638 (Lee, Russell, Scott, Washington, and Wise Counties). Dough4872 04:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:List of Arkansas state highways

These signs are the proof. Section 1 of U.S. 62 ends after 24.65 miles (39.67 km) at I-540 in Fayetteville.

Arkansas technically has extremely few concurrencies. It has thousands of "sections". Basically whenever two highways meet, the more important one stays continuous, and the lesser route breaks into two sections, one on either side of the route. They never concur unless it is an official exception. This means that basically all of Arkansas' highway pages are inaccurate. Also, this is the case with every route in Arkansas (including U.S. Routes AND Interstates except I-30 which is top dog). What can be done about this? Also, this information is from the book: AHTD Annual Average Daily Traffic Estimate by County, April 2010. This discussion was moved after five days of inactivity at Talk:List of Arkansas state highways. Brandonrush Woo pig sooie 15:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

From what I get here, it appears that Arkansas only inventories one route for concurrencies, which is usually the more important route. I know in New Jersey, the straight-line diagram for one route will sometimes direct you to look at another route for a concurrency. For example, in the Route 50 straight-line diagram for the US 40 concurrency, there is a note that says "MP 18.50 = Begin Coinc. With US 40 MP 46.35 MP 18.50-19.18 See NJ 40 MP 46.35-46.97". However, this is different from Arkansas as NJ 50 is signed along US 40. In Arkansas, we need to determine what route connect the segments of several discontinuous routes, such as Arkansas Highway 74. Dough4872 16:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Dough you are correct. Usually major routes are signed, for example US 71 is signed along I-540. This is probably done simply for ease of travel, because without these signs, travelers would be almost perpetually confused. However, state highways are almost never signed together. Having those straight-line diagrams would be a dream come true for this project, because right now these are all I have. There seems to be no rhyme or reason as to when an exception occurs, and when highways split. Brandonrush Woo pig sooie 17:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, since AASHTO considers the US Highways and Interstates to be through routes, even if AHTD doesn't, I would proceed on the assumption that they are concurrent, even if not signed. The sections might end, but the through route does not. Have you tried to contact someone at AHTD for assistance in finding log files, SLDs or some other sources? Imzadi 1979 → 18:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)We do have some precedence. California and Utah similarly have no concurrencies in the "official" route description. I would say use common sense. For examples I'm familiar with, U.S. Route 89 in Utah in state code has 7 different segments. However, per AASHTO it is a continuous highway. Plus, to detail every segment in an exit list would be a waste of time and article space when the implied concurrencies are so obvious. As such, this article presents the highway as a contiguous highway, which I support. However, Utah State Route 30 (3 segments) and Interstate 84 (Utah) (2 segments) have gaps of significant length. Particularly in the case of SR30, it would not be uncommon for someone to have driven 1 of the segments 100 times, and not even know the other segment exists. So in those two cases, the gap(s) are well covered in the article. I would definitely say DO NOT waste the readers time detailing every gap when most are insignificant. Dave (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Imzadi, the AHTD has not once answered my questions about the state highway system. It is more than a little frustrating. Moabdave, at what point does it become obvious that two routes are "secretly multiplexed" as opposed to totally separate sections? When is it okay to assume concurrencies as opposed to separate sections? Should we create a standard for this? Brandonrush Woo pig sooie 23:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is a solution: request the information from AHTD under the Freedom of Information Act. Of course once you mention FOIA, you'll end up getting a bill for copying/scanning and research, but unless they're outrageous it is one way to get the information you seek. I didn't have to do that with WisDOT. Supposedly no one has been able to get copies of the state trunkline highway logs before, but I have two regions' logs sitting on my bookshelf, and a request for the electronic edition of the 2009 log pending. Sometimes you just need to separately e-mail the different regional offices until someone favorable replies. As for secret concurrencies, Interstates and US Highways are obvious as they aren't discontinuous under AASHTO standards, even if the signage doesn't agree. As for state highways, follow the signage. If AHTD posts the second number along a concurrency, then treat it as one. Likewise if map makers show a concurrency. Otherwise I'd assume they were separate sections. (Remember that {{infobox road}} does up to 4 sections. Anything more I'd switch ti {{infobox road small}} in the article.) Imzadi 1979 → 00:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I would really like avoiding forcing information out of the Department through FOI if at all possible, but it looks like that may be my best option. My emails are sent like pinballs around the departments, and my paper letters are stamped "received (date)" and sent back but not answered. It is disappointing to say the least. How many questions about routing do you think AHTD gets per year? Probably not a lot. Brandonrush Woo pig sooie 01:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Moabdave, at what point does it become obvious that two routes are "secretly multiplexed" as opposed to totally separate sections?" Oh sure, make me answer with specifics =-). If AHTD publishes control cities, that would be one way. For example, if one segment has control cities that reside on another segment, that would indicate it should be treated as a contiguous highway. Another possibility for a standard would be what do the mileposts do at the start of the second section? I.E. does the milepost start where the last milepost of the previous section left off, or does it include the distance of the concurrent section. However, from what I'm gathering, AHTD doesn't make much information publicly available. In that case it's a judgment call until more information becomes available. Also, for the record, using those two proposals as standards, the I-84 example above should reflect the highway as a contiguous highway. So I was mistaken about that example. Dave (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Should there be a standard established (i.e. a break over ten miles means a new section)? Or just use judgement? Brandonrush Woo pig sooie 20:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

For US and Interstate highways, it should be considered a contiguous highway, unless the federal definition also has a discontinuity. For state highways, I think it has to be a judgment call, barring evidence like mentioned in my previous post. Dave (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I know Pennsylvania Route 29 is two segments, but is one article as the two segments were once connected. Dough4872 22:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we can set an absolute standard for this situation. As Dave says, the Interstates and US Highways are all continuous by definition, regardless of what the DOT in each state does in their logs, maps or "internal" signage. (By internal, I mean any sign that the average motorist is not supposed to use as an aid to navigation.) As for state highways, just use your best judgement and follow what the reliable sources say. Imzadi 1979 → 22:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

One-way pairs in junction lists?

I noticed the new junction list in Maryland Route 272 includes mileposts for the termini of one-way pairs, it is the first such occurrence I have ever seen. Is it against USRD standard for one-way pair termini to be included, or should they be included in all junction lists where applicable? Dough4872 03:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting point worth discussing. --Rschen7754 07:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally I don't see it as a very notable thing to add to a junction list. --Admrboltz (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

This is more or less the same thing as listing the termini of freeway and divided highway sections on a road that has multiple classes of designations. I do think we need to discuss this. While this is the first time I've seen a 1-way-pairing in the junctions list, listing the freeway and non-freeway changeovers is common in the junctions list. So if we decide listing places where the road classification changes is appropriate, we should consider a new name for the junctions list. If not, we need to decide where these should be mentioned. Dave (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

IMO, including termini of one-way pairs is too cumbersome for the junction list, especially if the route runs through an urban area and follows several one-way streets. Including the termini of divided highway segments in the junction list is also unnecessary for the same reason, as a route may alternate between being divided and undivided several times. However, including the changeover between freeway and non-freeway is important as there is a stark difference between the two classes of road. Dough4872 22:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think either one-way pairs or freeway termini are worth mentioning in a junction list, unless there's a really good reason (see Capitol Loop). After all, we're interested in the junctions along the highway, not the characteristics of the highway. Anything else can and should be mentioned in the route description. –Fredddie™ 23:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the point of not mentioning one-way pairs, but mentioning freeway termini in a junction list help indicate that all the junctions on that stretch of roads are interchanges. Mentioning the termini in two rows is better than having to repeat "Interchange" in the notes column for freeway interchanges. Dough4872 23:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I list the freeway transition points for one good reason that's not related to one-way pairings: we're supposed to list all exits along a freeway, but we only list major junctions along at-grade roadways. Of course if a freeway transition corresponds to junction in the list, I use that for the location. As for one-way pairs, I don't see the point. On Capitol Loop, I used the notes column to indicate the two street names when two-way Michigan Avenue intersections with the one way Cedar and Larch streets, which is appropriate, at the BL I-96 junction. Anything more is probably overkill and should be in the RD, not the JL. Imzadi 1979 → 23:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

For most of the articles I've seen where "begin Freeway" and "end freeway" are listed in the junctions list, the same information is somewhat obvious from the exit number column. However, I'll grant that that may not always be the case. With that said, I don't really have a dog in this fight, so I'll go with whatever.Dave (talk) 05:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I know in New York there are at-grade intersections that have exit numbers, so the exit numbers alone do not automatically convey a part of road is a freeway. Dough4872 20:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

That, and not all states have exit numbers for their non-Interstate freeways. --Rschen7754 20:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about this a little more, I think if such things must be mentioned (i.e. Begin one-way pair, end freeway, begin super2, etc.) the more appropriate place is the notes column, rather than a separate entry in the table.

The problem with that thinking is that many freeway termini are not at interchanges but rather at arbitrary points along the road. In addition, listing the one-way pairs would be overkill. Dough4872 20:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

For termini that don't align to exiting junctions, I use the "bridge" method of a junction. That is, I insert the milepost for the location, and then a cell that spans the exit/destinations/notes column of the table with "Freeway begins/ends" centered. For an article that uses both, see U.S. Route 31 in Michigan. Imzadi 1979 → 22:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

United States related Tag and Assess proposa

There is a proposal on WikiProject United States to task Xenobot with tagging and assessment of articles that fall into the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject United States. Please take a few moments to provide your comments about this proposal.

If you are interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject United States please add your name under the applicable section here. --Kumioko (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of this; it seems like extra clutter for article talk pages. --Rschen7754 17:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

May I ask why you feel that way? Having the banner on the talk page serves several different purposes but I am interested to know what makes you feel that way. I am sure you are not the only one. --Kumioko (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Theoretically every single state that a route goes through could tag the article, but when said state WP doesn't do anything for maintenance or have set standards of assessment, it's just 3-4 tags that clutter up the talk page. I've seen instances where they try to claim our FAs but not our stubs, when they haven't even done any work on the FAs to begin with. I don't see the point of adding another meaningless tag to every single page. WP:USRD has assessed the articles already, so it's really moot for us. --Rschen7754 17:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the value of tagging all U.S. Road articles to be part of wikiproject US as the connection is already implied, but I don't see the harm either. Dave (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Makes complete sense. Because I wasn't familiar with this project I wasnt aware of them already being assessed so thats good to know. My priority right now isnt so much the articles that have a US related banner andway but the ones that dont have one at all, which are unfortunately abundant. I will look into not adding an extra banner where yours already exists. You may be interested to know that I am going to Try and fix some of the banner rot by rolling some of the Inactive, dufunct and other wise nonproductive Wikiprojects up under the WPUS umbrella in much the same way that WPMILHIST does taskforces. Just because one state is active and has its own project doesnt mean all 50 need one. There might be a lot of sublinks but basically there would be one banner. The exception being the active projects like this one. It will likely be a while though and my intent is to roll them in one or 2 at a time as I get concensus. But thats the plan. --Kumioko (talk) 17:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what's said above. In my personal case, the Michigan project doesn't do a damn thing on the Michigan highway articles. They tagged only a few dozen of the hundreds of articles, and didn't seem concerned that the rest weren't tagged. They don't even notice when articles are at FAC, so long ago we set up the relationship whereby WP:MSHP is considered a subproject of both WP:USRD and WP:MICH. Then all of the MICH banners were pulled off the articles. If additional banners were placed, I'd only support WPUS banners on national-scope highway articles. Why should WPUS be concerned with M-157 (Michigan highway)? Imzadi 1979 → 23:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it is redundant for WPUS to tag USRD articles since USRD is a related project. Dough4872 02:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree w/ Dough --Admrboltz (talk) 02:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input and I am inclined to agree. I left a comment on the WikiProject United States talk page to remind myself (and other as they swing by) to not include these. I will continue to watch this talk page but please let me know if you have any additional comments. --Kumioko (talk) 02:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Question about Roads, streets and Highways

Does this project cover roads, streets and highways or is there a limit in the scope of the project? --Kumioko (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

See our scope as on the project page; our project does not cover city streets, for one. --Rschen7754 20:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a sibling project, WP:USST for streets. As for the roads vs. highways distinction, it has been my impression that it is an historical accident that the overall project is "roads" and not "highways". My experience is that this project deals mostly with state highways (which includes Interstates and the United States Numbered Highway System). There used to be full-fledged subprojects for the Interstates (WP:IH) and US Highways (WP:USH) so the overall parent project couldn't use "U.S. Highways" for its name, even though that describes it better. We really don't cover anything beyond that which is related to the state highways and some county roads. Imzadi 1979 → 23:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed move

I have proposed a move at Talk:Florida State Road 212 and would like some feedback. Thank you. –Dream out loud (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Also see Talk:Maryland Route 200#Requested move. Dough4872 00:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

AfDs

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Road 507 (Brevard County, Florida), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Road 503 (Brevard County, Florida), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Road 342 (Leon County, Florida). Imzadi 1979 → 06:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Links to mileage/junction sources

I feel as if one of the most difficult sources of information to find when writing road articles is junction milage. They're usually buried somewhere within the state DOT's website and take a lot of searching to find. Some state DOTs don't even provide this information and it can be even more frustrating to search for this information, only to find out it doesn't exist. I think a good idea would be to create a subpage of this project with a table of links for mileage/junction information for each state's DOT. I started a page already with five states at User:Dream out loud/DOTs. Any input on this idea? –Dream out loud (talk) 20:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. This kinda goes along with the AID proposal I made a couple months back. Most of us liked the idea of figuring out where the data is first before we try to improve a state as a group. That being said, we already have WP:USRD/L, which is where this table should go. –Fredddie™ 21:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I had a feeling that there was already a similar page. But I think a table in addition to individual sections would be very useful for states with data easily accessible from a webpage or PDF file (as opposed to downloading CSV files or GIS data). –Dream out loud (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I added Utah and Washington to your list Dream out oud --Admrboltz (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Added DE, MD, and MS to table as well. Dough4872 02:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Um, shouldn't all of these resources all be in the same location, rather than fragmenting them further? The goal should be to have things in one spot so editors can find them. Folks, please all of these resources to WP:USRD/L. It's fine if Dream out loud wants his own list, but that just makes it harder for other editors to find the information. Imzadi 1979 → 04:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Um, I do plan to put the table on the same page. If you read above you would have noticed that. I just created the table on my user page to get some feedback before moving it into the project. –Dream out loud (talk) 06:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the spirit of what you are doing, Dream Out Loud. However, I do not think we need a table on WP:USRD/L in addition to the current list. For states with data easily accessible from a webpage or PDF file, that information can just as easily be expressed in the current list. Conversely, for states where that data is easily accessible, but requires a little explanation on how to use it, a table provides no advantage in giving that explanation. The only advantage of a table is it is sortable, but that is only an advantage in the first 20 seconds a person uses it. — Viridiscalculus (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think the table format is cleaner than the current format. Dough4872 01:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Currently, each state has a nice section where the sources can be listed with full explanations on how to use them. Some sources can't be distilled down to a short set of instructions on how to use the data given. In that case, the full paragraphs or numbered lists of instructions will bloat a table, and then we lose the cleanliness of the table. Sorry, the current format works just fine. Just please add all of the newly found sources to it with new subsections as necessary. Imzadi 1979 → 01:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be a nice way to keep the links organized, in addition to a list. But I don't want to create an entire table if users are against it and will most likely remove it. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to help with WikiProject United States

Hello, WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 17! We are looking for editors to join WikiProject United States, an outreach effort which aims to support development of United States related articles in Wikipedia. We thought you might be interested, and hope that you will join us. Thanks!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Question about the scope of the project

Sorry for my ignorance but I wanted to clarify a scope question about this project. I have found quite a few articles related to Laws, accidents, legal cases, people, etc that would seem to possibly fall into the scope of this project but it seems as though the project only covers the actualy road. Which is fine I just wanted to undeerstand. --Kumioko (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Typically, we only cover articles about a state highway (or in some cases a county road) or major interchanges/intersections. Other articles though are covered. For instance, we have Speed limits in the United States, National Maximum Speed Law, Federal Highway Administration (and all of the state DOTs) Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe tagged as well as the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Please list some of those other articles though so we can make a determination. Mostly the gut instinct of mine is to tag only things that directly affect the highway systems in the US. (Many generalized concepts are tagged under our parent project, WP:HWY.) Each state subproject has slightly different scope criteria on state-level criteria. Other comments and views are welcome though. Imzadi 1979 → 17:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the clarification. That clears up part of it though cause I saw it on some and not others so I thought I would ask. The next time I find one that looks like it goes here Ill let you know. I am sure I will find one in the next few hours. --Kumioko (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

A different kind of deletion discussion

The project's logo has been uploaded to Commons. There is a discussion on whether or not it should be deleted from Commons at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:USRD logo.svg. Please note, that the logo is still hosted locally on Wikipedia and this discussion will not affect that. Imzadi 1979 → 07:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Interstate Highway System articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Interstate Highway System articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Highway system articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the U.S. Highway system articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Additional road sections in infobox

The template {{Infobox road}} only allows for up to 4 discontinuous sections in the infobox. But I am working on the infobox for Florida State Road A1A, and that road has 9 discontinuous sections (it's broken into 3 at the moment, but there are actually 9). Should we look into adding more parameters to the infobox, or should we handle the infobox differently in this situation? –Dream out loud (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

In situations like that, I would use {{infobox road small}} for each section and include the regular infobox at the top with the overall summary info. In these cases as well, you should not reuse the same heading titles per the MOS. (It creates problems knowing which "Route description" section is meant by a link.) If you need to subdivide each segment's section of the article up, there's a neat little trick. Just as the colon at the start of a line indents, the semi-colon character at the start of a line turns it into a boldface line of text. Back to your original point though, we shouldn't be increasing the potential length of the infobox. We already limit to 10 junctions to keep the size down. 5 more road segments would definitely make it longer than any lead you could right. Imzadi 1979 → 01:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

RfD

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 November 11#Primary State Highway 19 (Washington) --Admrboltz (talk) 23:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

USRD logo rebranding

What do you all think of replacing the current image on the USRD banner and the navbar with the USRD logo on the newsletter? Basically:
→
–Fredddie™ 05:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Support - I Personally like the USRD logo better than the picture. --Kumioko (talk) 05:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Support --Admrboltz (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Support as the person who set up the logo on the userbox, I welcome the rebranding. Imzadi 1979 → 17:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. – TMF 21:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Would someone with the bit like to change the banner? –Fredddie™ 02:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

 Doing... --Admrboltz (talk) 03:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Uh, oh. I was doing it too... We'll see who wins the edit conflict =-) Dave (talk) 03:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I wish I had the bit so I could join in on the fun... Imzadi 1979 → 03:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Y Done Got there first Dave ;) --Admrboltz (talk) 03:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think you've got the right temperament for an admin. If you REALLY want I'll nominate you. However, I'd give it some serious consideration, the last several RfA's I've participated have been just brutal, as in Harry Reid vs Sharon Angle brutal. Plus, as brutal as most RfA's are nowdays, you might be better off if someone from outside the project nominates you. Dave (talk) 03:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The day is coming where I'll go up for it. Juliancolton has said he'd nominate me before. The trouble is that in some respects, I can't demonstrate a need for the tools, just a want. Imzadi 1979 → 03:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Moved the image to commons as well. --Admrboltz (talk) 03:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It probably shouldn't be moved there. There's little educational value in the image, and it's really only useful on en.wp. Imzadi 1979 → 03:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

How about this idea: replacing the current portal image (, stored at Template:Portal/Images/U.S. Roads) with the logo? I don't know if we want to extend the "rebranding" to the portal or not, but if we do, that's the template to change. – TMF 10:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I was just thinking about that this morning, but I think that we should hold off on that. (It would extend the usage of the image to mainspace, which might be an argument on Commons to retain the image there.) Imzadi 1979 → 13:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

A bit of a bump: the commons DR was closed three days ago. Perhaps it's time to revisit this proposal. – TMF 09:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

So we'd be going → . I think that the only problem is that the logo doesn't look that good at that size, but maybe an alternate version would work, if the three markers were lined up differently? Imzadi 1979 → 21:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it looks as good as anything's going to look at 20 pixels. It sure looks better than the status quo. – TMF 22:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

On the lighter side....

Here is an article that spells out very clearly why we should not overly rely on Google Maps (and similar mapping services) in the articles: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/11/google-maps-error-blamed-for-nicaraguan-invasion/ Dave (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Heh I heard that on the radio the other morning, and yes I know GMaps isn't always right, tried to do Washington State Route 903 and the map was totally wrong for the first mile or so... --Admrboltz (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I only use Google as a source for satellite imagery in the articles as I have found numerous errors in their cartography. Dough4872 17:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

And who could forget Argleton? –Dream out loud (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It is well known that secondary roads in Virginia do not exist in the cities, yet there are numerous instances where Google Maps shows one snaking through the city to join 2 county segments. Also, there are places where Google maps calls a road "County Road xxx", when there are no county roads in Virginia. --Tim Sabin (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

All sources have the potential for errors. I've found newspaper articles that get details on highways wrong. Either they omit the second highway in a concurrency, upgrade a freeway to Interstate status when it is not, etc. The key with every source is to verify it with other sources. Google makes an excellent source city street names and satellite imagery, but any RD section I work on is also cited to the official state map or another source or two. Imzadi 1979 → 15:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Typically, when writing a route description, I use Google Maps as a source for satellite imagery and either a milepost log book or state highway map for the route numbers and towns. Dough4872 16:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

And look into visitor's guides and tour books as well. For the UP articles, I've found that using Hunt's Guide to the Upper Peninsula helps flesh out some of the story of the landmarks long the way. News articles about prominent landmarks can also be useful, with the goal to avoid the whole section reading like a "turn here, drive there, follow this, cross that" set of directions. The goal of course should be to use multiple sources in different ways to weave together the story of the road. Imzadi 1979 → 16:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it's fortunate that we aren't using GMaps for war plans though... :) It'd be nice if, alongside the vast plethora of information, the internet brought common sense. As for Argleton, why does that have an article? There are thousands of these anomalies on GMaps and Bing! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if Nicaragua's "Google Defense" will be as effective as the famed Twinkie Defense. As for your second point, I agree, an encyclopedia article, on a Map error? Dave (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Why not? We have Beatosu and Goblu, Ohio with an article. Imzadi 1979 → 18:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

However, those two fictional cities are more than a common map error. There is no evidence in the article on Argleton to suggest this article is about anything more notable than a typographical error. Dave (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Arkansas Highways mileages

Since there are no concurrencies in Arkansas, how should mileages be displayed? Should the "implicit" mileage be included even though it is technically not really part of the route? It was mentioned here earlier to use the intuitive concurrencies in the route descriptions even if they are not signed in reality, but do we also do this for the mileages? Moved after inactivity from Talk:List of Arkansas state highways. Brandonrush Wooo pig sooie 15:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

AFD

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of special routes in Michigan. Dough4872 04:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Examples of RCS

I have started a list of examples on the Rockland County Scenario (RCS) subpage of WP:USRD so people unfamiliar with RCS can look at examples to better understand the process and implement it in their own work. When you have a chance, please add examples for your own areas, or suggest here in talk what kind of examples we should be providing to cover as many scenarios as possible.  VC  21:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not much, but I wrote some guidelines for New York county route RCS lists at Wikipedia:NYCR#Rockland County Scenario that links to a couple of RCS examples. Since the RCS is mostly used for CR systems (at least from what I've seen), we should include at least one on the page. – TMF 22:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI, this is covered in our notability guideline WP:USRD/NT. Don't take this personally, but can wee please refer to it by a less obscure name, such as "articles with a list of minor highways" or similar? Dave (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I have a question regarding handling Interstate and U.S. highways. Should business and bannered routes have national or state pages? As it is, we're not very consistent. For instance, we have Business routes of Interstate 10 describing all such routes in all states where the business routes occur, while Interstate 20 is treated on a state-by-state manner in the two states where it has such routes. I-20 Bus. in Texas has its own page as the number of routes within the state are legion (Business Routes of Interstate 20 in Texas), while the only route outside of Texas is a subsection in I-20's South Carolina article (Interstate 20 in South Carolina#Business route). We also have articles such as Interstate 90 Business and Bannered routes of U.S. Route 67 that, when properly expanded for all routes in all states in those articles, will become monstrously long. Another, US 54, has only a single bannered route handled in the state article (U.S. Route 54 in Texas#El Paso business loop) even though, like US 67, the highway goes from the Mexican border to Illinois. Also note the inconsistent article naming conventions: Business routes of Interstate 10 v. Interstate 90 Business. Fortguy (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, here's my take on it. If there are business routes (or other special routes) in multiple states, then the list should be national. However, if a state has many of them (there are 9 or former BL/BS I-75s and 10 current or former BUS US 127s in Michigan), that might warrant a separate RCS list by state. As for the naming, the lists should be at Business routes of Interstate # and Interstate X Business should be a redirect. Imzadi 1979 → 20:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Another, somewhat related issue is the naming convention for the USH lists. It's been well established that "bannered routes" is a neologism, yet it's still extensively used in both the lists' name and in some articles as the name of a subsection. The lack of a suitable replacement term ("special route"? really?) is what makes me wary of the concept in the first place. So, as a result, the "special" routes in New York are covered in subsections of the parent's article, using the designation and not "bannered routes" or "special routes" or whatever as the section title.

I would prefer to have the special routes covered in the relevant state-detail article of their parent since, IMO, that's where they're most relevant. If we went the way of shunting everything to national lists once a route has two or more subroutes, for lack of a better term, that would lead to a bit of redundancy in a few cases. As an example, US 62 Business in Niagara Falls, New York, would likely be mentioned in no less than three places: the national list for US 62; US 62 in New York, since I think it's a very bad idea to not mention it there; and its own article. I am open to a separate RCS list for a state if multiple subroutes (more than three or four, for example) exist in a state, however.

At least there's no controversy over the name of IH business routes. Since there aren't any in New York, I'm indifferent as to how those are handled. – TMF 20:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Like TMF, I am somewhat indifferent to what happens with the Interstate business routes, since I do not have a dog in the fight. However, I think for consistency whatever we figure out with regard to U.S. highways should be applied similarly to the Interstates. For the U.S. highways, I am in favor of handling detailed information about bannered routes at the state level. This would mean putting the bannered routes in the state-detail articles, unless a particular state-detail article does not exist for a highway, due to either lack of a state-detail article for a particular state or the highway being in three or fewer states. Within the state-detail articles, the bannered routes can be either described in full; summarized with a link to a list of bannered routes for that highway in that state; or a mix of the two with some routes described in full in the state-detail article and others split into their own articles if warranted, RCS-style. Of course, there are exceptions to the rule that would need to be worked out; for instance, what to do with a bannered route that passes through multiple states. My main rationale for these ideas is Interstate and U.S. highways are state highways that line up at state lines and carry the same number in the same shield through multiple states.  VC  23:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess I don't have much of a dog in this fight either. MI has so many of them that there should be a state-level list except for BUS US 2 in Ironwood. I can merge that over into the parent s-d article now that that article exists at a decent level. Imzadi 1979 → 23:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

IMO, this is how bannered routes should be handled. National lists by route should exist for Interstate Business routes and bannered U.S. routes, such as Business routes of Interstate 75 or Bannered routes of U.S. Route 13. The U.S. route list should cover all bannered routes such as alternate, business, and truck routes, including approritaely suffixed routes acting in the same fashion such as U.S. Route 31A. It may be possible to rename the lists to "Special routes of U.S. Route X" since the suffixed routes are not truly bannered. In the case an interstate or U.S. route does not have enough special routes to warrant a list, such as Interstate 83 and U.S. Route 113, then the routes may be covered in the main article. Bannered and suffixed state routes should generally be covered in the main article since there is typically not enough routes to warrant a separate list. Dough4872 02:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

commons:User:Admrboltz/test

Hey, in some of my ACR's and GAN's I have been talking about legends in maps... I created something quickly over on commons, which can be added as a standardized legend based off the specs at WP:USRD/MTF. Thoughts, concerns, questions? --Admrboltz (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

There's also File:Us map legend.svg, but the concept of including legends with maps never really caught on. – TMF 01:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Ive seemn that before somewhere... but really our maps are great for someone who understands the lines like we all do, but does an average user understand it? --Admrboltz (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we need anything that in depth. I think a simple explanation of what the colors mean, similar to what I did on the US 30 in Iowa map, should suffice for most cases. –Fredddie™ 03:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

True, though boredom created this :P - and its meant to be a generic boilerplate legend that can be slapped in with any map. --Admrboltz (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Commons Deletion Request

commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:I-82_extension.png --Admrboltz (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

A consideration for cross project consolidation of talk page templates

I have started a conversation here about the possibility of combining some of the United States related WikiProject Banners into {{WikiProject United States}}. If you have any comments, questions or suggestions please take a moment and let me know. --Kumioko (talk) 04:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that due to theh special fields you use in your template I knew you would not be interested but please feel free to comment anyway. --Kumioko (talk) 04:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bakersfield Freeway Network --Rschen7754 02:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

AWB request

Could someone with AWB run it over U.S. Route 30 in Iowa for overlinking? This is the last issue brought up with the peer review that is holding me back from going to FAC. Thanks in advance. –Fredddie™ 07:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

SFD

See Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/November/25#Category:Harrisburg area road stubs. Dough4872 02:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:TXSH

I started a discussion about Texas having lists of highways in counties versus having templates of highways in counties. –Fredddie™ 22:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:TXSH#Discrepancies in article layout

Check out the discussion on the differences between TXSH and USRD article standards. --Admrboltz (talk) 03:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

By-county categories for state highways only, part two

I first posted about the by-county categories for state highways in Florida in August, but nothing ever really came out of that discussion. In the time since then, I've found by-county categories for state highways in Arkansas as well. With the recent proliferation of "Transportation in Foo County, Bar" categories, the by-county state highway categories have become obsolete thanks to their uber-narrow scope. Since the (abbreviated) consensus of the last discussion was that these cats should be canned, I suppose I'm asking for assistance in setting up the CFD(s). At the moment, I don't have the time to set up a large umbrella nom nor tag 70 or so categories with a CFD notice. I'm willing to help in some form, but as of right now I can't bear the whole load. – TMF 07:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if the situation in Maryland is analogous to what we are trying to do here. "Category:State highways in Maryland" does not have county subcategories. The only subcategory is for Maryland Route 200, which is not something I am touching at this time. However, there is a "Category:Roads in Maryland" with a subcategory "Category:Roads in Maryland by county" with subcategories for each county. For instance, there is a "Category:Roads in Garrett County, Maryland" for highways in Garrett County. Over 95% of the articles within these categories are state highways. I personally like these categories because they allow me to quickly access articles for highways in a particular county. I do not think these county categories are too narrow a scope for a category, but I understand the opposing sentiment. If consensus is in favor of eliminating these categories, I would be willing to put together a plan to eventually retire these categories. — Viridiscalculus (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I use them in Arkansas because they help differentiate the countless highways of the same number that are totally separate routes which share number only. These categories also help show the duplicity (actually usually multiplicity) of these state highways. These categories also act as a type of "county map" that show the routes within a county. Brandonrush (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) @VC: There are "Roads in Foo County, Florida" cats too. I'm not sure how I feel about them; they could be valid subcats of the Transportation in Foo County cats since their scope is somewhat wider than the state highway cats, but I can envision a situation where a rural county has only two roads, and both are in a Roads cat that is a subcat of an otherwise empty Transportation cat.

@ BR: I'm not following the first couple of statements. As for the last point, the Transportation in Foo County, Arkansas cats would do the same thing, and would also have U.S. and Interstate Highways that don't fall into the other categories' scope. – TMF 18:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

So this is a proposed name change to Transportation at whatever county, Arkansas instead of the current format?. Brandonrush (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

From what I understand, other, non-USRD editors have already created them or are in the process of making them. Complete sets were made for a few states recently, and I can't imagine that sets for the others are far behind. Now, while a set exists for Florida, I see that there isn't one for Arkansas at the moment. It could be easily created via AWB, though. – TMF 18:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that they were being made. I would imagine Arkansas would be near the bottom of their priority list though. Those are probably the same editors that complain about my Arkansas articles being crappy. Oh well. Brandonrush (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• IMO, the "Transportation in Foo County, Bar" categories should be standard in categorizing state-detail Interstate and U.S. Route pages, as well as state route pages. These categories are also useful as they categorize railroads, airports, etc. However, I would also be accepting if the "Transportation in Foo County, Bar" categories had subcategories for roads, railroads, and airports within that specific county. Dough4872 19:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I can see some benefit to having subcats to transportation for all roads, railroads, etc. in a county, but consider this situation in Calhoun County, Florida. Category:State Roads in Calhoun County, Florida has three articles. Its parent, Category:Roads in Calhoun County, Florida, has zero. That category's parent, Category:Transportation in Calhoun County, Florida, has one article, the county's airport. I think we can all agree that in this case, there is no need for any categories beyond the Transportation cat. – TMF 22:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The case of Calhoun County proves that in reality, we only need the transportation by county category. Even if the county in question is a more urban county with several roads, airports, and railroad lines, the one category for all still should not be a problem. Dough4872 19:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Bumping so this doesn't get archived by the bot. – TMF 08:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there a bot that can create all of these at once? Brandonrush Woo pig sooie 16:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is one, but it is easily doable by a bot. It's also possible to do it fairly easily using AWB, as mentioned earlier. – TMF 18:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

And as a proof of concept, I created all of Arkansas' categories in just 10 minutes using AWB. See Category:Transportation in Arkansas by county. – TMF 18:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Bumped again. Guess I'm going to have to take a couple of days this week and get the ball rolling on this myself. – TMF 10:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Another bump so I don't have to pull it back out of the archives later. I plan on getting to this sometime in the next day or two. – TMF 00:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I just hand coded Category:Transportation in New Mexico by county and associated sub cats, and populated them all... shows how slow it is at work :p --Admrboltz (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

User:71.234.165.197

I don't remember if this is the IP range that has been problematic in the past, but he's been damaging exit lists: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Garden_State_Parkway&diff=prev&oldid=400585485 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interstate_520&diff=395378254&oldid=380779610 --NE2 21:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion

See Talk:New Jersey Turnpike#Merger proposal. Dough4872 01:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggested policy change to the tagging of non article items

I have submitted a proposal at the Village pump regarding tagging non article items in Wikipedia. Please take a moment and let me know what you think. --Kumioko (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Santa Clara County Expressway System AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santa Clara County Expressway System --Admrboltz (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

{{jct}} problem

Resolved

 – Its not using Jct... Added a space. --Admrboltz (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Georgia State Route 515 - note the lack of spacing between the SR 372 shield and the I-575 text. --NE2 22:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you know what the fix should be? I don't have time to mess with it know, but I can lift the protection so you can do it, if you already have the solution. Dave (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no issue. The article in question doesn't use {{jct}} in the infobox. Case closed. Imzadi 1979 → 22:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Oops. --NE2 22:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been away too long to want to deal with the templates. --NE2 22:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

AFD

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of communities on U.S. Route 66. Dough4872 03:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

SfD

See Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/December/13 for an upmerger dealing with the NY stub types. Imzadi 1979 → 11:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

CR AFD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Road 308B (Putnam County, Florida) --Admrboltz (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject U.S. Roads Triple Crown

I, SMasters, am pleased to award this special edition triple crown to WikiProject U.S. Roads and its hardworking volunteers. – SMasters (talk) 09:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Your Majesties, thank you for all your hard work. This award is for the project itself. Over the next few days, copies of the award will be presented to Mitchazenia, NE2, Scott5114, Moabdave, Imzadi1979, Holderca1, Algorerhythms and Rschen7754. Well done! What a grand effort. When more people qualify to join please let me know. Warm regards – SMasters (talk) 09:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible hoax

Interstate 365 - has no reliable hits on Google and zero hits in terms of news sources. – TMF 22:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The user has created at least one other hoax, Interstate 524. Not to mention that the "road" runs three miles in literally the middle of nowhere, and Birmingham is spelled "Birmington". Worse, the user is apparently unable to write a coherent English sentence, and he even wrote an equally impossible "history". Please kill and block as soon as possible -- I know I'm not an active member of USRD anymore, and perhaps it's procedure, but I don't see why this needs discussion at all. Xenon54 (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, forgive me for using Google Maps, but I did, and where these streets run in close proximity to make the supposed exit list viable is several miles north of Birmingham, between the towns of Gardendale and Morris. So either this is a complete hoax, or so factually inaccurate that it is impossible to confirm that if any detail is correct. Dave (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

For now I have left a warning template on this user's talk page. However, judging from other comments left on the talk page, this is nothing new. I have to leave, but will finish an investigation when I return. If another admin beats me to it, go right ahead. Dave (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. I couldn't find anything to back it up. --Admrboltz (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for looking into it. I decided to check out the user's contribs and found another blatant hoax that had already been deleted once before. Since it had zero hits of any kind, that was a pretty easy G3. – TMF 01:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Articles listed at AFD

• List of county roads in Volusia County, Florida (AfD discussion)
• County Road 2002 (Florida) (AfD discussion)

Please contribute to the discussions. Uncle G (talk) 09:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

BC 395 / US 395 Merger Proposal

See Talk:U.S. Route 395#BC 395 Merger --Admrboltz (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Kansas merge proposals

See Talk:Kansas Turnpike for merge proposals of merging Kansas Turnpike Authority and Interstate 335 into the Kansas Turnpike article. Dough4872 01:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

CR 402, CR 515 → Indian River Lagoon Scenic Highway

Merger discussion: Talk:Indian River Lagoon Scenic Highway#Merger --Admrboltz (talk) 04:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

FL CR AFD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Road 158 (Leon County, Florida) - should we keep doing this since these now show up at WP:USRD/AA? --Admrboltz (talk) 04:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No. We only started posting them here again when the bot died. Imzadi 1979 → 04:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say no. That's what we did when AA worked before. –Fredddie™ 04:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Mergers and SfD, commons, etc still go here, but I will stop AfD. --Admrboltz (talk) 04:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Apalachee Parkway → U.S. Route 27

Merger discussion: Talk:U.S. Route 27#Apalachee Parkway merger --Admrboltz (talk) 05:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Orange Blossom Trail → U.S. Route 441

Resolved

 – Speedily merged. –Fredddie™ 05:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:U.S. Route 441#Merger --Admrboltz (talk) 04:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Article Alerts bug

Resolved

 – Bug was resolved with 12/24 update to Article Alerts. --Admrboltz (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

See WP:AAlerts/BUGS#Pluses instead of underscores --Admrboltz (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

City/Counties

Do templates, such as {{jctexit}} or {{jctint}} support consolidated city/counties such as Denver? If so, how do you code it? --Admrboltz (talk) 06:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

{{{indep_city}}}=<city name> – TMF 06:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Not quite, but I got it. See Peña Boulevard. --Admrboltz (talk) 22:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Gah, should add that to the template doc. It's pretty bad when one of the template's primary coders botches the code... – TMF 06:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

VA merge proposal

See Talk:U.S. Route 29 in Virginia#Merge proposal. Dough4872 16:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal

See discussion here.Mitch32^{(Transportation Historian)} 23:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

NC merger

Independence Boulevard (Charlotte) → U.S. Route 74#North Carolina, see Talk:U.S. Route 74#Independence Boulevard (Charlotte) merger --Admrboltz (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

FL merge

See: Talk:Interstate 4#SR 400 merger re Florida State Road 400 → Interstate 4. --Admrboltz (talk) 04:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I-8 merge proposal

See Talk:Interstate 8#Merge proposal. Dough4872 05:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Stub goals for 2011

While nominally, our stub reduction drive didn't come anywhere close to our goal of eliminating 3000 stubs, I think most of us feel it was a success. Am I alone on this? While there is still some time left in December, I thought we should start hammering out our goals for 2011. I'm going to ask a few questions to try to get a good idea where the project stands. Just write a short comment after each question. By no means is this a binding poll. This will all end up in the next edition of the newsletter? If there are any other questions I should be asking, please add them! –Fredddie™ 07:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you think the stub reduction drive was a success?

• Yes, I do. Imzadi 1979 → 08:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, even though we didn't make the goal. --Rschen7754 09:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• Yes. I didn't participate in it, but the states and editors that did made large gains in reducing (even eliminating) their stub count. – TMF 16:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• Definitely. We got compliments for the hard work, I'd say its a success!Mitch32^{(Transportation Historian)} 16:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• Yes.  VC  18:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, we have seen a lot of improvements in articles, including the complete destubbing of several states. Dough4872 19:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• Yes since we did improve article quality and activity rose. –CG^Talk 19:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• Yes. Even though the goal was not attained, great strides were taken to reduce the number of stubs. -- LJ ↗ 20:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• I don't think that it was a complete success. For the first quarter of so of the year we made great progress towards reaching the goal, but we ended up getting distracted by other things around the summertime (template overhauls and things like that) which ended up pushing the stub drive to the back burner and then we simply lost the momentum that got built. The key is to be able to achieve obvious progress, which motivates people to keep the trend going. If you neglect the goal for a while, then momentum is lost and it's hard to motivate people again. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
• I'm not so sure how many stubs we got rid of, but from where I stand, I don't think it was a success either. What bugs me about this stub elimination campaign is that there have been a lot of articles that would have been better off being redirected, or even left alone, but instead were completley deleted. ----DanTD (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
• Definitely. I think a lot of progress has happened. Fortguy (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
• To me, it was a definite success. We raised awareness of the stub problem plaguing Wikipedia in general, and we increased activity. It also helped to redefined standards and better organize the project, subprojects, and task forces in general. And roughly half of the goal was met, which is actually pretty impressive from where I stand. —Onore Baka Sama^{(speak | stalk)} 14:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Did we set the goal too high?

• I don't know that it was too high. I think in the end it turned out to be unrealistic, but it's good to aim high and take satisfaction in a realistic, but maybe lower, result. Imzadi 1979 → 08:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• I suppose. --Rschen7754 09:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• Yes. If I had to guess, I'd say that the project eliminated about 2,000 pre-existing stubs before the new stubs - new articles and articles downgraded to stubs in audits - are factored in. – TMF 16:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• Imzadi said it best. I think we set a goal and tried our hardest to meet it. We didn't make it, means we just try for a similar goal.Mitch32^{(Transportation Historian)} 16:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• If the goal was set as a mark to surpass, then it was too ambitious. Given our lives outside of Wikipedia, all things that could go wrong in our motivation here, and our aversion to leaving our geographic comfort zones, it was not realistic. If the goal was set as a mark to shoot for assuming good conditions, then it was good. After all, we are all volunteers and there are no negative consequences if we miss the goal.  VC  18:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• I think the target was a little too high based on number of active editors. Dough4872 19:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• It was a bit too high. The same goal could have been used for an extended one into spring 2011 realistically. –CG^Talk 19:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• Perhaps it was high in retrospect, but I don't think there was any way that could have been known a year ago. -- LJ ↗ 20:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• That depends on your perspective. If you're writing for states that already had a high quality of articles or a low number of highways overall with several experienced editors contributing, then the goal of eliminating stubs was a complete success. However, other states have seen only modest gains. In TX, it seems to be one step back for every two steps forward. We've had a couple of new editors this year that were prolific at creating new stub articles rather than upgrading existing ones. Fortguy (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
• It was a bit high, I believe. Too many variables involved (new stubs, lack of resources for certain states) to effectively destub. —Onore Baka Sama^{(speak | stalk)} 14:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

How high should we have set the goal? 1500? 2000?

• I think 2000 would have been more reasonable, and that could have been attainable. Imzadi 1979 → 08:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• 2,000 per my comments in the section above. – TMF 16:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• 2250 to me sounds a bit averaged out and I like it.Mitch32^{(Transportation Historian)} 16:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• 2000 would have been a more realistic goal. As TMF pointed out, without the audit, we would have come close to a goal of that magnitude.  VC  18:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• I think 2000 sounds like a more realistic goal. Dough4872 19:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• 2000 is much more realistic. –CG^Talk 19:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• Had we done 1500, we probably would have met the goal. 2000 may have been more reasonable and still attainable, however, that still would have been less than the "half the current stub count" goal that was the initial purpose of the drive. -- LJ ↗ 20:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• I think 2000 would be realistic without large audits or other concerns diverting attention. Fortguy (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
• 2000 is more realistic, yes. —Onore Baka Sama^{(speak | stalk)} 14:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

How did you help reduce the stub count?

• I helped suggest logical places to merge stubby items into lists, some of which might have been permastubs. I did some work on territorial highway articles. When the three AS articles were created, I merged them into the list, RSC-style to get rid of them as stubs. I merged VI spurs to parent articles for additional stub reductions. I was also helping expand articles in Guam from creation directly to Start-Class to avoid redlinks turning into stubs. Imzadi 1979 → 08:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• 2010 wasn't a great editing year for me, due to my wikibreak in the spring, my job in the summer, and lots of stress school- and emotional-related in the fall. I wasn't able to do as much as I wanted to in this area. That being said, I caused the demise of WP:CACR and that got rid of a lot of stubs. I also removed several stubs from the California project. --Rschen7754 09:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• As I commented above, I really didn't. Most of the existing stubs in New York are well outside my areas of interest. When they did lie within my areas of interest, I either expanded or merged them as appropriate. – TMF 16:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• My problems echo Rschen's. Editing Wikipedia at all in 2010 was a pest due to college. I usually just helped people reduce them by persuasion. Mitch32^{(Transportation Historian)} 16:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• I participated in the near-complete destubbing of Maryland. I also killed a few stubs in other states.  VC  18:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• I completely destubbed DE and NE in addiition to reducing the stub count in other states such as MD, MS, NJ, and PA. Dough4872 19:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• I destubbed a few articles and sent them to GAN. –CG^Talk 19:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• Earlier in the year, I addressed NVSR articles by merging or redirecting where feasible, then moved to expanding stubs up to C-class where possible. I wasn't as active in the stub drive in the latter half of the year as I would have liked to have been--a new job and a return to grad school took up a lot of time that had previously been spent editing. -- LJ ↗ 20:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• I've tried to advocate more redirects, and new lists wherever I felt they'd be appropriate. With my redirects of articles like County Route 9 (Suffolk County, New York) and County Route 10 (Suffolk County, New York) into Rockland County, New York-style lists, I'd have to say my efforts haven't been a total loss. However, I'm still working on other partial lists for some(Not all) Suffolk County Road articles to be redirected to. -----DanTD (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
• I expanded several articles to get them beyond stub status, and created a few lists such as for business routes. I also preemptively redirected some historic routes to the history sections of current routes. Fortguy (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
• I, along with Dough, took out most of the Maryland stubs in April–May, raising them to C-class (me simple route descriptions, he junction lists). After that, I tried my hand at North Carolina and Rhode Island, which was a... pretty miserable endeavor due to the lack of sources thing. —Onore Baka Sama^{(speak | stalk)} 14:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Where are the best opportunities to reduce stubs?

• The absolute best opportunity are the lists of redlinks. If we do things right, we can turn the links blue and have Start-Class or higher articles from the beginning. To reduce the current numbers, we have various states that each have a high proportion of the current total. The problem is that we each specialize in our various states so much, that it initially hinders an editor from making a drive in an unfamiliar state. To combat that, we need to find resources for junctions lists for states. (A junction list plus an RD, even a Rand McNally atlas or Google/Yahoo/Bing Maps generated RD, equals not a stub anymore.) Imzadi 1979 → 08:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• Merging articles, writing route descriptions and junction list combinations, removing articles that aren't in our scope.... --Rschen7754 20:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• Aside from what's already been said, there's also the presence of many non-notable road articles (read: county routes) in Florida and downstate New York, many of which are stubs. Many of these routes - not just the stubs - should be merged into by-county route lists, which would have the added bonus of helping to reduce the stub count. – TMF 16:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I still have to disagree with TMF. I don't believe that all County Road articles are non-notable. ----DanTD (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
    • There's no sense in beating this dead horse any more than it already has been. This has been discussed at length in many locations, and from those discussions it's fairly clear that I'm not the only one with the mindset that I posted above. (As an aside that's somewhat relevant to this discussion in a couple of ways, Suffolk County is statistically the worst county in New York - the average article in Suffolk is nearly a class and a half worse than the statewide average. The poor condition of the boatload of county route articles has a lot to do with it.) – TMF 20:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Let me reiterate my agreement with TMF on this issue. I only consider county roads to be notable if they are part of a state-wide numbering system set apart from other county roads in the state, individually have a significant historical component on their own or some other individual significance. Most of your Suffolk County articles don't meet either of those three criteria, and so I label them non-notable. Imzadi 1979 → 01:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
      • The trouble with you and others who share your view, is that you live on some false impression that all county roads are nothing but poorly paved-over cow paths that are only used by a few local farmers on their tractors. Many of them are in fact major highways, and yes even limited-access highways. Even after I explained why some should be kept, you dismissed it simply because they are County Roads. If anything, most of the efforts to delete county road articles are nothing but an Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT crusade. Now, I see there are even attempts to delete LISTS of County Roads. ----DanTD (talk) 07:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
        • If I thought all CRs were non-notable, then why would I have helped form a taskforce devoted to the County-Designated Highway System in Michigan? Why would I have created County Road 492 (Marquette County, Michigan)? My opinion might be colored by the fact that in Michigan, if the roadway isn't maintained by the state or a city, it is a county road. On one count, my home county had over a thousand county roads, ranging from former state highways (CR 492=old M-28, CR 510=old M-35, Heritage Drive/CR JAD = old US 41/M-28) to the Rod & Gun Club Road (CR JAR) that's a less than a quarter mile and dead-ends into the club's parking lot. Clearly, there needs to be some minimum standard of what's "notable" about a county road to warrant an article. Just having a number is not it. History or some state-wide significance works for me though.
          I don't advocate the deletion of that list. That was nominated from someone from outside the project that claimed that "roads are not notable", which didn't make any distinction between state highways or county roads. I did nominate county road that on its face does not deserve an article. Imzadi 1979 → 07:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
• Targeting the 4 states with 300 or more stubs (and rest with 150 or more) and targeting states like North Carolina and Kentucky who have red links everywhere. Now I do believe Pennsylvania needs the most effort due to lack of an editor base.Mitch32^{(Transportation Historian)} 16:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• The more stubs we can remove administratively (i.e., without article writing work) by moving the information to RCS lists or removing the articles from our scope, the better. We also need to move out of our comfort zones by (a) working on states outside of our own and (b) making a better effort to teach less experienced editors how to kill stubs so we have more hands at work.  VC  18:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• The best ways to reduce stubs are to add route descriptions and junction lists to articles as well as merging CRs into lists. Dough4872 19:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• Adding RDs are the easy way, especially for shorter routes. Longer ones, however, could use a nice history instead or both. –CG^Talk 19:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• We attacked the best stub-reduction opportunities immediately: merging short, perma-stubs into parent articles or RCS-style lists. Continuing this consolidation wherever feasible is the easiest way to eliminate stubs. However, the more realistic opportunities now are to work on slight expansion (adding a brief route description and junction list) and examining notability of routes (i.e. county routes). -- LJ ↗ 20:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• I think we should try recruitment. We could go outside the project to individual state projects, many of which have vastly more editors than ours, and post messages inviting any that have an interest in roads and travel if they would like to contribute while linking to the projects' page, state subproject's page, and article standard's page. Fortguy (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
• Aside from what was already said about county routes, we could definitely reduce stubs by merging several articles, namely short state-specific US and Interstate articles. Some suffixed routes which carry the same number (routes like MD 920) should also be merged into list articles if each suffixed route is currently its own article, but a really short road with low significance. And I doubt I should say this, but... adding route descriptions and junction lists should be easy for almost all articles with just map data, and have it stand in until official state sources become available. —Onore Baka Sama^{(speak | stalk)} 14:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Should we create incentives to reduce stubs? If so, what kind of incentives?

• The easiest would be a USRD stub-reducing barnstar. Editors could award it by their own discretion to those they feel merit recognition for their efforts. The only thing else I could imagine doing is tracking who de-stubs what and awarding prizes based on X number of stubs removed from the count by each person. (I would count creating blue links as anything other than a stub as a "pre-emptive de-stubbing". That would include creating items in lists with redirects or creating the article at Start-Class or higher from the beginning. PRODs/AfDs would also count as a method for de-stubbing.) Imzadi 1979 → 08:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• If someone can come up with something truly creative, sure. I'm not that creative, though. – TMF 16:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, I think the stub drive we came up with is a good incentive with a few tweaks. Dough4872 19:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• Barnstar is a great idea, Imzadi. –CG^Talk 19:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• The barnstar idea is a good one. Another might be recognition on either the project's page or newsletter. Fortguy (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
• Barnstar idea is very good. —Onore Baka Sama^{(speak | stalk)} 14:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

What should our goal be for 2011?

• I'd like to see a two-part goal for 2011. We should further reduce the stub count another 30-40% off the total at the start of the year. The second part would be to reduce the number of Start-Class articles by expanding them to C-Class or better. Since a lot of the Stubs will likely become Starts, I would suggest that overall we aim to reduce this count by only 10-20%. This will augment some of the 2010 efforts which should have increased the project's Start count as a consequence of decreasing the Stub count. Imzadi 1979 → 08:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• I'd say finishing our 2010 goal - we're almost at 50%, if we push we could do all 3000. The Start-Class goal mentioned above sounds promising, but I don't know if 20% is doable. --Rschen7754 09:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• I'd say give the Stub-Class elimination another go at 2K. Until the majority of the C-Class and lower articles are Start-Class, I wouldn't worry about the Start-Class count that much. – TMF 16:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• I like 2000 as a goal for 2011. We have a much better understanding of what we need to do so I think it is a highly realistic number, more so than it would have been last year. I disagree with a Start-class goal because de-Starting articles requires history resources, which are often much more imposing than resources to add a Route description and Junction list. I think each of us should formally adopt a state in which to do destubbing work in which we set a goal to kill one stub a day, five stubs a week, or some other realistic personal goal. Finally, we should continue to try to find resources for those states that now appear to lack them and teach new editors how to de-stub.  VC  18:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• As mentioned above, call for a reduction of 2000 stubs. Dough4872 19:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• To set the same goal, but move the deadline slightly earlier. –CG^Talk 19:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• For the first time I can remember since joining the project about three years ago, the wikiwork table shows that the average USRD article is just above start-class. I feel a large part of that has to do with this stub drive. So I think continuing to reach the original 2010 goal should be a priority. When expanding stubs, we should aim to bring them up to C-class or better, that way there is less to worry about once the stubs are gone and work begins on start-class articles. -- LJ ↗ 20:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• More county road lists, to redirect county road articles to. ----DanTD (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
• I think stub reduction, for most of us, should remain the focus; however, those who write for states that have already been destubbed should work on improving start-class articles. Fortguy (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
• I like the 2011 idea. It's roughly half of what's left, but only slightly more than the remainder of the previous goal. So I don't think it's impossible, and I think it'll be fruitful. —Onore Baka Sama^{(speak | stalk)} 14:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Start-Class reduction

• To clarify my Start-Class reduction goal, based on the current numbers, a 10% reduction would be the upgrading of 271 articles, plus one in every ten stubs that's expanded into a Start-Class article. Assuming we aim and reach another 2000 stubs removed only through expansion, that's a grand total of 471 additional article expansions. If Maryland alone were to de-start in 2011, that would mean the expansion of 163 articles. New York currently has 131 Starts. California has another 124. That's not assuming that some of the Start-Class count is not removed through the same administrative methods as the Stub-Class count (merger, deletion, removing USRD tags for falling outside project scope). Double the numbers above for a 20% reduction. Imzadi 1979 → 20:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• I do not think we should include de-starting in this campaign because (a) the emphasis should be solely on stubs; (b) there is a different mentality involved in expanding articles start to C versus stub to start; and (c) the start goal above is something that does not need a dedicated drive. The three examples you give (MD, NY, and CA) have dedicated editors for whom de-starting their own state is plausible and likely a personal goal. I certainly know I want to de-start Maryland in the coming year. I do not need any additional incentive to do that; the reward of closing out something locally is far greater than meeting a national goal that is likely to be hit regardless of whether it is set. I do not think people are going to be ready to take on a de-start campaign outside of their comfort zones until their comfort zones are de-started.  VC  21:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• I think a start-class reduction may help for editors interested in improving articles in states currently with no stubs, such as DE and NE. I know the former has good history resources which could help get articles to B-class, and DE can realistically be destarted as there are relatively few articles. Dough4872 23:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• The case for this is relative to the state subproject. Some DOTs, such as in TX, provide many mapping and history tools, and articles in these states are easily upgraded from stub to C-class or higher. There really isn't any reason to have stub or start articles in these states except that they were either written by fly-by-night editors or they are older articles predating our current standards. Other DOTs, such as NM, provide little or no historic info and no detailed local mapping. The only resources for these states is often less than authoritative websites with broad, general descriptions such as "built during the 1950s". I don't live there, so going to a library is not really an option. Fortguy (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

Let's make this formal. There were two options that stuck out for a 2011 stub-removing goal – finish the original 3000 and a new goal of 2000. Which would you prefer? Just sign below. –Fredddie™ 21:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think the consensus is overwhelming. The only decision left is to decide between the even 2000 or the gimmick 2011.  VC  21:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Gimmicks are Good: +1 for 2011. – TMF 06:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I say stick with an even 2000. Dough4872 01:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I like VC's title for the gimmick... which means I could put together a different poster for the project page, so 2011 it is. Imzadi 1979 → 01:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

New goal of 2000 from January 1

1. – TMF 00:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Admrboltz (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Add 11 more and you get a deal.Mitch32^{(Transportation Historian)} 00:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
4. We should start from scratch with a new goal. Dough4872 02:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
5. Fortguy (talk) 02:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
6. Rschen7754 03:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
7. Would this be a goal of 2000 stubs from this day forward, or 2000 total including the original stub drive? -- LJ ↗ 10:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

   I assume 2000 stubs off the January 1, 2011 count. Imzadi 1979 → 10:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

   You are correct. <Jan 1 stub count>-2000=2011 goal –Fredddie™ 23:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

8. I'll support either 2000 or 2011 stubs as a goal. Imzadi 1979 → 10:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
9. 2011: A De-Stubbing Odyssey  VC  18:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
10. 2011. Mostly because that poster is awesome. —Onore Baka Sama^{(speak | stalk)} 14:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

MOS:RJL question

See: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (road junction lists)#Dashes and or emphasis in RJL --Admrboltz (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed demotion of OR, GA, RI projects

See WT:USRD/SUB. --Rschen7754 22:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Projects were all demoted. Pages were moved, WP:USRD/SUB and various template links updated. -- LJ ↗ 09:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed VA-WV 311 Merger

Resolved

 – Merge completed. --Admrboltz (talk) 02:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Virginia State Route 311.  VC  03:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Scope discussion

Talk:Manette Bridge --Admrboltz (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Zero mile marker → Kilometre Zero#United States

See Talk:Kilometre Zero#Merger. --Admrboltz (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I-95 NY Merge proposal

See Talk:Interstate 95 in New York#Merge proposal. Dough4872 03:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion SR 759 → I-759

See Talk:Interstate 759 for discussion. –Fredddie™ 21:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

More NY merge proposals

See Talk:U.S. Route 11 in New York#Merge proposal and Talk:New York State Route 27#Prospect Expy merge proposal. Dough4872 05:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Mergers

• 494 Corridor Commission into Interstate 494. See discussion.
• Abbott Drive into Iowa Highway 165. See discussion.

--Admrboltz (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Dormant task forces

The current working practice of USRD is to demote inactive state highway WikiProjects to taskforces, where they remain indefinitely until activity resumes in that state, if at all. It has been proposed on off-wiki channels to delete some of the task forces that have remained inactive for years and redirect them to USRD. I thought I would bring the matter here for discussion. --Rschen7754 22:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I see no problems with doing that. Just make sure any relevant data is copied to the resources section. --Admrboltz (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Admrboltz, but what should we set the minimum amount of activity at? –CG^Talk 22:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we are safe CG :p. --Admrboltz (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

This would be resolved through a discussion for each task force. --Rschen7754 22:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I would prefer keeping the task force pages that we have now to list USRD standards and article assessments specific to a certain state. In addition, I wouldn't be opposed to creating task force pages for states without a subproject or task force currently. Dough4872 03:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Assessment standards have been handled at the USRD-level for years, and I can't think of a state-specific deviation from those standards. As for creating additional TF pages, the major benefit with them is to have state-specific talk pages so that all of the collaborative discussion doesn't happen on this talk page. If the state doesn't have much activity, it doesn't need to be segregated out to a different page. The rest of a TF/subproject is either a home for resources or deviations from the article standards. Unless there's enough activity in a state, the articles should be following the national standards.

As for the original proposal, I don't have a problem with deleting TFs that have been inactive for years. Imzadi 1979 → 03:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to pose two questions for the group: (1) Is there any harm in leaving the dormant task forces the way they are? and (2) What is the expected benefit of removing the inactive state pages? It seems the status quo has been fine, so I'm just wondering what is the impetus for this proposed change. -- LJ ↗ 18:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

At least in my mind, leaving them sit there, unattended, runs the risk of unwanted changes (vandalism, if you will) that could distort agreed-upon standards or provide incorrect resources to editors. Another issue will crop up when DOTs update their websites and break links. If we don't have at least one active editor monitoring a state, we'll have broken links on TF subpages. At least if those links are rolled into the USRD resources page, someone from the main project should be checking them occasionally to make sure every link on the USRD page still works. Imzadi 1979 → 19:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

On the subproject page, I suggested making a boilerplate template for use on task force pages. We could make it to reflect project standards and then protect it to elude vandalism. –Fredddie™ 00:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

For the record I think redirecting would be better than deleting, so the page histories remain intact. --Rschen7754 22:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I was one of the editors (if not the only one) that originally tossed out this idea on IRC months ago. My logic was that these inactive task forces are often littered with outdated items, whether it be obsolete article standards or busted resource links. Additionally, since they're inactive, the talk pages aren't being used. Since we already have a resources page (WP:USRD/RES) for states without projects and a standards page that already lays out a default article structure, I'm not seeing how the inactive task forces are of any use to anyone. About the only use I can think of is a set of custom standards to accommodate for some local quirk, but I doubt any of the states in question are developed enough to need a custom structure.

As has been said above, I think redirection is the way to go in the event someone wants to revive the projects. I would suggest redirecting both the project and talk pages to WP: and WT:USRD, respectively, so that someone looking for help with that state arrives at a place where they can get that help. – TMF 06:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I don't really care what happens with most of these task forces, just wanted to see some of the reasoning. In regards to the resources, I kinda think that few people are likely to update broken links if not being actively used, whether they're at a state project page or on WP:USRD/RES. However, I can understand about outdated standards and such.

I would hope that an activity level or some other "litmus test" be decided upon before any task force is suggested for redirecting. Also, let's make sure to not redirect blindly--someone should review each one to make sure everything of possible interest (state-specific standards, userboxes, templates, etc.) be documented in some other accessible location. -- LJ ↗ 09:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Implementation

It seems that most people are okay with doing this. Next proposal: I propose that we implement this in a way similar to how the demotion of projects are currently handled - with the template, and the 7 day discussion, and all. --Rschen7754 06:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Support with the condition that a written to-do list be made of what needs to be done to preserve all information, such as resources and state-specific guidelines, before a task force is dissolved.  VC  05:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Support, per VC. -- LJ ↗ 10:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• An obvious support based on my comments in the other section. VC's implementation idea sounds good to me. – TMF 05:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems like there's consensus; trying to avoid this section from being archived until I get time to implement. --Rschen7754 23:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Done, now time to pick the projects to redirect. --Rschen7754 22:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Regional task forces

This may be an ill-conceived afterthought, but what if we folded all the task forces into regions? I'd propose using the four main census regions as a guide. The benefit would be to not bury the inactive states and give states that don't have any page somewhere to go. The current resource pages can be split among the four regions and turned into disambig pages.

I do not advocate forcing the current subprojects into the regional task forces, but they would have a place to go if they ever became inactive. We could possibly merge in subproject resources, but that can discussed later. –Fredddie™ 23:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• I could get behind this. I assume you are refering to the same regions that are fed into Category:United States road stubs? --Admrboltz (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Forgot all about those categories. Yeah, the two would line up. –Fredddie™ 23:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
    • And if we do this (I'm thinking this is a good idea) then I'd suggest a 5th "region" for the island territories (PR, GU, AS, MP, VI) to complete the consolidation. Imzadi 1979 → 00:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I'd support an territory region. –Fredddie™ 00:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• My main concern about this idea is the implication that these task forces are a formal means of working on all states within a region. It is very rare that a collection of article work occurs based on regions; most work is done in individual states. I understand we are not being arbitrary with the contents of each region, but I do not think we need to merge task forces based on regional geography or territorial status. On the other hand, if this proposal is to better organize resources and information about states, then I may be able to get behind this idea. However, I would like to see some arguments on how this actually improves resource retrieval and might encourage more work in underserved states.  VC  01:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree 100%. – TMF 01:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Annotated USRD standards

I was looking over a discussion, the open thread on Template talk:Infobox road to be exact, and WP:USRD/STDS was referenced. I was thinking it would be a good idea to annotate why our standards are what they are. I mean, what discussions/arguments/arbcoms led to where we are today. I think it would be useful for other roads projects to see how we got to where we are. This could be extended to any of our pages, but I was really thinking of the standards first. –Fredddie™ 23:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. --Admrboltz (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

+1 from me too. The Wiki-wide MOS has something like this to document why parts of the MOS are the way they are, and doing the same for our standards could be beneficial in the long run. – TMF 02:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Support. --Rschen7754 00:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Me too. Imzadi 1979 → 01:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Wrong shield

I was going over the Capital Beltway article, and I noticed the shield for the exit at VA 90004. It's wrong. Circle shields in Virginia are for secondary routes; all routes in the 90000-series are primary routes, and so should have the Virginia highway shield. --Tim Sabin (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Are shields even required for those routes? Last I knew, none of the 90000-series routes were signed. –Fredddie™ 23:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. I have added a noshield parameter to the jct template in the exit list so the 90004 shield is not displayed.  VC  01:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Old unusable shield images

• File:County 15.png → File:County 15.svg
• File:County 20.png → File:County 20.svg
• File:County road 35.png → File:County 35.svg

Back in December I nominated these for deletion on Commons due to their poor quality, inaccuracy, and redundancy to the newer SVG images.

The deletion requests were closed as keep with a statement that didn't reflect the reasoning to delete, and the administrator who did so refuses to acknowledge the actual problems with the images and the actual deletion rationale.

I'm not sure if its considered bad form if I renominate these myself, but maybe if a few editors commented on new deletion requests it might get the message across? --Sable232 (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you are out of line at all. You are certainly not the only one who has left the Image for Deletion process on commons scratching your head wondering what happened. Yeah, post the link to the deletion discussion and I think a few people from this project will vote support. Dave (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC) PS, I had one instance where a deletion nomination on commons almost failed, people were voting keep when I had ample proof to show the image was a hoax, and the sole purpose for uploading the image was to be used on hoax articles on wikipedia. Shocking how naive they are over there.

The problem on Commons is that they have a belief that anything can be used for something. So most people there default to keep stuff that's obviously crap. –Fredddie™ 20:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I would make new SVG ones for 15, 20 and 35 and tag them as {{VVA|County xx.svg}} and {{Obsolete|County xx.svg}}then nom for deletion. --Admrboltz (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

We basically have that, just not at the same names. But even if someone (I don't have the capability to create SVGs) uploaded accurate ones to those names, they could throw out that "not identical to the SVG" bit same as this time. --Sable232 (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

 will do when I get home... --Admrboltz (talk) 04:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)  Done --Admrboltz (talk) 06:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

There's at least one CDH shield for a CR in MI that doesn't exist in the county named on the shield, and according to the zones and grid numbering, can't exist there. I bet if I track it down again and renominate it for deletion, it will be kept. Commons is notorious of keeping everything, but there are bright spots. The SVG for the Capitol Loop was clearly superior to the PNG, and I could demonstrate why. An admin there actually closed that deletion request to remove it. Imzadi 1979 → 21:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Stub Type Discussions

Since they aren't implemented in AA yet:

• MD Stub type upmerger: Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/January/21
• PR Stub type creation: Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2011/January#Puerto Rico Road Stubs

--Admrboltz (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

List of highways numbered ... / dab page discussion

For those interested: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Linking to a DAB that redirects from a DAB. Basically, two options are being presented: fold all designation-related dab pages into the list of numbered highways series of set index articles, or list all disambiguated designations on the set index articles and have dab pages for each ambiguous designation. Discussion is ongoing at the link above. – TMF 15:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Highway X was featured in Y

When is it appropriate to mention in a highway article that a story was set or filmed along a highway? This is a general question spurred from a specific one currently taking place in an article. There's a lot of grey area, that may make it impossible to have a universal rule. Here's some numbered cases:

1. A significant scene in movie is filmed along a specific highway, but the story is set along a generic highway or a different highway (Examples: Duel filmed along CA-14, setting is generic desert highway; Thelma & Louise has a major scene set along Arizona 64 (with prop shields) but was filmed along Utah 313)
2. A highway is mentioned by name in a story, but that specific highway does not form any significant part of the storyline (Example: Back to the Future, prop US-8 and US-395 signs visible)
3. A MINOR scene is set on a specific highway, but no major scene (Example: Forest Gump, one scene set and filmed along US-163)
4. A significant scene is set along a highway, the story setting and visual depiction are relatively accurate (Example: US-66, The Grapes of Wrath)
5. A significant scene is set along a highway, the story setting is accurate, but he visual depiction is not accurate. (Example: I-70, The Stand by Stephen King)
6. A significant scene is set along a specific highway, but the setting does not even closely match reality and/or the movie is not widely known by the general public. (Example: US-666 in US-666)
7. A road story does not specify the highway(s) by name in the story, but it can easily be inferred from details in the story (Examples: I-80 Kingpin; US-66 & US-160, National Lampoon's Vacation)
8. A specific highway is mentioned in a story, setting is plausible but with significant discrepancies (US-60, Rain Man)

I'd like at least some generic discussion on where is that line done. I know we can all list examples, but please only list more examples if they are as grey as the ones mentioned above. Dave (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

My belief is that the highway article should not mention the route's place in popular culture, with the obvious exception of US 66. Instead, the pop culture article, for instance Back to the Future, should be the place where the highways are mentioned. –Fredddie™ 01:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit, that's a great way to keep it simple. Dave (talk) 01:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course, if one highway has multiple popular culture mentions, then it would be appropriate to list them individually. One appearance though does not a pop culture section make. Imzadi 1979 → 01:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I personally think it is interesting for highway articles to note their roles in pop culture, as this lends some notability to the road. As for having a pop culture section, it may need to be determined on a case-by-case basis, with roads having limited cultural mentioned discussing them in the RD or history while roads with several cultural references having an entire section. Of course, these claims should be referenced if they are mentioned in the article. Dough4872 06:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Fredddie on this. Unless the road's been featured in several things, any pop culture mention is little more than trivia. – TMF 13:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed. --Rschen7754 09:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

An "unofficial" project project

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Featured topics

 – Admrboltz (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Inflation

According the comments made at FAC and reinforced with a message box on the documentation for {{inflation}}, that template is using Consumer Price Index (CPI) to calculate its end result. Roads, as capital expenses, should be using a different inflationary adjustment technique. For the time being, I've commented out all of the inflationary adjustments in M-6 (Michigan highway) and I'm going to suggest that others using the template in their articles do the same on articles coming up for review. I'm going to post on the template's talk page, maybe they can update it with a parameter to give us better results in the future. Imzadi 1979 → 10:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised somebody would make that big of a deal of this. I think it's understood _or at least it should be_ that when someone gives an inflation adjusted figure, it is a crude estimate based from a simple figure (such as the CPI), intended to give an idea of the sacrifice of the person signing the check to pay for it. To actually go back and figure the inflation for every material, plus try to adjust the labor (which is impossible, as construction methodologies change over time) to give a accurate figure, is both impossible, and a waste of time to even try. Dave (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I have heard (so it might be an old husband's tale) that construction costs rise 1% a month, which would result in a yearly increase of about 12.7%. I do not know how far back this very rough rule of thumb applies. I seem to remember CPI increases are about 2% a year. These numbers are based on a specific basket of goods that are supposed to be representative, but rarely reflects reality. So the comments seem correct in principle; the conversions are not particularly helpful if the goal is accuracy. This is one of the reasons I do not like quoting capital expenses in article to which I contribute. In practice, unless there is a template to deal with capital expenses, and they can point you to it, then you should be able to argue that you are working with the best tools available to you.  VC  16:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Using an average increase in construction prices may work for a decade or so, but not for long term. The example I have in my head is the Dewey Bridge, built in 1916. To scientifically reprice the construction would be futile. The bridge was built by importing timber, via rail, from the Rocky Mountains, and Steel from Kansas City. Nobody would do that today, 1 - that steel mill is probably long gone and the dynamics of the steel industry is significantly different. 2- spot shipping via rails was common then, but is expensive today (as our rail network is now optimized for transporting mass quantities, not one off shipments, which usually go by truck.) 3- a similar bridge today would surely be made from concrete, not wood. As such, IMO, a generic $25 million then is about $500 million today, based from a reliable index, is sufficient. Dave (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The one argument came from the Grand Coulee Dam FAC, not M-6. Given that M-6's FAC should be at a point where it can be closed as a promotion, I removed the inflationary adjustments to prevent an 11th hour discussion about them in the FAC page from derailing the nomination. In other words, to prevent Fifelfoo or someone else from coming to the discussion, like was done very early at Grand Coulee, and objecting or even opposing the article on this issue 16 days after the nomination was opened and 6 editors have supported its promotion. Unfortunately, we now have the discussion on the FAC page I did not want.

Now, I did post a request at Template talk:Inflation seeking an alternative calculation method. Perhaps instead of typing {{inflation|US|144000|1981|r=-3}} to convert $144,000 in 1981 to 2011 values using CPI, we could have {{inflation|US|144000|1981|r=-3|method=MW}} to use the Measured Worth calculation method or {{inflation|US|144000|1981|r=-3|method=GDP}} to the relative share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) calculation method. If something similar is added to the template (and an corresponding update to the citation {{inflation-fn}}), then I'll restore the inflationary adjustments. Now I just need to hope that this development does not derail an otherwise successful-looking FAC. Imzadi 1979 → 23:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. A similar argument is brewing at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Walden–Wallkill Rail Trail/archive1 involving the copyright status of an image used for Portal:Trains. The nominator has been advised to just remove the portal box completely, rather than derail the FAC on one point. (Pun, not intended.) Like that portal box, these adjustments can be reinserted when the issue is resolved. Imzadi 1979 → 23:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Portal:United States

Now that WPUS is up and running and the US Wikipedian's collaboration is rebuilt, I wanted to focus on cleaning up and revamping Portal:United States. First, Per a comment on the talk page, I have added the US roads portal to the list of US related portals on the bottom of the portal main page.

As one of the most active US related WikiProjects I also wanted to ask if anyone would be interested in adding a selected article related to the US roads to the list of featured articles. If not perhaps you could suggest one and I will add it? The article should preferably be GA or higher quality or it may be B class if it is high or top importance. --Kumioko (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are 31 Featured Articles (and hopefully that will be 33 soon) and 23 A-Class articles (hopefully soon to be 21) for the project. I don't think we need to consider much lower on the scale than that. From Michigan, I'd personally nominate either M-35 (Michigan highway) or M-28 (Michigan highway) for consideration. The former has a very interesting history related to Henry Ford, and the latter is the longest non-Interstate, non-US state highway in the state. I'm sure editors from other states will have recommendations. If it's ok, I'd suggest adding more than one roads article to the portal's rotation and spacing them out geographically. Highways are one of those things that everyone uses in this country so it would be good to have a small number of high-quality articles used. Imzadi 1979 → 21:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, the Portal is setup to select them at random so when a reader goes to the portal they won't see the same content over and over so adding multiple road related ones is fine. --Kumioko (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I say the article nominated should be a major Interstate or long road as such, otherwise people will think it's an unimportant article. --PCB 23:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless you want to vote on it within the project I understand but for now there is no nomination, just go ahead and add it. As far as being considered unimportant I wouldn't worry about that, importance and notability are always subjective. --Kumioko (talk) 01:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm hoping that other project members will chime in with suggestions, so we can come up with say 4 or so candidates for addition. Many highway FAs have been on the Main Page, meaning we don't have to go far to get a good blurb. For those that haven't been up there, we have several that were on P:USRD to recycle those blurbs out of the archives. I'm less concerned with "importance" over quality. Any portal should be about showcasing the best content for that topic. If you want, work on the parent article for a major Interstate and get it through FAC. Imzadi 1979 → 01:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Even with certain developments, the concept and the request are sound. I would like the project to nominated 4 articles we can add to this portal. My thoughts are:

1. From Michigan: M-35 (Michigan highway)
2. From Colorado: Interstate 70 in Colorado
3. From New York: New York State Route 22
4. From Maryland: U.S. Route 40 Alternate (Keysers Ridge – Cumberland, Maryland)

These represent geographic diversity (Midwest, West, Northeast, South), diversity of classification (state, Interstate, US Highway, special route) and they all are Featured Articles. I welcome any substitutions that might be suggested, and I hope we can make the additions to the portal in a timely fashion. Imzadi 1979 → 23:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Alternate list as discussed on IRC:

1. Brockway Mountain Drive (A-Class, county-maintained future FAC)
2. U.S. Route 50 in Nevada
3. New York State Route 22
4. Interstate 68

Imzadi 1979 → 03:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

When we finalize our choices, and tweak any blurbs, can we add them to Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Portal blurbs before one of us copies them over to the other portal? Imzadi 1979 → 04:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Due to severe misunderstandings and a perception that I was acting inappropriately I have left WikProject United States and will no longer be participating as an active member nor will I be editing the Portal, Collaboration or Noticeboard. I still encourage you to submit these but recommend either making the change your self or leave a comment on the portals talk page recommending the article or articles be added. Good luck. --Kumioko (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions regarding this project and Portal:United States

I have added a recommendation to the talk page of Portal:United States for Consideration. Since we have more than 200 US related projects, about 75 of which are active in some capacity, I would like to add a section to the portal to feature a project (I am trying to determine the interval but I was thinking random pick like the articles are). I believe this would draw interest to the projects, to the articles they support and even to the portal itself (at least from the members of that projet I hope). Does anyone have any comments, concerns or suggestions with regards to doing this? As one of the more active projects I was considering profiling US roads as one of the first along with NRHP and United States (not sure about the order yet) starting February 1st adding more after that. --Kumioko (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I might suggest that we iron out the scope of WikiProject United States and its relationship with the 200 other WikiProjects first. Perhaps we should discuss this as a part of the RFC that was since created. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 13:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-AA Workflow Deletion Notifications

• See: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 January 29 --Admrboltz (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
• See: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AkosSzoboszlay/Expressways in Santa Clara County --Admrboltz (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

NV merge proposal

See Talk:Nevada State Route 582#Merge proposal. Dough4872 05:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Major intersections

What happened to listing "major intersections" in the infobox? Right now we just have south/west end and north/east end, which ends up looking a tad confusing. CL (T · C) — 20:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

What are you referring to? The article you linked too looks fine. --Admrboltz (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

He's talking about how the text "Major intersections" doesn't show up in the infobox, so it looks as if the major intersections list were part of the "West end" section. - Algorerhythms (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, right, sorry. I don't remember when that went away... --Admrboltz (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It vanished during the restyling last year IIRC. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It vanished after the restyling, actually. There was duplication with the section header and the parameter title both saying Major junctions. It wasn't perfect, but the solution was to eliminate the parameter title. –Fredddie™ 23:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, alright I guess. CL (T · C) — 03:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Cite news

I thought this was an appropriate place to ask this since Template talk:Cite news isn't really responsive.

I typed in the following text for a reference: <ref>{{cite news|title=Sand Creek Cleanup Shows Heart|date=September 13, 2004|newspaper=Denver Post|accessdate=February 1, 2011}}</ref> into Interstate 270 (Colorado). The reference appeared like this: "Sand Creek Cleanup Shows Heart". Denver Post. September 13, 2004. What happened to the accessdate? Did I write something wrong? --PCB 00:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It only shows (and is only used with) a URL. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

To add to Floydian's comments, the point of the |accessdate parameter is for an internet link. Should the link die, having a date when the link was known to be good will help in finding an archive of the linked page. Dave (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Oops. But shouldn't the date be in parantheses? --PCB 01:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The date only goes in parentheses when there's an author listed. In that situation, the author goes first followed by the publication date. If there's no author, the date is shifted towards the end and left out of parentheses. Imzadi 1979 → 01:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry for the mistake. --PCB 03:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

No mistake, don't apologize. The templates set up the formatting a little differently for the particular situation, and if you're not used to it, there's a little learning curve. Imzadi 1979 → 03:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

VA merge proposal

See Talk:Virginia State Route 168#Merge proposal. Dough4872 03:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

MA merge proposal

See Talk:U.S. Route 1 in Massachusetts#Merge proposal. Dough4872 04:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Maps task force request page

I created a new map request form on WP:USRD/MTF/R. If you've used the Highway Route Marker Bot on Commons, it should be fairly similar. A couple additions I made were a color code for how long a request has sat. Under 60 days, it's green. Between 60 and 120 days, it's yellow. From 120 days to 1 year, it's red. After a year, it's black. The colors were arbitrary as were the lengths of time. The other addition was a template that tells what class the article is.

Right now the only downfall I can see is that it starts with second-level headings. I want to make sure it works before I make a request to change everything officially. –Fredddie™ 03:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

State tagging for partially-decommissioned U.S. highways

If an existing U.S. Highway (or Interstate) has been shortened and no longer enters a state it once did, does the USRD banner on that highway's article still include those states? For example, U.S. 77 is tagged for Minnesota and South Dakota but no longer enters either state. I've seen other cases where the article isn't tagged for states it no longer enters. --Sable232 (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how it should be, but U.S. Route 40, U.S. Route 60, U.S. Route 66, U.S. Route 70, U.S. Route 91 & U.S. Route 99 are all tagged in states where the route no longer runs. Dave (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I would tag it since a route did exist and has history present in that state. For example, U.S. Route 46 is tagged PA because it once entered that state and has history in the article pertaining to PA. If a state detail page for a US route redirects to another article, such as what the route became in a certain state, then the main US route page should not be tagged for that state. Dough4872 01:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this assessment. As an aside, US 7 is tagged for NY for the reasons detailed above. – TMF 06:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have re-tagged U.S. Route 16 for Minnesota (but not Wisconsin, since its state detail page redirects to WI-16) based on the above. --Sable232 (talk) 03:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

A heads-up

The IP from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 16#More poor IP edits is back. See Special:Contributions/98.81.9.116. – TMF 05:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yet another merge proposal

Latham Circle → Latham, New York. Discussion is at Talk:Latham, New York#merger?. – TMF 10:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Future Interstates

In my draft of the Article Interstate 49 in Missouri at User:Intelati/Sandbox/1, is the exit list fine or will that have to wait until 2012 when the new interstate opens?--intelati^talk 02:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's wait until 2012. –Fredddie™ 02:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Well that was faster than expected. For the article, or just for the exit list.--intelati^talk 02:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

For the article, because as the article stands now it can never be more than a stub. --AdmrBoltz 02:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, Thanks.--intelati^talk 02:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Until the road is actually signed, please don't add such a thing to any article. That would fall under original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Second comment, but look over MOS:RJL, the international road junction list section of the Manual of Style (MOS). The "MO" abbreviation should not be used in your table, "Exit" should be spelled out instead of #, and you need either {{jctbtm}} or {{legendRJL}} on the bottom of the table. (If you're not using colored backgrounds, use the first one.) Last thing, but "Rural" isn't a place, and if there is a Rural, Missouri, it's apparently a very big city, village, town or township to span that many counties. Take a look at M-6 (Michigan highway) for the latest freeway article from USRD to pass WP:FAC for some inspiration. Imzadi 1979 → 02:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Route 179

As part of splitting routes out of List of minor routes in Pennsylvania, I was interested in removing Pennsylvania Route 179 out of the list. Since it is a fairly short route and mutually related to New Jersey Route 179, I feel the best option is to merge the route with NJ 179. In doing so, should the title of the article remain New Jersey Route 179 for the longer route or become Route 179 (New Jersey – Pennsylvania) for a combined route? In addition, I am also asking for how the infobox for the combined article should appear. Dough4872 02:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I would keep the NJ 179 name personally. --AdmrBoltz 02:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a heads-up, someone set this up for me to improve my writing. (And I never finished.) Anyhow, I already wrote the route description for the article. I would only set it up as the double route if it is often referred as Route 179 New Jersey.....by PennDOT and NJDOT. It's been done, though, with success. At State Route 74 (New York – Vermont), the combined name was used although the Vermont section is shorter, as well as at State Route 78 (Arizona – New Mexico), where the New Mexico section is shorter. However, these cases are not as extreme as Route 179. --PCB 02:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand we have British Columbia Highway 15 which includes WA 543--AdmrBoltz 02:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

If the article is to be kept at the NJ 179 title, should the infobox be like BC 15 where it includes both shields with prominence at the top of just include the NJ 179 shield at the top with a PA 179 shield in the browse? Dough4872 03:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally I would add both, but you east coasters do things differently :p --AdmrBoltz 03:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The difference (IMHO) between this case and NY/VT 74 and AZ/NM 78 is that while in those cases one is a bit shorter than the other, the shorter segment is still fairly lengthy in its own right (i.e. significantly longer than PA 179's 1.3 miles). Given that, I think it would be fine to just keep the New Jersey Route 179 title, but there shouldn't be a problem with using both states if you'd prefer. – 71.227.218.208 (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Commons Deletion Request

There is currently a discussion here to delete some rather redundant shields made by User:Route11 on Commons.Mitch32^{(Erie Railroad Information Hog)} 01:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Featured portal candidate: United States

Portal:United States is a current featured portal candidate. Please feel free to leave comments. -- RichardF (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:USRD/ACR change

I propose limiting ACR so that only Good Articles can be nominated. Are there objections? --Rschen7754 06:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a logical change to me. For one thing, I can't remember the last time anything besides a GA was nominated for A-Class. The only reason B-Class articles were ever allowed was that the pool of GAs was much smaller when ACR was launched in 2007 - just 16 deep at the time the first ACR nomination was made in November. The pool is fairly substantial now, numbering in the hundreds, and literally growing by the day. – TMF 06:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I too think this is a logical change given that it would just codify the de facto process into the de jure. Any exceptions could be handled by WP:IAR, but honestly, if even one editor felt that an article was an appropriate exception, that editor could confer GA status through the GAN process before the ACR nomination. Imzadi 1979 → 09:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I can get behind this. --AdmrBoltz 16:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no objections. For the record, what I've observed in my snooping around at FAC is there seems to be a sliding standards. I have seen B and C class standard articles be given serious consideration at FAC, but this seems to be because the topic is underrepresented and deemed important (such as science and math topics). However, if you're nominating a Simpson's episode for FAC, that article better have passed a GAC nomination or you're going to get booed off the FAC stage. =-) (For the record, I have no problems with that sliding standard.) In our case, as we have fought pretty hard to keep our scope narrow, I don't think we need a sliding standard and requiring a GA as minimum starting point is ok with me. Dave (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, this is kind of a moot point because virtually all ACR noms are GAs. However, I am not opposed to such a requirement. Dough4872 18:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not like GAN takes too long anyway. USRD articles pass in and out of GAN within maybe a week, unlike other articles. If GAN took three week or a month, a lazy editor would send it directly to ACR, but I think the new requirement would make sense. --PCB 21:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Since the consensus here is clear - and I don't anticipate it changing - I've made the change. – TMF 23:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I have a related change I'd like to toss out for some discussion. Since GAN and FAC have set criteria, and our A-Class articles now by definition will fall in between those levels, I'm wondering if we couldn't/shouldn't formulate a checklist of sorts for A-Class in our project. In other words, what are the general things that we agree an article must do or must have before A-Class is appropriately conferred. Such a list of criteria would allow potential nominators to double check before completing the nomination. Imzadi 1979 → 05:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Perhaps we can take the FA criteria and cross out or make easier the ones that seem to hard. For now, editors are only using their own judgment. --PCB 05:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST has a list of their A-Class criteria at WP:MH/A. I'm thinking we could almost copy theirs verbatim, and alter it for USRD standards. (We have a defined article structure, we use MOS:RJL, etc.) The only additions I'd make are to #5 for a licensing/image check, and a #6 to require a check for disambiguation links and external links. Both are things that are done at FAC, that we should do at ACR. That way, if one of our A-Class articles goes to FAC, a project member that helped review the article can comment in the FAC that the article's images and links are good. Imzadi 1979 → 07:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It was my impression that at A-class level the article would be expected to do reasonably well at FAC, so the FA standards should be followed. --Rschen7754 07:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The "official" A-Class criteria are at WP:A?, the first paragraph of which is repeated on our ACR page. We can clone the FA criteria, but A-Class should be an intermediate level between GAs and FAs, or there's not much point to A-Class. Yes, our project members use it, and successfully, to gain a wider level of opinion and a finer level of review before a potential FAC, but A≠FA and ACR≠FAC. Some articles will never go any higher than ACR/A-Class because the reviewer pool at FAC won't support them, even if they do technically meet the criteria. As it stands right now, we don't exactly have any checklist, just a paragraph that basically says "the article if promoted here should probably pass FAC if nominated". The first time M-6 (Michigan highway) got FA-level scrutiny on its images was Admrboltz commenting to me on AIM right before it went to FAC. That should have happened in the ACR itself, but the ACR page doesn't prompt image reviews. The level of scrutiny has risen at FAC on other issues like copyvios and plagiarism as well.

I guess I'm looking for a cheatsheet that if we check A, B and C then know the article is worthy of promotion. If a reviewer at ACR doesn't feel like checking C, then he can note that his support is based on A and B, but someone needs to comment on C before the article is promoted. Imzadi 1979 → 07:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

{[Wikipedia :WikiProject U.S. Roads/ACR checklist samples]] has two samples, one cloned from WP:WIAFA and one cloned from WP:MH/A, but both doing the same thing. Imzadi 1979 → 08:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I have another relevant question regarding ACR changes. Is ACR intending to be a peer review for articles heading to FA? Or is it just another class between FA and GA? If it is the latter, then there should definitely be more A-class articles than FA's. In that case, we might have to do a large GA search for A-worthy articles. --PCB 00:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I see ACR as both, to be honest. It's clearly the latter by definition, and it's also definitely the former since most of our FAs have gone through the ACR process in order to be highly refined by the time they reach FAC. Someone could sweep through the GAs looking for A-Class candidates in an effort to boost the number of A-Class articles, but honestly there are better things to invest time into, like expanding subpar articles to "complete" (B-Class or higher) status. – TMF 05:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I've sent a small handful of articles through ACR with no intention of sending them to FAC. Maybe after a couple hundred other MI articles pass FAC I'll consider it. In those cases, A-Class is a way to recognize an article that's better than being just a GA and gain some additional feedback for it. In other cases, yes, ACR is a step on the GAC–ACR–FAC ladder. Imzadi 1979 → 05:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Problem with Template:Jct

There is an added gap, at least on my display, between the banner and the shield. –Fredddie™ 01:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

US 18 Bus.

I-90 BL / US 16 Bus.

I'm getting the same the issues on M-46. Imzadi 1979 → 01:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the issue's present for all banners, whether it's US-Bus, SR-Bus, etc. That said, I can't see what's wrong: the source code looks fine, and AFAICT the wiki markup of Jct and its subtemplates hasn't been changed recently. Perhaps it has something to do with the MW 1.17 upgrade. – TMF 04:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

After trying out some previews in a sandbox, I'm convinced that it's not an issue with Jct. I took two raw images, resized them to a size roughly equal to that of a shield generated by Jct, put a line break between them, and got the same gap that's shown above. After some tests, my guess is that it has something to do with some sitewide CSS that was added in the upgrade, specifically some dealing with the line-height property. – TMF 05:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Could we get around it it by specifying valign=bottom for the banner line? –Fredddie™ 13:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

From what I can tell, whatever caused it has been fixed. –Fredddie™ 14:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Goodbye US Roads?

The pointer to this project from Talk:Transportation in Georgia (U.S. state) was changed by Freddie. Doesn't seem to be any discussion about this project being superceded here. Anyone know what is happening? The edit summary read "WP:Transport", the Project he was changing it to, but no explanation. Student7 (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

That article is outside our scope as a general transportation article. --Rschen7754 15:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

No sense in hiding from this discussion. I had merged it into Georgia Department of Transportation since it read more like it was describing the DOT's role in transportation than actually talking about transportation in Georgia; but it was unmerged. The unmerging rationale was pretty weak, since most of Transportation in State X articles redirect to State X#Transportation and very few articles exist on their own. –Fredddie™ 23:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what project it should have, but GDOT only maintains 16% of the roads in GA and has weak responsibility for state airports, apparently. That is in the articles. So their responsibility for roads is not high, much less anything else. They are not "Transport" for Georgia all by themselves, clearly. Student7 (talk) 02:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Only sixteen percent of the roads. But that's 100 percent of state roads. GDOT is indeed important for Transport in Georgia. --PCB 03:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Once the article though ventures outside of the state highways, its scope exceeds that of USRD. In fact, USRD's parent, WP:HWY is a subproject of WP:Transport, meaning that project is the appropriate one for that article. Imzadi 1979 → 10:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

New contest

User:Dough4872/GA by number, a contest encouraged to improve articles to GA quality. Dough4872 03:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Another PA 179 scenario

I took another look at State Route 78 (Arizona – New Mexico) that New Mexico uses the name "state road", whereas ADOT uses "state route". The title of the article seems to have assumed the ADOT name. In addition, the infobox seems to say that it is New Mexico (and Arizona) Route 78, which is not an official name for either of them. How should this be resolved? --PCB 04:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the best solution is, but I have been working on a more elegant way for the infobox to handle two-state routes. –Fredddie™ 04:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

In addition, is there some precedent as to why these are merged together? They never seem to be referred as the same by the government. --PCB 05:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The logic behind having one article for two quazi-related highways is to prevent having two stub articles, which I support. However, I will admit that someone arguing that they are two separate topics that are only related as two government agencies coordinated their efforts would make a valid point. Dave (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

When you think about it, the name is an "Arizona English variant"! Hadn't really wanted to apply variant rules to English within the US!  :) Student7 (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Dave is right. They really should be two separate articles. Many state highways flow smoothly into the next state. We don't have to worry about it because they mostly didn't bother to pick duplicate route numbers and the articles are already separate. As both of these should be. The fluke of having the same number should essentially be ignored for article construction, though it may be fairly prominent in the article itself. Student7 (talk) 12:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I have advocated both options (combined article for two quazi-related highways and separate articles) IMO, if both highways barely meet the notability guidelines (i.e. state routes, but not really long or historically notable) it's better to have 1 C class article than 2 stub class articles. However, If there is enough content to support 2 non-redundant quality articles, absolutely, have separate articles. Unfortunately, in between those two extremes is a lot of grey area. Dave (talk) 02:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Maryland Route 200

I'm sure that you all have been following the recent debates about merging the sub-articles in here. Now, the problem is that the article is in a horrible mess right now. I think that it's going to take intervention from the USRD project to get this article back into some sort of shape; it's way too much for any one person to do, and certain users refuse to let anything be removed from the article.

Does anyone notice stuff that should be removed from the article that is irrelevant or excess quotes? For one, I think the archaeological dig stuff should go. --Rschen7754 09:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Funding could be reduced to 2-3 sentences. Construction could be reduced to 1-2 paragraphs. The bicycle trail should be shortened as well. --Rschen7754 09:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I would prefer we wait to take action on this until the History of article is merged in so we only have one article to deal with. Also, while I am fine with calls to action and organizing project plans on this talk page, we should discuss specifics on the article's talk page. That means working with those recalcitrant users; we need to try to convince them that our ideas for change are for the best rather than discuss it behind their back. I stated before that this is a process and that there is no rush to implement changes. I expected this to be long and drawn out and I am pleased with the progress that has been made so far. Getting the Opposition article merged into the article was an important first step; it accomplished half of a major objective and the consensus process involved seemed to improve civility.  VC  11:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
    • This isn't really "discuss[ing] it behind their back" as this is a quite public location, and visible from all of our user contributions. They are welcome to discuss it here. I placed this discussion at this page for increased visibility among those who would be interested (road editors). Also, this is somewhat of an urgent matter so that the article size can be reduced quickly, as the article size does influence the outcome of the AFD. --Rschen7754 18:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:USRD/STDS proposal

In light of the recent events at Maryland Route 200 I would like to propose an addendum banning subpages of state highway or state-detail articles, i.e. "Route description of...", "History of...", etc. --Rschen7754 19:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer "strongly discouraged" as opposed to outright ban. I dislike saying "never". However, I agree in principle that if you're going to have a separate article for "history of", this better be good. Dave (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with "strongly discouraged". Imzadi 1979 → 20:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really sure of a scenario where such subpages would be necessary. But I suppose this is better than what we have now. --Rschen7754 21:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Are there any existing examples of this phenomenon that are not MD 200 and are contentious like MD 200? This seems to be a guideline aimed at a very particular situation, which is short-sighted on our part given the climate right now. I think this is something we can solve in non-controversial situations without adding a guideline by just figuring out what needs to be merged and doing it. That is what I did with the Maryland articles for I-95, I-83, and I-70.  VC  22:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this even necessary? I mean, we already agree to this. It seems to be others outside the project who insist the subpages are relevant and necessary. –Fredddie™ 22:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is, think all the CASH things we had to add to RJL in past years. --Rschen7754 23:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Speaking possibly out of place (since the articles I work on wouldn't be affected by this anyways), but there have been rare occasions where I've considered forking a history section into an independent article. Highway 401 would be the only example I can present at the moment. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree we need to restrict the use of route description, history, junction list, etc. pages of a specific route. We should add a line to the standards discouraging these types of pages. Dough4872 02:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The only one I could think of is US 66, which is a mess. I still say the history could fit in an article. --PCB 05:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Except that US 66 is already split into subarticles, by state, not topic. Imzadi 1979 → 05:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That, and US 66 is not a state-detail article or state highway article (see original proposal). --Rschen7754 07:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Eh, yes. Do you suppose for any of the s-d's it could apply? I don't think so. --PCB 15:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

How about something like, "creating separate articles for a route's description or history is strongly discouraged and should only be done in a few unique situations" Examples I can think of where separate history articles MAY be warranted are: California State Route 1, and the state detail articles for U.S. Route 101, Interstate 10 in Texas. Dave (talk) 05:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Add "junction list" and I think we're good to go. --Rschen7754 05:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree. Most state roads have more money put into them and more history than most places in that state! They are more important than those places. I glanced at Maryland 200 and tried, a little bit, to read the discussion. The article looked impressive enough. I didn't really get a sense of what the complaints were in the discussion, but judging from the above, editors here didn't like it.

If you get your way, will you delete all the other road articles? Student7 (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Um, the debate isn't to delete road articles. It's to set a standard not to needlessly subdivide articles. We've already started the process of merging a set of articles specific to Baltimore into the Maryland articles (Interstate 70 had subarticles for both the state and the city.) There's no need to split the history of a road out into a separate article. The parent article loses perspective because a vital piece of its story is missing. Imzadi 1979 → 18:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

MN county road lists

It seems in the past few weeks an editor has created a few new ones and "revamped" others. (See Category:County roads in Minnesota.) The problem is that all of these lists have numerous entries simply stating "County Road xx is a road." County roads in St. Louis County, Minnesota, once quite nicely readable if incomplete, now lists roads from 1 through 999 (and I'm not sure all those really exist) and the vast majority have no information.

What's the proper way to deal with this? --Sable232 (talk) 03:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd say the best way is to sandbox them in their userspace. –Fredddie™ 04:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

April Fool's

We're down to about a week left, so please collect your final ideas together for portal content for the day. Unlike regular monthly updates, I would like to have the contenders for article, picture and DYKs at least picked by next Tuesday (3/29) so we can finalize the wording of the blurb, caption and hooks. Imzadi 1979 → 09:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Multi-location junctions

Hi, I'm back. I'm finishing the upgrade of the exit list of Interstate 5 in California to use {{Jctexit}}. However, how do I handle exits that straddle cities (like Exit 100)? -happy5214 10:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I have similar situations in Michigan since so many roads run along township or even county lines. There are two parameters that you can use to allow custom location entries. |location_special= lets you input something like [[Irvine, California|]]–[[Tustin, California|]] as a custom location. (There is a corresponding |county_special= for county entries if a junction falls on a county line.) As the template says though, you need to supply the full wiki markup for either alternate parameter. Imzadi 1979 → 11:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. Will do. P.S. I'll post a copy of my work in my sandbox. -happy5214 09:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Article Feedback Pilot

Here's something curious I've stumbled across. Apparently, the folks over at the Wikimedia spectrum of Wikiworld have created an experimental pilot of an Article Feedback Tool. A number of USRD articles have been included in their testing deployment by means of a hidden category, Category:Article Feedback Pilot, including:

• Interstate 79
• Interstate 5 in California
• U.S. Route 6
• U.S. Route 209 in Pennsylvania
• Bannered routes of U.S. Route 67

The tool places a box at the bottom of the article allowing readers to assess on a five-point scale for elements of trustworthiness, objectivity, completeness, and quality of writing. The pilot has an FAQ here. The tool at present doesn't seem to provide any means to allow readers to add comments at this point. I'm not sure how particularly useful this will be. For instance, on the US 67 bannered routes article, only the Texas section is complete while all the routes in other states merely have headers as placeholders for now, so I don't see how this tool would tell anything any editor wouldn't already know. Perhaps they chose this particular page for the fact that it is incomplete for their testing and evaluation. Anyway, this looks interesting. Fortguy (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal: I-81 Controversy In Syracuse → Interstate 81 in New York

Discussion is here. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I did a check of the other pages created or proposed to be created by students as part of the Wikipedia:Ambassadors project. I can confirm this article is the only one that will affect our project.  VC  04:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Hollywood Freeway

Please contribute to the discussion. --Rschen7754 01:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to rename the project

In order to reduce confusion, and to better reflect the project's scope, I'm proposing to rename the project from "WikiProject U.S. Roads" (USRD) to "WikiProject U.S. Highways" (USH) The subproject devoted to the United States Numbered Highway System would be referred to as "U.S. Routes" (USR). This would make clear the distinction between USH and USST (U.S. Streets). The USRD abbreviations would be supplemented by USH abbreviations in all cases except the portal. Imzadi 1979 → 10:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. I have also been and seen others confused by the scope of the project based on the name. --Kumioko (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Reading this over thoroughly, this makes sense as not all roads are covered under this project, rather numbered highways. I'm hoping this isn't an April Fool's joke :P. Dough4872 18:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

We at USRD do not have a sense of humor that we are aware of. Dave (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC) (with apologies to Men in Black)

That's not completely true; the project's scope does go a bit beyond numbered highways. – TMF 14:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Support This has been a thinktank proposal for a while. I think it's been long enough since the USH designation was used. --Rschen7754 19:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Support Fortguy (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I don't think there's any need to worry about what the US Highway system "subproject" is called; it's been dead for years. – TMF 14:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. For one, I'm leery of any proposal made on April 1, and two, I don't see the need. Where is this confusion? –Fredddie™ 16:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
  • People not in USRD tagging stuff that doesn't belong in the project. --Rschen7754 09:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
    • So we fix them. It's annoying, yes; but it's hardly a reason to change the name of the WikiProject. –Fredddie™ 19:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose – I don't see what confusion this solves. The general public still considers most general roads as highways. I mean I have locals call NJ 27, which is two-lanes through downtown Highland Park Highway 27, which makes sense. However, I don't think this change solves the problem of differentiating highway v. road, in fact that changes our scope a slight if you think about it, meaning we'd have to be careful on the grounds of which we tread.Mitch32^{(20 Years of Life: Wikipedia 5:33)} 17:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose on the several issues made by Fredddie. In addition, if there's any confusion the project should be called "U.S. Numbered Roads", because that's what the project mostly covers. True, USRD does have a slightly larger scope, but some routes simply can't be called "highways". Lots of state-maintained routes are short, rural, narrow roads that don't sound like "highways" to me. — PCB 22:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Arizona State Route 51

This has a picture-request. What exactly do you guys want? A picture of the "51"-sign? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There's no certain criteria. A picture of the route sign, a picture taken of/along the route, etc. -- LJ ↗ 08:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Tagging run for WikiProject United States

Since there has been some tension in the past with some of my tagging I wanted to come and let you know that I have compiled a list of pages that s with US, U.S. American, United States or List of one of these and are lacking WikiProject banners.

Most of the ones that fall under your project are redirects so its not a huge problem. Some are not though. Before I start tagging them I wanted to ask you if you want me to tag them as redirects for US roads or for United States. I am perfectly ok either way but I think they should be tagged with at least one so that the page can be monitored for activity (commments, redirects for deletion, etc). Here are links to the pages I have compiled so far:

• User:Kumioko/US articles needing banners (American)
• User:Kumioko/US articles needing banners (Lists)
• User:Kumioko/US articles needing banners (U.S.)
• User:Kumioko/US articles needing banners (United States)
• User:Kumioko/US articles needing banners (US)

Please let me know if you have any questions. --Kumioko (talk) 03:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to submit these in the next week or 2 so any comments would be great. I will not include any articles that are already tagged as US roads when I tag them with WPUS but if you want me to tag the redirects and other articles pertaining to US roads (most fall under the US or U.S. groups) then let me know and I will do that otherwise I will include them in the WPUS run. Thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd say if it's obviously a road, tag it with {{USRD}}. If you have any questions about any specific pages, let us know. –Fredddie™ 21:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Kumioko, I am concerned where you say "tag them as redirects." Will you be tagging the redirects (for example, US 1 (VA), which redirects to U.S. Route 1 in Virginia) for WPUS or USRD? Other USRD people, do we have a project policy on tagging redirects? My preference is not to tag redirects, but if that contradicts project policy, then I can go along with it.  VC  22:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

To Freddie thanks.

To VC - I would actually like to tag them as USRD but I wasn't sure how much USRD cared about redirects so I wanted to ask first. The project has a redirect category and there are 2544 redirects already tagged with the USRD so the precedent is set. I frankly didn't used to care about redirects either but I have found that its easier to watch for them coming up for deletion if they are tagged with the project because article alertbot will report it. It also helps to identify possible redirects that could be needed. --Kumioko (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is a policy for or against tagging redirects or why there would be. Right now, I wouldn't want to go one-by-one and tag them, but if Kumioko is offering to do an AWB run, why not? –Fredddie™ 00:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications. As long as the redirects are tagged Redirect Class, I am fine with tagging them USRD.  VC  00:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I will do yours as a seperate list. Just for clarification though I am goign to do this as a bot request rather than AWB because there are so many of them and because I no longer have AWB. I will put the link to the request here in the next day or so once I finish refining the list. --Kumioko (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

After going through the list I think I have zeroed in on all the US roads related pages. here is a list of the ones that I think refer to an article in the US roads project. The list is rather long and as I mentioned before I think most are redirects but if someone could take a look and make sure this list looks pretty good I would appreciate it. There may be some that don't pertain to the project. Just for clarification the bot will detect if its a redirect/Disambiguation or not so I am not making assumptions but there might be a small amount of articles I missed as being for US roads. Please let me know if you have any questions. --Kumioko (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, but how are you going to tag the states that pertain to each article, that is {{USRD|state1=AL|state2=AK|...}}? Some of the articles should be quite clear, but would you like us to go through the articles that don't have an obvious state? –Fredddie™ 01:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Good point I can go through most rather quick and draft something for most but yes if you could identify the remainder that would be great. There are an aweful lot of them though (about 5900 I think) so give me a few minutes and let me see if I can reduce that down to a more manageable group. Are all the state projects covered under US roads now or are there still some independent ones out there that are standalones? --Kumioko (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Um, USRD covers all of the US. Not every state has a task force or a subproject, but the banner still tracks the by-state/by-territory information anyway. No projects are "independent". Imzadi 1979 → 01:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, all the state projects use {{USRD}} without exception. –Fredddie™ 02:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry what I meant to say was can all of them be tracked with the USRD banner but it looks like that is no. If you can tell me what states are covered in the USRD banner I will make sure they are tagged as such and then I will group the others so the individual state projects are added as well if applicable. I have gone through the list and identified what state (or states) applies to a lot of them but not all. If you take a look at the list I just updated it. I also removed a couple more that appear to be military units. --Kumioko (talk) 03:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken. {{USRD}} is the only banner that WP:USRD and its child projects and task forces use. Please read over the banner's documentation to see how it works. –Fredddie™ 04:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I would ask whether the tagging of all these redirects is necessary. Kumioko indicated that the project has about 2544 redirects. What is probably not realized is that about 1050 of those are in the Wisconsin project alone. That's because someone went through and created talk pages and tags for each iteration of each highway on the state's redirect list. I don't necessarily think that tagging all of the "U.S. 71 (AR)", "U.S. Highway 71 (Arkansas)", "U.S. Route 71 (Arkansas)", "US 71 (AR)", "US Route 71 (Arkansas)", etc. pages as redirects is a particularly helpful exercise. My two cents... -- LJ ↗ 09:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

A good point. I understand that some folks think tagging them is a waste of time and thats perfectly ok if the project decides they don't want too. There are a couple reasons why tagging them is good though.

1. If the project is signed up for Aricle alerts they will know if someone submits the redirect for deletion. Other wise they may not ever find out.
2. It accounts for "content" that may fall under the projects scope. I believe that all types of content should be accounted for but I understand not everyone shares that opinion.
3. It allows the project to see the redirects that may not be needed so they can be deleted. (I have recently submitted quite a few relating to WPUS and I have a lot more on my list that aren't needed.
4. It also allows them to know if there is a redirect that might be needed. A good example is Rt 1 in Virginia. This highway changes names at least 5 times between Washington DC and its end point so its possible that some of the common names are not accounted for. Adding the missing ones could increase visibility of the article.
5. If someone creates an article over a redirect then it will make it easier for the project to see that. This has happened a number of times in the last couple months with WPUS (some articles were duplicate, some were just vandalism and some where alternate meanings of the same title).
6. When tagging articles for the project its more difficult to determine what a talk page is with a red link is for assessment if it doesn't have a banner already that says its a redirect. For example, if I run a report that tells me all the articles that start with United States for assessment and then factor out all the ones that have a banner for a US project I get a lot with empty talk pages because they are redirects and have never been tagged making it harder to determine if the article is new and needs to be assessed or if its a 5 year old redirect that never got tagged. --Kumioko (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to follow-up and see if its ok to move forward with this. I have refined the list of articles in the link above and have noted them with the state that they touch as far as I can tell (its certainly not 100% but its a big start). I will tag the articles using your template ({{USRD}} with the |appropriate state abbreviation= =. Is there anything else I need to do? I will tag 20-30 to begin with so that you have a chance to check to make sure they are right before I process large numbers. Please let me know if you have any more comments or concerns. --Kumioko (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm OK with a test run. –Fredddie™ 01:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I see an issue now that I didn't see before. The tags on Talk:U.S. 1 should be the same as the tags on Talk:U.S. Route 1. That is, if there is a state-detail article (U.S. Route 1 in Florida, for example) we wouldn't tag U.S. Route 1 for Florida. That's probably as succinctly as I can explain it. –Fredddie™ 02:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense to me too. --Kumioko (talk) 10:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

US 131 FAC

I made a request over at WP:USRD/MTFR, but I'll repeat it here. I need a map created to address a comment made at US 131's FAC. It needs to be a map of Grand Rapids, circa 1962. I can provide a scanned copy of the city insets via e-mail to anyone to help make the map. Imzadi 1979 → 01:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles about departments of transportation

Should article about state departments of transportation exist within the USRD scope? Most of them also manage railroads, etc, not just roads. --PCB 04:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll play one side of the argument for a moment here. MDOT manages not just MI's state highways, but they also handle rail, marine and air transportation, carpooling, buses, bike trails and some licensing (semis and limos, IIRC). Many states' DMVs are part of their DOTs (not in MI, that's our secretary of state offices). So in a sense, the DOTs are multi-modal and not just highways, making them fit under WP:TRANSPORT better than our project. So we should be reassigning them there and to the state or territorial projects. Imzadi 1979 → 04:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Based on the idea DOTs scope covers beyond roads would make it more appropriate for the transport project. However, a division of a department of transportation covering roads, such as the Maryland State Highway Administration division of the Maryland Department of Transportation, may fall under the scope of USRD. Dough4872 21:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

What a waste of time to manage 50 cases of "UDOT should be included because they only manage roads but Caltrans should not because they also manage rail corridors" This is especially true as given that state governments have semi-frequent re-organizations and such scope can literally change ever time a new governor is elected. IMO, in scope, now lets move on to more important things.Dave (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Then I would suggest an all or nothing inclusion for DOTs. Personally, I feel the transport project is more appropriate for such agencies. Dough4872 21:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I could go along with all or nothing. I see the merits and demerits of both sides. –Fredddie™ 21:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears there is no consensus here. I believe it is a major issue (as it regards 50 or so articles) and needs to be addressed. Should we go ahead and take a look at every DOT, keep everything, or remove all DOTs? --PCB 22:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't you guys have enough on your plate without adding another 50 articles to your purview? Hi USRDs ;) Strato|sphere 23:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

More like dropping 50 articles out of the categories if they don't fall within the project's scope. Imzadi 1979 → 00:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Most (if not all) state departments of transportation (or equivalent) are have responsibilities that include multiple modes of transport, which would seem to be more conducive to something like WP:Transport. However, one could argue that most state DOTs probably spend upwards of 80-90% of their time and resources on their state-maintained highway systems, which would keep these articles more focused on WP:USRD. The USRD scope does say "This WikiProject maintains articles relating to roadways of national or regional significance in the United States" and the state DOT or agency that maintains these roads would be an article relating to roadways of significance... I honestly don't care either way, just as long as we aren't cutting some DOT articles but keeping others. -- LJ ↗ 05:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Why not have DOTs in both projects? What is the problem with that? Maybe we have tried to form clear boundaries before, but maybe this is one area that can't be delineated that way. Student7 (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. There's nothing wrong (the opposite, in my opinion) with multiple projects covering the same topics, but that's getting into the whole fiasco a.la what WP:US is having with including articles that are under the scope of a state project. Personally, I include bridges and the provincial transportation department as in scope; they're directly related to the roads. I expect the bridges project, say, to deal with the engineering aspects of the bridge, whereas I look at its history and why it exists, as well as what roads are carried upon it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

A WikiProject tag on an article means two things: that the project (the people) has an interest in that article (through their scope) and they have or expect to have the requisite expertise to work on that article (also through the definition of the project'st scope). Where there are questions of how suitable a subject falls with the interests and expertise of a project's members, and there is a project that potentially overlaps that provides better interest and better expertise, it might be better for that second project to tag the article instead. Note, nothing stops a USRD member from working on an article outside of their project. As a resident of Michigan who works on Michigan's highway articles, I have no trouble continuing to work on the MDOT article, but the article will require the assistance of other editing pools of talent to deal with MDOT's air, marine, rail, mass transit and even political functions. Such content would benefit from the Transport project, and as a grandchild subproject, USRD's tag might be in appropriate if Transport tags the article too. Imzadi 1979 → 22:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I assume that there is no consensus and that everyone wishes to keep the DOT articles within our scope. Nobody has explicitly stated that they want to flush them out. — PCB 02:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'm leaning towards de-tagging them from USRD and retagging them under TRANSPORT and the state projects alone. Imzadi 1979 → 05:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, speaking for myself, I think a different group of people should be working on those articles. --Rschen7754 05:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:FLCR redirection

See WT:USRD/SUB. --Rschen7754 05:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Washington State Route 527

Apologies if this is not the correct venue to alert your project, but Washington State Route 527 is in need of an update. The Washington State Legislature recently passed HB1520 [10] which removed a significant portion of SR 527 and turned it over to the City of Bothell. The page therefore needs to be updated. -- RoninBK _{T C} 11:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

GIS "expert" needed

I need a favor from someone that's good with GIS to make an update to an article. M-134 (Michigan highway) uses the Drummond Island Ferry to connect to Drummond Island. MDOT's Physical Reference Finder Application is great to give me roadway distances to the thousandth of a mile (about a 5-foot precision), but it doesn't track the route of the ferry. If someone can help me calculate the distance across the channel between the two docks, then I can update the article to include the true length of the highway. Any assistance is appreciated. Imzadi 1979 → 07:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Using the Michigan highway shapefile, the measured straight-line as-the-crow-flies distance between the end point of the mainland and island sections of M-134 is 0.986 miles. Anyone care to doublecheck that for me? 25or6to4 (talk) 11:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

If it helps, according to Google Maps, M-134 from end to end, including the ferry is 50.0 miles, and according to MDOT, I get 49.247 miles. Using your calculation, M-134 would have a length of 50.233, and in my experience, Google can be up to a quarter mile or so off. Now, when I used the PRFA to figure the rest of my calculations, the two docks are roughly a survey section width apart, so I'm inclined to say that your measurement is pretty darn accurate. Thank you. Just to make sure I get the info right, but did you use the MI Geographic Framework put out by the Center for Geographic Information? Imzadi 1979 → 11:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, measurement was based on shapefile using Geographic Framework v9b. Noticed that it had been updated to v10a, did a remeasure on the new shapefile, and still got 0.986 miles. 25or6to4 (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Airport, train station, etc. signs in junction lists

I've noticed that it is common practice for junction lists to use the airport sign to symbolize an airport that is located off an exit of a road. There are sometimes other important destinations such as train stations that are signed on guide signs on freeways with either the MUTCD train station symbol or the logo of the railroads serving the station. For these instances, would it be appropriate for a train station sign to be included in the exit list? Dough4872 04:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we should be having any of these icons; it's just extra decoration and clutter. --Rschen7754 04:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not common practice, but it is used in some cases sparingly. I've only used the airport logo when the main BGS uses the graphic, not supplemental signage. Adding the rail icon would be easy enough, but beyond intermodal connections, I'd omit the others (hospital, parks, etc). In either case, it would be optional, not required. Imzadi 1979 → 04:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I approve of using special symbols (airport, train station, ferry, etc.) in Junction lists if they are not overused. The use of the symbol should be based on reality in highway signage; this guideline might need to be unofficial, however, because such a basis borders on WP:OR. The Junction list entry must also wikilink to the article for the airport, train station, etc. I suggest the following guidelines for whether or not to use a symbol:

• Airport: Must be a commercial airport with regularly scheduled airline service.
• Train Station: Must have regularly scheduled intercity train service (Amtrak). I am opposed to including commuter rail, rapid transit, or light rail symbols unless the crossroad in question serves specifically as a connection to the particular station.
• Ferry: Must have regularly scheduled service. Crossroad in question should serve specifically as a connection to the particular ferry terminal.
• Bus terminals: Oppose in all instances.  VC  05:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I've created the necessary icons and updated the subtemplate of {{jct}} to allow bus, ferry, rail and light-rail types. Imzadi 1979 → 05:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't there discussion some time ago about not including airport and similar icons in the junction lists at all? -- LJ ↗ 06:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes there was, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 16#Mile marker images. From that discussion, it appears there was mixed consensus on whether to include the signs for intermodal facilities (airports, train stations, etc.) in exit lists. Despite the opposition of the use from several users and the proposed restriction of the signs, airport signs continue to be used today. I can see both sides of the argument, as including them has the benefit of conveying what is actually seen on the guide sign and including a visual aid for what intermodal connections are at the exit, yet the signs also provide extra decoration and clutter to the exit list. For the record, the previous discussion mentioned how train station articles include images for intermodal connections. Dough4872 15:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Promoting anything other than the road itself seems non-WP:TOPIC but I can appreciate the editors "need" for something to offset the article. For complex intersections, how about "spaghetti" pictures of the roads coming together? At least it would be roads, not Someplace Else Other than this Blasted Road! Or Men At Work on the newest addition?

Clearly not "Ways Off the Road"!  :) Student7 (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you mean? The MUTCD has standardized intermodal transportation icons that are accorded roughly the same status as the markers for other highways (aka "shields") on guide signage. It's not really any different to have:

M-94 east – K.I. Sawyer AFB

or

Kelly Johnson Drive – Sawyer International Airport

considering that both intersection's guide signs have the icons in use. Imzadi 1979 → 12:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the "spaghetti pictures" is that there is often no context to why they're there. Check out German roads articles, they're all over the place there. For that reason, I do not support adding intersection diagrams to the junction list, I am fine with the intermodal icons that have already been added. –Fredddie™ 15:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree about spaghetti pictures.

We just need to show more consideration for the topic that a reflected desire, by way of a photo, to get off the road, IMO. Student7 (talk) 13:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal

See Talk:Papago Freeway Tunnel. — PCB 15:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

US 66 task force?

What do all of you think of starting a task force for coordinating U.S. Route 66? Clearly, it's our most important and most viewed article, so we need to do it right. I'm thinking of a one-stop shop for brainstorming and sharing research, discussing goals and potential content forks, and a whole bunch of other stuff I can't think of at the moment. I'd ask around at local WPs to see if there are some roadgeeks-in-hiding, or just history buffs, who would be interested in helping. The article(s) can only get better from here. –Fredddie™ 08:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for it, especially if we get some history buffs. If we move forward with this, we should approach WP:USHIST to let them know about the task force. Imzadi 1979 → 08:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm indifferent, but I do have a question. Should the task force be implemented, would it have it's own section on the banner? Would you have something like {{USRD|type=USH|state=OK|US66=yes|blah blah blah}}? — PCB 02:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking |type=US66. Then there will be a separate category for stats. Ideally, if the task force coordinates with other projects like I'm hoping it will, we can track the stats of the US 66 article(s) across multiple projects. –Fredddie™ 00:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I feel it is weird how one numbered highway can get its own task force, singling out US 66 just seems too awkward. Can't the improvement of US 66 related articles be coordinated simply through USRD and subprojects/task forces like every other road? If we create a US 66 task force, we mind as well create one for other roads such as Interstate 95 and Lincoln Highway. Dough4872 02:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a thoughtful proposal and it's great to get the ball rolling, but it seems like another project/taskforce that would be created with perfectly good intentions but without sufficient interest to actually complete its mission. I know I'm not really active within USRD these days, but we've been talking about what to do with US 66 for years, and so far there just hasn't been enough organized motivation to get it done. Juliancolton (talk) 02:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand the disappointment/concerns, but I look at it a few ways. One, US 66 is by far our most viewed page, so if there were ever an importance class higher than Top, US 66 would be in it. Something has to be done. Two, there is currently zero framework for organizing resources related to improving the articles in question. It's hard to get the ball rolling when there is no ball. My personal goal with this project, at this moment, is not to personally rewrite the whole thing, or any of it, really. My goal is that when someone motivated enough to actually do the writing comes along, there will be resources and a place where discussion will take place.

Lastly, it's a great opportunity to reach out to other projects that can really help with this. So far, I've asked at WP:USHIST and at WP:NRHP. Who knows? Some of the people who aren't USRD members might be able to help out with our project. –Fredddie™ 20:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with everything being said by both sides. US 66 is hands down the most important article in the project, yet, the article rots while we are working on getting an article on some county route up to FA status that nobody's even heard of. That is a huge slam on us and says a lot about our priorities. I'm not excusing myself from this, I'm as guilty as anybody. However, I see the other side, to get US-66 back up to GA status is going to take a lot of work, and yes, is going to involve compromises and revisiting issues that have not been pleasant for the project in the past. I agree with those that are concerned about "burnout", like has happened with a lot of issues. However, I do think a task force is the best shot at getting the article back in shape. I've driven a significant portion of it in the western us, and am willing to help out. However, I've been struggling to squeeze wikipedia in with life's other priorities as of late, and I don't see that getting better anytime soon. However, if you are willing to work with a "off and on" resource, like me, count me in. Dave (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Interstate Navbox

I checked out the List of Interstate Highways in Michigan in response to your concern of possible template navbox clutter with 47 links. I'm well aware that this article list is already there (though not every Interstate list is made for each state on Wikipedia), but even so, if I make a template for Michigan there is a strong possibility that only the main Interstates would be linked. I didn't realize Michigan has a lot of business routes but even I think listing every link individually may clutter it up. I did have plans to edit the Template:Texas Interstate Highways to include these but only with the "(various)" tag since TX's business loops have a different letter prefix for each branch (ex.: 35-B, 35-D). I could link Business routes of Interstate 94 as "94 (various)" to minimize the clutter issue. Hope this helps. Thank you. GETONERD84 (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think these navboxes are needed for states that have independent lists, especially when the lists are linked from the infobox. It's not just the potential length of the list in the navbox, but also the potential number of navboxes at the bottom of the article. I've retired the "by county" navboxes in Michigan to minimize the clutter. There are boxes for linking the 3dIs together with the parent 2dI article, metro area lists, even state region navboxes that list the major highways of that region. I applaud your WP:BOLDness, but I don't think any more should be added or created until their is a complete discussion here with the project about the desirability of them. For Michigan: please don't. I know they've been reverted off some states' articles already. Imzadi 1979 → 02:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of them out in California; I plan on reverting when I get the chance. --Rschen7754 02:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that these navboxes are redundant to the list articles and categories that already exist, whether a list of only Interstates or all numbered highways in a state. Dough4872 16:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, that both these nav boxes and the list pages are redundant to the categories. In my opinion, we should have a discussion about removing some of the nav boxes that have been traditionally placed on our articles as it is, it makes the articles look more like a roadgeek fan site and less like encyclopedia articles. Dave (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I am for removing some highway templates that I feel are out of place. The county-focused ones such as Template:Harris County, Texas Highways overclutter the said articles, and I think the auxiliary route templates should go too; I think while they do serve the purpose they are a bit superflous-ish to me. Those have been around for sometime but we can phase out certain templates and bring in others - just do a give and take to minimize the Wikicurse of redundancy. I don't mind the metropolitan area ones since they serve a local purpose. There is always the "umbrella template" of Articles related to so and so to merge 3 or 4 temps into one. GETONERD84 (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I notice Harris County, Texas has both a county navbox and a list article. I agree that having both is needlessly redundant, but we may differ on which one is preferable to have. My preference is for the county navbox over the county list article because the navbox requires much less maintenance and the information in the List of roads in Any County article is usually redundant with the state-level article and may be redundant with other county list articles. I oppose metro area and region navboxen because there is often disagreement over what particular areas are part of a metro area or region and these navboxen would be redundant with the county ones. I also disagree with much of the navboxen as clutter argument because their utility sometimes trumps their potentially annoying presence at the end of an article. As with a lot of things, moderation is important, so I hope we find a middle ground here.  VC  22:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The auxiliary route navboxes though were developed to replace a lengthy "See also" section containing all of the various 3dIs and 3dUSs of a 2dI or 2dUS. Part of the problem with the "See also" section is that per MOS:LAYOUT, if a link is mentioned even once in the body of the article, it's not supposed to appear in that section. If the section is canned in favor of a navbox, we don't have to worry about checking links, and we get a consistent display of the 3dI or 3dUS links (assuming there are enough to warrant a navbox).

Personally, I prefer a streamlined approach with a minimal set of non-redundant navboxes at the bottom of the article. In some cases, that means none. Currently, the only ones in use in Michigan-specific articles are {{Northern Michigan}} and the various 3dI/3dUS boxes. One thing to remember as well: too many navboxes with too many links distorts the "What links here" list for an article because any transclusion of the navbox will over a link, even if the article has no connection to the subject. (I'm talking about you, Northern Michigan template!) Imzadi 1979 → 23:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Does a main template count as a violation of MOS:LAYOUT? For instance, to stick with Michigan, Interstate 75 in Michigan could have an Auxiliary routes section that has paragraph summaries for each of I-275, I-375, I-475, and I-675. These summaries would not have any links to articles already linked earlier. Each paragraph would be preceded with a main template link to the relevant article. The other issue you bring up is a more difficult problem. I understand "over a link" to mean there are 20 extra links to an article that should not need to be checked because those links are in a navbox that appears in 20 articles. There may be a way to not count navbox links for the "What links here" feature, perhaps some kind of External tool, but I would not know where to start.  VC  04:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Stub goal reminder

This is just a friendly reminder about the 2011 stub goal. Tonight, we hit our 800th stub removed since January 1! Great news, but we have fallen off pace. At the pace we're going, we will remove our 2011th stub on January 2, 2012. To be comfortably ahead of our pace, we need a good push like we had back in January. Thanks and happy de-stubbing! –Fredddie™ 02:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unused highways in the United States

FYI. postdlf (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussions

• See Talk:Mon–Fayette Expressway#Merger proposal. Dough4872 23:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• California Numbered Exit Uniform System. --Rschen7754 03:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• 91 Express Lanes –Fredddie™ 16:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

An RfC that could affect the project

WT:No original research#Are maps secondary_sources.3F. Imzadi 1979 → 16:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

US 301 SC Junction list

The Junction list on U.S. Route 301 in South Carolina needs to be reversed. Anybody care to tackle this? ----DanTD (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done Detcin (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Now we just need to find mileposts from the SCDOT. –Fredddie™ 22:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Among other activities. So much is missing from South Carolina road-related articles, it's just not funny. BTW, thanks for the fix, Detcin. ----DanTD (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you seen the leaderboard? There's a reason why some states are way down at the bottom: lack of attention/interest and lack of known reliable sources of the information to make the expansions needed to improve the articles. Just in comparison, I have a small library of sources on hand for Michigan's highways. Over the last 3 years, I've been able to improve over half of the articles (and counting) to send them through GAN, ACR or FAC. I have sources to work on Minnesota, but I'm very limited with Wisconsin. I know Michigan and Wisconsin better than Minnesota, so I stick to Michigan for the most part. Find us sources for mileposts in South Carolina, old maps for historical research and someone interested in the Palmetto State, and I'm sure SC will start moving up the chart. Imzadi 1979 → 19:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Road-related "To-Do" lists

Over on Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains they have to-do list banners just for railroad related articles. Who likes the idea of making to-do banners just for the roads? ----DanTD (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

No thanks. The list would be too short: "Expand the stubs and correct the MOS violations". That's not that useful. Seriously, that's that we need to be focusing on as a project is expanding the stubs, and as we do, fix the junction list tables, infoboxes, and other items in the expansions. Imzadi 1979 → 19:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for US Roads portal

I was just playing with an idea for the United States portal and I wanted to run it by you. Within the hundred or so US related portals we have essentially 4 main groups; Portal United States, Portal US Roads, Portal United States Government and Portal United States military. What I was thinking was to possibly tie these 4 main groups together, possibly something like Portal:United States/Sandbox so that a reader could in theory navigate from one to the other with relative ease. This would in essence tie together the core groupings where US roads is all the roads related stuff, United States is the general broad spectrum US related, Government is government related stuff and Military is military (American Civil War, the branches, etc). Of course there are multitudes of portals that relates to each potentially but I think this might be a good way to make it easier for our users to somewhat seemlessly traverse the information. Of course each project would still be responsible for maintaining the portal that realtes to them. The example given is just an example and because some of the portals already employ a tab system it might look a little different from portal to portal but the links could still be available allowing the users to navigate back and forth. Its definately just a consept at the moment but what do you think about this idea? --Kumioko (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

We can make sure to add the US portal to the related portals box the next time we're updating it. That should be enough. Imzadi 1979 → 21:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a neat idea, and you're certainly welcome to do that to the US portal. However, I agree with Imazadi in that we'll place a link in the related portals section and call it good. –Fredddie™ 21:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me rephrase, I'm ok with adding them if the others have them, but only if they fit in with the rest of our portal's color scheme. (I don't care if the others have pink text and purple polka dots.) But if the others aren't on board, I'll add the link and call it good. Imzadi 1979 → 22:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Its no problem. Like I say its just an idea I had and I wasn't even sure how good of an idea it was. --Kumioko (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Stop sign at the top of the page

I'm wondering if the box with the stop sign is doing us any good, since WT:USRD doesn't receive as much traffic as it used to. Currently, people are posting on the pages in the box, and the discussion either gets ignored or moved right over here. Do we need this box anymore or can it be removed? --Rschen7754 22:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I have asked this myself. It's creating an unnecessarily hostile environment, when this page doesn't get abused that often anymore. IMO, nuke it. Dave (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Could make it into a roundabout instead. –Fredddie™ 22:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we could swap it out with the 511 infographic and say "check these talk pages as well for previous discussions. You may comment there or here." Imzadi 1979 → 22:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Dave. This page has the most watchers. — PCB 22:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea of replacing the stop sign with the 511 symbol.  VC  00:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Do we have a 511 symbol? --Rschen7754 01:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes we do. –Fredddie™ 02:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and swapped out the images. Do we want to change the wording at the top? --Rschen7754 02:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned in IRC, I would be open to redirecting a few of those links to WT:USRD. The rationale is that we discuss most things here anyway. We would just have to archive the pages we decide to merge and add links to the archive pages. Adding the archives to the search box would be super easy. –Fredddie™ 06:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

WT:RJL should remain separate since it does deal with requests for international issues. --Rschen7754 02:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. How about redirecting all the USRD talk pages linked above to here and then adding links to the STF/MTF request pages, since they seem to be active enough? –Fredddie™ 02:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

That would work, since it would make this a more uniform place for discussion. Dough4872 03:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. --Rschen7754 03:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done. –Fredddie™ 03:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Talk:Interstate 395 (Florida) – I-395 into FL 836. Mitch32^{(Can someone turn on the damn air conditioning?)} 04:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Also Talk:U.S. Route 50 in Nevada#Merging Cave Rock Tunnel. Dough4872 02:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

IP edits to I-70 infoboxes

FYI: An IP editor has been editing a bunch of the state-detail articles on I-70, as well as I-40 in NM. On the I-70 in CO article, he added way too many junctions in the infobox, as well as changed order of shields (numerical order without regard to highway type). I reverted the Colorado article, but interested editors may want to check other I-70 articles to make sure the edits are not unreasonable. -- LJ ↗ 00:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I noticed I-70 in MO was like that as well. This isn't limited to I-70 nor is it limited to this IP. It's been going around all over the place and we just have to revert it on sight. –Fredddie™ 00:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been adding HTML comments to the junction= parameter. If the IP ignores those, then it's clear that this is in bad faith and we can deal with it accordingly. --Rschen7754 02:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

DOT hazard symbols

Hi Roadies!

I corresponded with the DOT and verified that all of their hazard symbols are public domain. There are about 40 of them. Wonder if there is someone interested in uploading them? See [11]. TCO (talk) 00:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. You might want to ask around at WP:TRANSPORT as well. –Fredddie™ 00:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

US road infoboxes: two-letter abbreviations for states

Hi, I've started noticing these abbreviations, which are most unsatisfactory. Even some American readers will have to ponder what CO means. And I've seen CA for Canada and for California. Usually, the full state is in the target, but the info is reduced in the pipe. Tony (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• The two letter abbreviations are official USPS abbreviations, so I doubt most Americans will have trouble figuring out CA and CO. But in the interest of being constructive, what do you suggest we use instead? Should we not abbreviate? Should we use AP abbreviations? –Fredddie™ 15:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
• I think this is ridiculous. --Rschen7754 16:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
• As to the argument that American readers don't know the state abbreviations, that is ridiculous as Rschen says. That's third grade geography material along with learning all 50 state capitals. I've reverted the infobox on U.S. Route 491 back to its original state, but added the |states= parameter, which lists the names for the three states in full. That location field is a 2010 addition to the infobox that didn't exist when that article. Please also note that using |country=USA not |country=US actually breaks the infobox because {{infobox road}} uses the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 code for a county, not the alpha-2 code. Imzadi 1979 → 17:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
• Well, as stated by others, the US Postal Service has used two letter abbreviations for states for several decades now. To US residents, using them is second nature and any grade school student is familiar with them. However, if there is a graceful way to have state abbreviations that are universally understood, I'm all for it. Ideas? Dave (talk) 02:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking at some more articles, it appears that (at least on all GA and higher) the state is only abbreviated in tables and charts. The articles I checked used the full state name in article prose. Dave (talk) 02:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

By comparison:

• Civil War History by State USPS codes
• National Register of Historic Places: full state names
• Same-sex marriage in the United States USPS codes
• US State Capitols full state names

So there doesn't appear to be any clear standard, but does appear ample precedent for using USPS codes in US related articles. Dave (talk) 04:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• I think using the postal abbreviations for states is fine as they are the easiest shorthand way to identify a state. Dough4872 03:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

USRD to be featured on the main page for July 4

U.S. Route 491 is tentatively scheduled to be the featured article for July 4th. This is one of our older FA's and is frankly not up to modern FA standards. However, there is time to fix it, several USRD editors have already chipped in. Any assistance would be appreciated. Imzadi and Rschen have already fixed the stylistic issues, and I'm updating the article to replace the outdated info. Still to be done is the use of map sources which has since become controversial. Dave (talk) 02:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about the map sources bit. Yeah, one editor questioned it, but it means nothing since he hasn't formed consensus against the use of map sources. --Rschen7754 02:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Order of precedence in road article titles

FL 880 erroneously signed as the county route continuation in Belle Glade

This has been a thought in my mind since I saw Florida State Road 880 in person myself. FL 880 is a .4 of a mile state highway in Belle Glade, Florida. The route continues for 18 1/2 miles as a county road, clearly more notable than the SR that it is for a couple blocks. New Jersey and Florida both have a tendency to do this (NJ 64 & CR 571, NJ 13 & Ocean CR 632 in Jersey, and NJ 162 & Cape May CR 626 are good examples of the situation) where SR makes a portion of a CR which is definitely longer. Using other Florida examples such as Florida State Road 809, Florida State Road 807, where the CR is by far the better known road. Now it might not apply in the case of FL 809, which is pretty long, but CR 809 definitely goes further than FL 809 does.

My question at hand, should there be a consideration in WP:USRD/STDS to allow if the CR is by consensus the better title to merge the SR into a new CR article and cover it there? I think this would work in situations such as County Road 880 (Palm Beach County, Florida) instead of Florida State Road 880 or County Route 827 (Palm Beach County, Florida) instead of the decommissioned Florida State Road 827, where CR 827 is a more significant highway. I get the feeling people might disagree with me, but I'd like to hear other opinions on this. Mitch32^{(Can someone turn on the damn air conditioning?)} 20:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I still would keep the state route as the main title of the article. Mainly because if I'm honesst, most state routes while have articles anyways, while few county routes should have articles, IMO Dave (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

See Use Common Names for your answer. If it's a combined article on SR 880 and CR 880, and CR 880 is the predominant designation along the stretch of continuous roadway, then go with the CR name. Isn't there a NYSR merged with a VTSR that uses the NYSR as the title because the section in NY is so much longer? This would be the same concept here, I think. M-171 redirects to F-41 because the CDH is the current designation; the trunkline designation does not trump the CDH name. Imzadi 1979 → 20:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Replying to myself, New York State Route 343 has Connecticut Route 343 merged into it, but retains the NYSR 343 name as the title. I appreciate Dave's opinion as he expressed it, but policy on this matter supports the proposed article moves for Florida over retaining SR names. Remember, his "official" name is "William Jefferson Clinton", but his article is at Bill Clinton, his common name. Imzadi 1979 → 20:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

If the county route is significantly longer and more recognized to motorists, then it would make sense to use the county route for the title. Another option to be fair to both routes is to use State Road and County Road 880 (Florida), similar to what is done for Interstate 110 and State Route 110 (California). Dough4872 02:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Even if the county routes are related to the State Routes, should't the county routes be written into the state route articles somehow? I offer the example of Florida State Road 48. ----DanTD (talk) 03:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Another route description direction reversed

I was finally able to correct the direction for the route description to Florida State Road 19, although I really wanted to add more material there, like the concurrency with "Backwoods Trail" in Ocala National Forest. Let me know what you think of it before I eliminate the duplicate from my sandbox. ----DanTD (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

If the version in the article is what was re-written, I'm thinking it's too long. I didn't read it, but it looks too long for a 90-mile highway. In any case, you don't have to run every article revision you do by us here. Imzadi 1979 → 03:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

In addition, it would help to use references in the route description. Try using an official road map along with a web mapping service such as Google Maps. Dough4872 03:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Ehh, I just thought some of you might be glad to find out that the direction problem was solved. A lot of what I wrote was based on what I saw on Google Maps, as well as personal travel experiences on the road. I have no idea about any official map that covers it, other than the Floirda Scenic Highways website, and a few from ONF, which unfortunatley don't have anything on "Backwoods Trail." ----DanTD (talk) 03:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

All sorts of issues like that one don't need to be brought here for "clearance" though. Just fix the article and move on. But Dough is right, your sources should be included, even if it's only Google Maps. Imzadi 1979 → 03:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no shame in using {{Google maps}}. –Fredddie™ 04:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Your roads are making Canadian news, eh?

Thanks to the important people of the world (like Kim Kardashian), the closure of the 405 next weekend is making the front page as the pending traffic jam from hell. Thought I'd share it. Even though its not exactly discussion, its pretty interesting.[12] - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Old/New exit numbers

We have a number of articles that where the road has, in the past, used a sequential exit numbering system and now uses mile-based exit numbering. At what point are the old exit numbers still notable enough to include? Never? 5 years? 10 years? –Fredddie™ 21:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd say 5 years or whenever the DOT removes any transitional signage from the highway. Another guideline would be when a new official DOT map for the public is released without both numbers. In any case, whichever of these three timeframes is shortest. Imzadi 1979 → 21:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, PA and GA are two states that come to mind. Aren't their old exit numbers roughly 10 years old? --Rschen7754 21:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the old exit numbers should be kept indefinitley. You're going to find users and editors basing what they know about these roads on exit numbers from 20 years ago or so. Look at the exit numbers for the interchanges of Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike as an example. Now part of them are on Interstate 85 in Virginia and part of them are on Interstate 95 in Virginia. It's better to leave the old ones with the new ones, so nobody mistakenly tries to add the old ones. ----DanTD (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. People don't really care about exit numbers that are over ten years old, except for maybe some roadgeeks. Wikipeidia is a general-interest encyclopedia, not a roadfan site. --Rschen7754 21:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm in agreeing with Rschen on this one, leave the archiving of those old, trivial, details to the roadgeek sites and off Wikipedia. At most, put a note in the history section as to when the changeover happened. Imzadi 1979 → 22:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The article that piqued my interest in this was Ohio Turnpike. According to the article, that road started using mile-based exits in 1998, which predates Wikipedia by 3 years! –Fredddie™ 22:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about adding old interchange numbers to history sections. It seems like it would create too much of a mess there. Roadgeek interests or not, there's still the potential for a lack of awareness of the changes of exit numbers. ----DanTD (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

No, not add the numbers, add the timeframe of the change over. "The Ohio Turnpike Commission changed from sequential to mileage-based exit numbering in 1998." That's all that's needed, and the old exit number column can be removed. Those old numbers are no longer useful to the general audience that reads our articles, assuming they pay that much attention to the exit list. Imzadi 1979 → 22:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind the concept of mentioning the changeover from sequential to mileage-based exit numbers in the history, but there's still something wrong with concealing information, just because we assume the general public won't be interested. One of my biggest worries is that somebody who hasn't been on the Ohio Turnpike(or any other roads tht changed their exit numbers) will try to edit them according to the old exit numbers sparking an edit war. ----DanTD (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

And then we revert them. That is what WP:3RR is for. --Rschen7754 01:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit-warring is bad no matter the cause. Just as the world is not covered in bubble-wrap to prevent injuries, we don't operate around here in with a policy to prevent edit-warring. The only way to truly prevent an edit war is to remove the edit buttons, not cave in to unsound additions to prevent the need to add them. Imzadi 1979 → 02:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, aside from the risk of an edit war by misinformed editors, I don't see why we should conceal information just because we're roadgeeks and everybody else isn't. Plus, I think they can be useful outside of roadgeekery. ----DanTD (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not so much the prevention of adding them, it's that some of them should have never been added in the first place. –Fredddie™ 19:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed as well. In my opinion it should be mentioned as a footnote to the exit guide that exit numbers were changed in 1995, aside from that there is no value to old exit numbers outside of roadgeekry once the transition period has past. IMO, for most scenarios only the current exit number should be mentioned in the table itself.Dave (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd say keep the old numbers for, say, 5 years, and then a note in the article as to when the numbers were changed. --Tim Sabin (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Do we have any articles where the old exit numbers would stay? –Fredddie™ 22:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The only possible reason I could see for an article including "old" exit numbers is if those former exit numbers were chosen to honor something/somebody, rather than assigned as part of a system. (Like some highway numbers were chosen to honor somebody rather than conforming to a system). With that said, I know of no such highway. Dave (talk) 23:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The only situations I can see would be states in the Northeast that are implementing the requirements of the 2009 edition of the MUTCD that mandates a switch to distance-based numbering from sequential. At some point, the New York Thruway will switch, meaning the current numbers will be the "old" and we'll have a new set to include for a while. Any articles that have two sets of numbers need a note above the table as to why there are two sets. The history section should have the changeover listed as an action that changed the highway just as we'd list a realignment or extension. Once the old numbers are moved from the table in due course, the table note would be removed as well. Imzadi 1979 → 00:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Reading this discussion, I believe that including old exit numbers forever would seem to be too much. After a certain point, people do not care or forget about the old exit numbers. I think we only need to include them when a state is in a transitional period between exit numbers and still refers to both sets. Once a state has fully gotten used to the new exit numbers, the old ones should be removed. Dough4872 01:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Junction vs. Exit lists in templates

Ok, after doing some on-IRC consultation with Fredddie (talk · contribs), we've updated {{jctint}} and its state-specific sub-templates. Now, the entire family of junction list templates will work for both at-grade highway junction lists and freeway exit lists. {{Jctexit}} and {{exittop}} have been merged into {{jctint}} and {{jcttop}} respectively using the same method {{jctbridge}} and {{jctco}} used.

To create an exit list, follow the same methods as creating a junction list using the templates, and append |exit to the template name. In other words, call {{jcttop|exit for the header and {{jctint|exit for the individual entries, filling in the remaining details as needed. Previously, {{jctbridge|exit and {{jctco|exit worked for use in exit lists, and the updated templates now follow the same scheme.

Note, if you're making table for a highway that has mixed at-grade and freeway segments, and the freeway segments have numbered exits, you need to append |exit every time you use the templates or the table will have formatting errors.

At this time, there is no method that works to use templates for freeways that have old and new exit number columns. Based on the discussion above, most of the articles that have such a list will probably lose their old exit numbers columns in the near future. If there is a need though to allow such a thing, I have a few options under consideration to add that functionality to the existing templates. Imzadi 1979 → 00:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion concerning organization of sections

See Talk:Pennsylvania Route 134#Organization. Dough4872 04:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI

I happened to see that M-185 (Michigan highway) had been translated into Russian. I clicked on the talk page there to see if attribution was given, and found this when I translated it to English. Imzadi 1979 → 07:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to the comment about the km? --Rschen7754 07:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the Russian article was on their Main Page under the DYK equivalent. Imzadi 1979 → 07:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The Great River Road

I thought that I'd mention it here for a wider audience. Currently, we have Routing of the Great River Road split from Great River Road. I'd like to propose that the former be merge into the latter, and any splitting that takes place follows the model of state-detail pages. In the end, we'd have Great River Road as the main page and Great River Road in Minnesota, Great River Road in in Wisconsin, Great River Road in Iowa, etc plus Great River Road in Ontario and Great River Road in Manitoba. (The two Canadian provinces could be merged into one with redirects.) Imzadi 1979 → 11:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

There are a select few highway articles where I think having a separate page for route and history is appropriate. Lincoln Highway is an example where both articles are huge and combining them would lead to a monster size article. While that may eventually be the case with the Great River Road, the articles are certainly not bursting at the seams in their current state. If you plan on implementing a merge, here are some suggestions.

• My eyes are bleeding after looking at the route article for 3 seconds. OMG someone was anxious with that bold key.
• It could also use some clarification as there are three routes listed through some states. There is no explanation why, and no mention of the difference or connections between the three routes other than the unhelpful labels of "Eastern, "Western" and a redundant "Great River Road" on what I presume is the central or main route.
• I'd find a less visual obtrusive way of denoting the segments that are National Scenic Byways.
• The table with the highway code legend isn't really that helpful. Weather a route is a Kings Highway or a Louisiana State Route is somewhat obvious by the state subheadings.

If you'll choose an appropriate venue for the discussion I'll move these comments to that venue. Dave (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

PS I don't see the need for state detail articles at this time, there isn't enough content and most of the segments have separate articles under their numbered designation anyways. Dave (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

As someone who lives in a Great River Road state and grew up along the GRR, can we nuke all the GRR articles and start over? –Fredddie™ 23:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

One possibility is to have a master GRR article, plus one each for the Canadian extensions, the western route and the eastern route. Since {{jct}} will want to handle s-d articles by state/province name, except for MN and LA, the s-d/p-d links could redirect to either the western or eastern route. Since Iowa is on the western banks of the Mississippi, Great River Road in Iowa would redirect to Great River Road (western route) while Wisconsin would be in the eastern route. Either way, precedent has not been to split a "routing" article out separately, so something should be done to merge that back in. The various parts of the Great Lakes Circle Tours don't seem to change highways as frequently, so all four of those tourist routes have been merged into one master article. Something needs to be done with this one though. Imzadi 1979 → 23:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

One possibility would be to set the various s-d/p-d links to redirect into specific sections if the article is combined into one as well. Imzadi 1979 → 00:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I could get behind the eastern and western routes. Not sure how we'd handle Minnesota and Louisiana, though. –Fredddie™ 03:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd leave them in the main article only since the two branches merge (or split) in those states. The main article could also cover what branch carries the NSB ("The NSB designations follows the X branch between Y and Z. From there it crosses over to the A branch on the B bridge and follows it from C to D.") Imzadi 1979 → 03:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

According to the FHWA, most of the GRR is NSB now. –Fredddie™ 04:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea of splitting GRR into state-detail pages similar to an Interstate or US highway. I really don't see the need for a western route and eastern route subarticle pair as the s-d articles can handle the the routing(s) of the road in the state. Dough4872 04:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not see a need for any more articles beyond the main Great River Road article. I would like to see substantial content before we discuss subarticles. The most detail we are likely to need is mention the state highways GRR follows, the major towns, and major tourist attractions. If we are trying for some kind of unified route description, I would center it around the NSB route and treat the eastern or western route (whichever is not NSB) as an alternate route.  VC  16:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Resolved

 – Deleted per CSD:G7 by User:Fastily –Fredddie™ 23:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 August 15#File:MNOld31.png --Sable232 (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Interstate 93

Discussion regarding whether a list of legislators should be included in the article. --Rschen7754 04:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested changes to Infobox Road for MD business routes

Recently, I found out that Maryland is beginning to use new route markers for state business routes like the one shown. I uploaded markers for the state's 4 existing state business routes under the format "MD Route x Business.svg". Now I just need someone to update Infobox road to use the new markers. I tried doing it myself, and quickly realized it would be better to get someone more familiar with its coding. Thanks in advance!-Jeff ^(talk) 04:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, this should go without saying, but these markers don't use the "Business" banner since the word "Business" is on the markers themselves.-Jeff ^(talk) 04:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I have the graphic switched, and I asked Mitchazenia to make the edit needed to the subtemplate to shut off the banner. That should handle it. Imzadi 1979 → 19:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Most of the banners are gone now, but they're still showing up in the junction list for Maryland Route 404, which uses "MD-Bus" for the type parameter.-Jeff ^(talk) 21:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

That's {{jct}}, not {{infobox road}}. They don't use the same subtemplates anymore. Let me look to see what I can figure out there. Got it. Imzadi 1979 → 21:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, didn't realize that they were separate now. Anyway, thanks for the fix!-Jeff ^(talk) 21:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Good to see you back! --Rschen7754 01:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I have a question, why are we using the new green shields for MD business routes when they are not even in widespread use yet? From what I know, only MD 5 Business in Hughesville uses them while the rest use the standard shield with the business banner. In addition, I don't even think some of the US business routes use the green shields, such as US 13 Business in Pocomoke City, US 15 Business, and US 113 Business. Dough4872 03:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to geotag all highway articles

There is currently a proposal to modify WT:RJL to allow geotagging of highway articles in the junction lists, at specified important points along the route. Your input is welcome. --Rschen7754 02:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

That is a blatant misrepresentation of the truth, since "geotagging of highway articles in the junction lists" is already "allowed" [sic]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Secret designations with standalone sections

We have a number of articles in a few states (SR-13 and SR-25 in Alabama, for example) where the majority of a route number is a secret designation of another highway, usually a US Highway, but there exists a standalone section where the secret route is signed. How should we handle these? My gut reaction is to only talk about the standalone section and direct readers to the main highway for the secret sections.

I'd like to codify the result of the discussion in WP:USRD/NT. –Fredddie™ 02:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Fredddie's gut reaction. I would only talk about the standalone section in depth; the standalone section would have a detailed Route description and full Major intersection list. I would summarize the unsigned portions in both sections. For example:

Route description: SR 13 continues north as an unsigned companion route to US 86 through Absalom, Bethesda, and Carricktown to the Franklin state line.

Major intersection (Notes): Northern terminus of signed SR 13; SR 13 continues as an unsigned concurrency with US 86 to the Franklin state line.

... VC  17:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably the most notorious of these is Florida State Road 400, which should be our test case for how to handle scenarios like these. My gut feeling is that if the "independent" portion is short, to just redirect to the signed designation and have that article mention the brief extension using the otherwise unsigned designation. However, if the independent portion is notable in its own right, it is acceptable to have 2 articles. Dave (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

As an addendum. I just discovered that Florida SR-400 now redirects to I-4, until recently it was a separate article. While I agree with the merge, it was done improperly, as the exit list now has recursive links and is missing about 4 or so exits along the portion signed as SR-400 and the termini in the infobox does not match the scope of the article. (see [13] for how this was formerly handled). Dave (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Maine State Route 178

I was asking the Maine DOT today where I could find the definition of the various state routes, especially 178. The answer, unfortunately, was that it's not online. :-( He did tell me where 178 ran, though. We don't currently have an article, so I'm pasting it here in case someone wants to work with it.

State Route 178 begins in the city of Brewer, at the intersection of State and North Main Streets (North Main St. also carries St. Rte. 9 through that intersection). From that point, Rte. 178 proceeds northeastward along North Main St. (piggybacking with Rte. 9) through Brewer and into the town of Eddington. At the village of Eddington (milepoint 4.1 from beginning), Rte. 9 splits off and heads east towards Calais, while Rte. 178 continues northeastward along Riverside Drive into the town of Bradley. Rte. 178 continues along the eastern side of the Penobscot River (the road carries the name of Main St.) through the town of Bradley into the town of Milford. Route 178 (in Milford, the road carries the name of the Bradley Road) ends at its junction with U.S. Route 2, at milepoint 13.3.

Enjoy! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Neat. I wonder if it's in their library. I'm sure a couple of us chipping in to buy the DOT library staff pizza so they can scan and email us the definitions would be worth it. –Fredddie™ 22:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Argh. You couldn't have suggested that while I could still use the fundraising coupons I had for Pizzeria Uno? :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

New England Routes

All of these various articles need to be cleaned up and revised. The system itself fell out of use in the 1930s, yet many of our articles on these routes imply that the system is still in use. New England Route 26's lead and infobox did until I just edited it. If any article titles for current designations are being redirected into the NER articles, that needs to stop. If that means we need to create articles for modern designations, so be it, but implying that NER 26 is an active designation is wrong. Imzadi 1979 → 22:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the modern designations of NE routes should get their own articles as they are independent state highways that are notable enough to have an article. The NE route articles can serve to cover the historical route. Dough4872 00:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not think the New England Interstate Routes need individual articles. The routes and their history can be sufficiently described in the articles of the existing routes that follow them. If a more overhead explanation is needed, New England road marking system can be expanded to provide more detail on each route. For NERs that follow a single modern highway, redirect. For those that follow multiple modern highways, use a set index setup with links to each of the state highways.  VC  19:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with VC. Also, I would not be against a RCS list of NERs. –Fredddie™ 21:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible copyright issues in Pennsylvania

User:NE2 has discovered issues with [14], because the text came from [15]. Not looking good.

I've already evaluated the question "What if pahighways.com copied from Wikipedia?" by looking at archive.org in 2008, and I found the exact same text.

Thought we should get some input before deciding what our next steps, if any, should be. --Rschen7754 09:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

My $.02, scan contributions from that author in the same time for additional matches. Blank out any that are matches as a pre-emptive measure. Myself, I'm not a fan of just tagging articles. Ask the editor about it. No need to be rude, as this was done years ago, and no doubt this person has matured and learned as we all have. Just ask if he can remember any other articles where he may have copied text and if he'd be willing to clean it up. Dave (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

For now I'll start this table of articles that have been checked, so we can avoid duplication of efforts

First column is the PA Route number checked. Second, if any direct copying from pahighways was observed.

• 100 No
• 248 No
• 283 Yes
• 442 No

Dave (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed this issue with PA road articles before and have actually had to remove a couple histories myself. From what I know, the information appeared to be copied from PAHighways, as that site likely had the information before the Wikipedia article was created. Dough4872 00:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I need to say something here. I have a major problem with the way we're treating this, the two mentioned by Dough (on Pennsylvania Route 41 and Pennsylvania Route 72) were done by IPs. The one NE2 reverted today is from a long time, now basically-retired, distinguished US Roads editor who has helped PA significantly. Sure he made a rookie mistake in 2007 and it went unnoticed, I thank NE2 for noticing it. I have a problem that we're nearly damaging the editor's record over one rookie mistake. Let's please move on before it gets worse.Mitch32^{(God Bless America, Let Freedom Ring)} 05:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I fully understand and I fully agree. I brought it here to make sure that the right people saw it, since few people look at the WT:PASH page. But on the other hand, we do need to make sure there aren't copyright problems, as it exposes us to liability. I'm for doing a quick copyright check to make sure that there aren't any other issues, and hopefully there won't be, and we can just leave it at that. --Rschen7754 06:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I think how Rschen, Myself, and Dough have handled this is far more graceful than how this is handled at other venues.Dave (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

"distinguished US Roads editor"? Ahem. Just another kid. --NE2 21:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Another upgrade to the junction templates

Once my edit request for {{jctint}} is completed, another set of upgrades will be complete on the junction/exit list templates.

Now, if |old is appended after a template's name (as the first unnamed parameter), the templates will generate an addition column for the old exit number along a freeway's exit list. The parameter for the the old exit in jctint is called... "old". {{jcttop}} also has two new parameters, |old_ref= and |unnum= The first adds a reference to the old exit column of the table. The second adds a note, "All exits are unnumbered." above the table and switches the "Roads intersected" column title to "Destinations" to match other exit lists.Imzadi 1979 → 22:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Another one for today, but the templates can now add a "State", "Province" or "State/Province" column as desired. Set |state_col= in {{jcttop}} to either "state", "province" or "both". In the junction templates, set |state_col= to yes and make sure that the |state= is defined. Add |sspan= to set how many rows the state needs to span. This works in {{jctint}}, {{jctbridge}} and {{jctco}} (plus the state specific templates and the alternate names). If a river in {{jctbridge}} needs to span all three columns (state, county, location), set |river_wide=yes, otherwise it will only span two columns. Imzadi 1979 → 21:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Old exit numbers, part deux

Usage of old exit numbers in articles is up to consensus, but based on WT:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 17#Old/New exit numbers, I think it's fair to say that we decided to limit display of old numbers to a reasonable timeframe after the changeover, and remove them afterwards. Several states will be changing over in the coming years as the 2009 MUTCD is fully implemented. In addition, Interstate 69 in Indiana will be re-mileposted by INDOT once AASHTO approves the newest section of that Interstate in the state. Either way, it's easy to remove the old numbers from displaying in an article just by changing the "old" after the template name to "exit". Imzadi 1979 → 22:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, based on a comment from NE2 over on the AARoads forum, I have a thought. Since Wikipedia is a reference work, there is a case to retaining old exit numbers long-term. Now that the templates can handle the old numbers, how about a further change to {{jctint}} dealing with old numbers. We could set the template to shade the old numbers, like it can shade closed intersections, with a light gray background. If implemented, the cells in the mileage and current exit columns would no longer be shaded at all, old numbers would be in gray, and the color key would be amended to say "closed/former" instead of just "closed". I wouldn't add a tooltip popup to those cells though, unlike the other color-coding. I've already made the changes needed in the sandbox version of the templates, so Template:Jctint/testcases shows how it would look. Imzadi 1979 → 02:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Question, what should be done with articles such as Pennsylvania Turnpike which have used 3 sets of exit numbers at various times? Dough4872 00:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

How about this: put the first two previous in the "old" column separated by commas, and the current in the "new" column? Imzadi 1979 → 00:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

That works. Dough4872 00:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

As part of today's updates, {{jctint}} and company no longer put color shading behind the mileposts and exit numbers. Instead, the old exit number column is shaded gray to indicate and emphasize that the old numbers are no longer in use. Imzadi 1979 → 21:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Gaps in a route

There is now {{jctgap}} to code a gap in a route in the junction list. Imzadi 1979 → 01:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Kentucky route log!

http://apps.transportation.ky.gov/DMI_Reports/Official_MP_RL_params.aspx

It goes county-by-county, so you have to do some addition, but it's better than nothing at all! –Fredddie™ 16:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

"Major junctions" In Infobox

I was improving Missouri State Route 5, and I noticed that the Major junctions list in the info box was long. What should I include? Two digit US Routes and interstates? Or all US routes?--intelati^talk 21:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Short answer, Wikipedia:USRD/STDS#Infobox. Longer answer, the rule of thumb is the 10 most important junctions. Dave (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's under 10 junctions, so it's actually fine as it is. WP:USRD/STDS limits to 10 maximum. Imzadi 1979 → 21:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

HWY A-class review

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#A-class review. Dough4872 02:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

This is just a reminder that we have several ACRs open that need review! --Rschen7754 00:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Junction templates updated

Just so everyone is aware, a small, but major, change has been made to the junction list templates that will affect things going forward. Namely, if you have a junction that has a range of mileposts, you'll have to slightly change how the MPs are input in the future. Using the M-6 exit list for an example, The US 131 interchange is along MPs 7.886–8.776. The template input for that is |mile= 7.886 and |mile2=8.776. The template automatically formats it with the en dash and the line break.

If you're using {{jctbridge}} for state line crossings, like in the US 223 article, use the same formatting, like |mile=0.67 and |mile2=0.000 and add |line=something, anything like yes, y, etc and it will insert the horizontal rule.

If you're working on an article with metric distances, use |km= |km2= for the same purposes. Nothing appearance-wise has changed yet, and if you use the parameters the old way, nothing will break—for now.

The reason is that at some point in the future, it may be necessary to modify the templates to automatically generate a metric conversion in a second column. If the miles have non-numeric characters, the parser functions to generate the metric output will fail. We need to input MP ranges this way so that each number can be converted and not have the dash (you aren't still using a hyphen, are you?) get in the way. Also, if the articles are inputting kilometer measurements as miles, even if the table header says "km", the conversion will come out wrong. The idea is to future proof now, so that if the change is made, the templates can be updated and every article will change at once for us. (And before anyone says it, California will have to be a known exception to these plans because of their unique postmile system.) Imzadi 1979 → 03:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, this might be a good time to learn how to use the templates and convert articles over. The templates should support just about every situation with an American junction/exit list. They're strictly optional, but rapidly gaining a multitude of advantages over hard-coding tables. (Colors stay correct against MOS:RJL and generate a tooltip when a cursor hovers over the shaded line, the MPs will be right-aligned to roughly approximate decimal alignment, consistent MP range formatting, etc.) Imzadi 1979 → 03:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Assessments

This was me thinking out loud on IRC earlier, but I thought I'd share it with those who weren't there. –Fredddie™ 23:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I've thought about how we can improve how our banner handles assessment. What I was thinking was to give the three sections a ratings system. We would add three parameters to the banner, |RD=, |Hist=, and |RJL= and we'd rate them each 0, 1, or 2. 0 for non-existent, 1 for present, 2 for really good/complete and the assessment would be based on the sum of the three values: 0-1=stub, 2-3=start 4-5=C 6=B. So, if you have an awesome and complete route description, but no history or RJL, it would be Start-class.

Obviously anything over a B would be changed by |class=. This would, in effect, institute a B-class checklist for the project, but it would also mean a huge undertaking by us to get the entire project reassessed. Again. I do think it would be unwise to institute something like this at this time as it would scuttle the stub drive. Anyway, I'd like your thoughts on this. Again, I'm not proposing we do this at this time. –Fredddie™ 23:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, but we would need to also have some sort of override because not all articles fit into this. --Rschen7754 02:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about List-class and the other oddball classes? –Fredddie™ 02:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

About non-route articles and decommissioned routes, etc. --Rschen7754 02:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I think this could be an idea we can go with. Dough4872 02:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The idea has merit, and it does help address the issue we have with some articles having one really awesome section and then one other section being completely absent. Although I agree with Rschen about having an alternate scheme in place for articles that don't have some/all of the "big 3" sections. -- LJ ↗ 08:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

About how many articles are there that don't fit into the standard big three scheme? I'm thinking an override parameter should have a tracking category so there are no surprises down the road. –Fredddie™ 01:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that there's a way to count them easily. Some USRD-tagged examples I can think of:

• Many decommissioned highway articles do not necessarily have junction lists.
• Articles on named interchanges obviously will not have junction lists.
• Most of the old named auto trails articles I've read have no junction lists.
• DOT articles would only feasibly have a history section.
• Many non-route articles often have none of the big 3—non-list articles on highway systems & renumberings, various articles on acts and policies (such as Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act), and other related topics (such as Speed limits in the United States).

-- LJ ↗ 11:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It may be better to apply these criteria solely to articles on highways, and not on concepts, organizations, interchanges or technical stuff. Non road articles could have a list of their own, but it would have to cover a lot of bases at once. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 13:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

We have some room to add types to the banner. I'm thinking |type=DOT/Law/Govt and |type=jct. I'm kinda torn at whether there should be separate DOT and Law types or if they should be combined as Govt. These types would let us override the assessments, but they would also give us article quality statistics for these articles. I don't think it would be a bad idea to add these types anyway, and I'd probably also add |type=CR to track county roads, but that's something else entirely. –Fredddie™ 17:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

An additional benefit to that is that you could set up an assessment table that shows article types by class. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

yeah, just like Interstates, US Highways and auto trails have their own lines in the table at WP:USRD/A/S, we could type-code the interchanges/intersections and the gov't stuff and have them appear on the table. Imzadi 1979 → 20:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps if the sections weren't applicable, they would automatically receive a 2.— PCB 04:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

That could work, but shouldn't our standards be a little different if the article doesn't fit into the big three mold? –Fredddie™ 04:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, if the Big Three doesn't apply, then the article should be judged on different metrics. Imzadi 1979 → 04:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Random implementation idea: perhaps we could code the logic somewhat like this (please excuse the psuedocode):

if(article is flagged as a non-active-route)
    use class parameter as supplied
else
    if(class >= GA)
       use class parameter as supplied
    else if(sections are rated individually)
       use that to determine the class
    else if(class < GA)
       use class parameter as supplied
       categorize article in "Articles which have not been rated on a section-by-section basis" (or something less cumbersome)

This would mean we could go ahead and implement this without breaking the current assessment system while still flagging them for eventual later reassessment. New articles and reassessments could gradually drain the "have not been rated by-section" category until such time that an assessment audit is desired to be performed anyway. The category could perhaps be broken up by state as appropriate in case subprojects wish to audit/assess their articles at once. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I like your logic. –Fredddie™ 20:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. --Rschen7754 00:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to attempt to write something that will follow Scott's pseudocode. I'll post it here whenever I get something worth showing. –Fredddie™ 22:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Redundant shield craziness

Resolved

 – The uploader was already blocked for some reason, and the blocking admin deleted the duplicate graphics for us. Imzadi 1979 → 00:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

While browsing through User:Multichill/Free uploads/2011-10-16 (which is a list of all Commons-eligible files uploaded on the given date) I stumbled on some shields which are redundant to our established sets (and several of which bear MUTCD sign codes instead of the "standard" scheme). I'm about to head to bed so I can't deal with it right now, but maybe we should look into what's going on here and perhaps look at the uploader's other contribs to see if there's something we need to work on here? Maybe do some FFD? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I tagged them all under CSD criteria F1 (redundant files). The only difference was Series D instead of Series C. The Arkansas shields I don't understand because they were specifically requested to be changed from D to C. –Fredddie™ 22:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

An ACR that needs participants

Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Michigan State Trunkline Highway System could use addition project member participation. Unlike most ACRs that are normally combing through to tweak and clarify wording, verify image license/copyright status and such, this article is about the system as a whole, not one highway. We just don't have a "big three" formula for writing such an article at this time. Please look through and offer comments, since quite likely, this article will serve as some sort of template for similar articles in the other states. What needs to be added, expanded, summarized, etc? Is there anything in here that's too trivial? Imzadi 1979 → 02:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Reminder: USRD Newsletter

I'm setting a publication deadline for Halloween for the newsletter. If you have any updates for your state since the last newsletter went out in April, please add them to the newsroom soon. If the issue comes together faster, I may have it published sooner though. Imzadi 1979 → 22:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal

FL 63 and redundancy to U.S. Route 27. Proposal at Talk:Florida State Road 63#Merge proposal.Mitch32^{(Never support those who think in the box)} 22:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Also check out Talk:U.S. Route 19 in Florida#Merge proposal for a proposal to merge FL 57 into U.S. Route 19 in Florida. Dough4872 02:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

California State Route 7

Resolved

 – We added a parameter to the template for CA. Imzadi 1979 → 21:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there a way to turn off the hatnote so we don't have issues like the jct list in the above article with two hatnotes? --Rschen7754 18:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

US business routes in Arkansas

Resolved

 – Articles need to be updated to use proper code scheme. Imzadi 1979 → 23:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox road small does not show up shields for Arkansas business routes on pages like Auxiliary routes of U.S. Route 71. They are in the form File:US 62B.svg in order to show the "B", maybe this is the issue? Brandonrush Woo pig sooie! 22:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't use |type=US |route= 71B. You need to use |type=US |subtype=Bus |route= 71. Imzadi 1979 → 23:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

TFD

{{USRD essay}} is up for deletion. --Rschen7754 20:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Now moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/essay, feel free to pick a better name. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Reassess

I've made significant improvements to North Spokane Corridor. While it doesn't have an exit list, I think we can make an exception for a highway that is far from complete. I was hoping for a reassessment to a better category that Start. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 23:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. If the project is far enough along that you can at least note what roads it will intersect, in the form of a bulleted list, that would count as an exit list for now. M-231 (Michigan highway) is sufficiently planned that it has a junction list when the only construction on it so far is the bridge and nothing else. Another option would be to create a table with the known junctions, and leave the distances blank until the highway is completed. As information becomes available, you can expand the table with additional exits and fill in the blanks. Imzadi 1979 → 00:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

There, you have an exit list. While I was at it, I've made several minor changes to the text of the article to clean it up from a MOS perspective. I've tried to make sure that non-breaking spaces are used between the "US" and the number in a highway abbreviation, that the article uses highway abbreviations and names consistently, that missing conversions were added, that non-breaking spaces were inserted between a number and the "unit" of a measurement, and that citations are complete. (On that note, footnote 3 is incomplete because it is password-protected; I would suggest that it be replaced with something that isn't protected.) Because the big three are in place, I will bump this to C-Class, but work is still needed to achieve B-Class, IMHO. Imzadi 1979 → 02:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Stub goal

Just a friendly reminder, there are 50 days left in 2011 and we still have over 300 stubs to go to reach our goal. Our rate so far has been on average 5.4 stubs removed per day. If we want to meet our goal, our required pace is now 6.2 stubs per day, unless we knock out a bunch in one day. Keep up the great work! –Fredddie™ 05:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Texas Former Roads...

Howdy, I have been working on a project to create a former roads page for Texas similar to the one California has, to help wittle down a chunk of the Texas state highway stubs. Here's what I put together [16]. It got kinda long (101 routes), but would take ~50 stubs out of the way. Can I get some feedback on the design/implementation of this page? Thanks. 25or6to4 (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks fine to me, but I'd personally give them headings unless you have the anchor coding in place so that redirects to the specific sections would work. As a side note, I'd kinda like it a tad better if you had separate browsers under each highway's section, sorta like Former Michigan spur routes, but that's a personal preference. I say run with it. Imzadi 1979 → 19:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I love the idea of axing 50 stubs in one shot. A few things I would do differently: move the browser to the bottom, use {{Infobox state highway system}} instead of IBR, remove the table that prevents the text from going past the infobox once it ends, and add #targets so redirects can work properly. –Fredddie™ 03:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I have done some redesign. Removed the browser, preferring instead to put them in each section. took out the table (don't know why it was there in the first place), and added headers, so redirects should be much easier to work with. Any final comments? Will be putting at Former Texas state highways. 25or6to4 (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I did a couple things to shorten the length of the page. I added {{TOC hidden}}, which puts the table of contents in a collapsible box. It's not very elegant, sadly, but it works to hide the TOC without removing it altogether. Secondly, I made the references 2 columns. I think we're good to go! –Fredddie™ 16:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

OK thanks! Have moved the file over, and have (hopefully) moved all the proper redirects to their correct places. After all the adjustments, I only came up with 33 stubs gone. 25or6to4 (talk) 18:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

That puts the stub goal right back on track! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

A project milestone...

The statistics are showing exactly 1,000 B-Class articles at this time. A quick glance at the upper-half line graph shows this is an historic moment on The Price Is Right a first in USRD project history. Kudos, everyone! —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Portal links

There is an RfC that's been started about deprecating the portal namespace. I would suggest that USRD editors make an effort to add portal links to articles in the coming year, if not sooner. Part of the reasons that portals are underuse, I think, is that they lack visibility. IMHO, we should be linking to appropriate portals on every highway article. After all, P:USRD is a Featured Portal, so we should be showcasing it and giving it some visibility. As of right now we have:

• Portal:Roads, appropriate for any article topic that isn't US-specific
• Portal:Canada Roads, appropriate to include on any article that deals with Canada as well as the US
• Portal:U.S. Roads, should be on every article that is US-specific unless one of the state portals is a better fit
• Portal:Michigan Highways, for Michigan highway articles (also a Featured Portal)
• Portal:New York Roads, for New York articles
• Portal:Washington Roads, for Washington State articles
• Portal:<insert state here>, should be included for any states that don't have a highway-specific portal (I wouldn't include a state portal for MI, NY or WA though)

Multiple portals can be inserted using {{portal box}}, or you can do what I did with M-185 (Michigan highway) and use {{portal-inline}}. Portal links belong in the See also section, if it exists, or you can include them at the top of another section after the body of the article. (I moved M-185's portal links to be inline in the See also section just because they squished the two-column references section too much.) They don't belong in External links sections because portal pages aren't external to the English Wikipedia. (Commons and the other sister projects, on the other hand, are separate sites and considered external to Wikipedia.)

Oh, and please remember to continue suggesting articles, photos and DYK hooks for P:USRD so that we can continue to update the portal every month (and again on April Fool's.) Imzadi 1979 → 21:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to someone with AWB capabilities making a pass to add the portal box to articles that don't already have it. –Fredddie™ 22:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)