Talk:U.S. Route 40

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ohio Portal
U.S. Route 40 is part of WikiProject Ohio, which collaborates on Ohio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to current discussions.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Suggested article edit guidelines:
Good article U.S. Route 40 was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article Improvement Drive U.S. Route 40 was previously a U.S. Roads Article Improvement Drive collaboration.
For more details, see the U.S. Roads Article Improvement Drive.
To-do list for U.S. Route 40: edit · history · watch · refresh
Comments

Contents

[edit] Moved to U.S. Route 40

I have moved this to U.S. Route 40, as that is the name used by AASHTO, the Federal government, and many states. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Highways#Useful resource - AASHTO reports 1989-present. If there are no complaints about this or the other three I have moved in a day or so, I will move the rest. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PA route 81 Redirects here

Is it just me or does this statement not belong at the top of the page. If this page was a U.S. 40 in PA article, it would be appropriate, but not for the national article, IMHO. Any objections to removing it? Davemeistermoab 06:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] February 17, 2007 unexplained year change

Please see today's edit that change the "as of year". Ronbo76 22:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple tags permitted

Different projects are permitted to have tags on this article. In addition, ratings will vary but usually reflect each closely but might have some differences depending on the weight assigned by the project. Ronbo76 22:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This sentence is (currently) incorect.

"It crosses the Mississippi River on the Poplar Street Bridge in St. Louis and is multiplexed with Interstate 64 until its terminus between the Missouri River and Interstate 70. " This won't be true until the ongoing I-64 construction in St Charles County between I-70 and an interception near MO-94 completes in a few years. (There are two stop lights remaining to be bypassed and several miles of new ashplat that need added both in that area and in another area of the project.) The Feds might also hold off offically designating this until the old US-40 Eastbound bridge over the Missouri River is replaced which might push this back another year. In the mean time there is a dispute on where exactly I-64's western designation begins. Jon 18:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewritten for USRD Article Improvement Drive

This article has been extensively rewritten and referenced per the current USRD Article Improvement Drive. I am going to go ahead and nominate it as a Good Article Candidate. Hopefully it will pass! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA passage

I've passed this article because there are lots of reliable sources, the writing is great, and the overall coverage is broad. Might want to improve on the stableness of the article, and link to/create state detail articles. Keep it up! V60 干什么？ · 喝掉的酒 · 路 19:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History notes

Obviously the detailed history should go in the state articles. Here are some general notes. Only 40N east of Limon is detailed here. --NE2 18:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Victory Highway, San Francisco, CA to Baltimore, MD?? (via US 40S; originally via 40N west of Halford, KS and 40S east of Oakley, KS, and via Jefferson City)
  • Union Pacific Highway, Denver, CO to Lawrence, KS (via 40S)
  • Midland Trail, Denver, CO to Lawrence, KS (via 40N)
  • National Old Trails Road, La Mine? to Frederick, MD (except that it went via Dayton; did it go via Wilmington?)
State highway numbers
  • CA: no signed numbers
  • NV: 1
  • UT: 4
  • CO: 2, 8; 4 (40N)
  • KS: no signed numbers
  • MO: 2
  • IL: 11
  • IN: 3
  • OH: 1
  • WV: 29
  • PA: 11
  • MD: no signed numbers
  • DE: no signed numbers
  • NJ: 18

[edit] Something is wrong

I tried deleting the I-70 Junction in Ellicot City, but I just mess up the thing, so someone else please delete it. I confused it with US 40 Alt and I-695.

[edit] Good article review

I'm taking this to good article review, mainly since many of the sources are not reliable. --NE2 08:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This article has been delisted from WP:GA per the Good article review process. The discussion, now in archive, can be found here. Once the article meets all the standards listed at WP:WIAGA, the article may be renominated at WP:GAC. Regards, Lara♥Love 19:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flow of text in the beginning of route description

Do we seriously need {{clr}} in the beginning of the route description, right near the two tables? As far as I know and in accordance with WP:USH, text must flow in between the two tables there, regardless of the placement of pictures. (→O - RLY?) 18:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the text has to flow between the two tables: could you give a more precise link for WP:USH? If there is such a guideline, it may need a rethink, because there are accessibility issues when the floats fill out more than about 300px around the text (some readers use larger fonts or less wide browser windows). Indeed the Manual of style recommends that text should not be sandwiched between left and right images. The same guideline states that image placement does matter: if you really want the text to go through the tables, then the first few images will have to be removed, which I think is a bit sad. Geometry guy 19:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
If there are too many images there, then they will have to be moved or removed, since USH and USRD standards require that multi-state routes have the lengths table. I'm not sure about the communities box, but it is pretty vital for a route this long. These guidelines do not conflict with the MOS, the only thing is with the amount of images in the article. (→O - RLY?) 19:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
That is fine: I have no problems with the tables, but where does it say that text must flow between them? You haven't pointed me to a reference for this. Geometry guy 19:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC) PS. In case it isn't obvious, I am trying to improve this article so it passes GA/R.
References to guidelines aren't necessary. See Interstate 70. (→O - RLY?) 19:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Eh? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Interstate 70 violates WP:MoS#Images (it has both stacked and facing images) and would have no chance to be a good article at the moment. The article here does have chance to retain its status. Don't you want it to? And why should we be deprived of images of Utah, just because it is listed first on these routes? Geometry guy 19:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, common sense says that huge blocks of white space isn't acceptable. If it means removing images, then so be it, since the lengths table and the communities box are too essential to not be there. (→O - RLY?) 19:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Then common sense says that all tables of contents must be deleted. Heh, I am trying to help here, why am I getting all this conflict over such a minor issue? Geometry guy 20:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I can understand what you're saying but like O said, it needs to follow WP:USH now until the guideline changes. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 20:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, but can you please point me to this guideline? I still can't find it. Geometry guy 20:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
We've already linked it a billion times. (→O - RLY?) 20:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
It's best for the article to have diagrams, It won't hurt it to remove some images, in fact, too many images can make the artice too big. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 20:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:USH says an article needs to have a lengths box and a major cities box. Common sense says that blocks of white space are undesirable. Therefore, common sense says text should flow between them. —Scott5114↗ 20:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not asking for anything complicated here. In O's edit summary, and above, he stated that "text must flow in between the two tables", citing WP:USH. He did not cite "common sense", he cited WP:USH. Until you provide a link to a subsection, paragraph or subpage of WP:USH which contains a sentence stating that text must flow between the two tables, I will assume that there is no such guideline. Common sense says nothing about whitespace: look at tables of contents, and also the tables at the end of WP:USH articles: lots of white space there. Geometry guy 20:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
there you go. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 21:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
And where's the sentence about text flow between the tables? In fact this seems to support the view that the mileage and the list of cities should come before the state subsections. Geometry guy 21:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Which they are. (→O - RLY?) 21:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
And where's the sentence about text flow between the tables? Geometry guy 21:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
That is the common sense part. The TOC is excepted from this because, well, it's a table of contents. Would readers like a bunch of white space in the place between the lengths table and communities box? (→O - RLY?) 21:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. I understand your position now. I have one positive suggestion: why not make the list of cities into a template, and then use a more flexible table in which the cities are not listed in a column, but in centered text, separated by bullets? Then the list of cities could have any width, and there would not be this problem. Note that visually impaired people use Wikipedia, and squeezing text between two tables is not helpful. Thanks for all your comments, and good luck with the project. Geometry guy 22:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: I've tooled around with the first few subsections of the route description, and changed the Colorado and Kansas picture placements. I've had to remove the Utah picture because it did not give much context to the article. (→O - RLY?) 22:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Aside: I'm impressed by the dedication to maintain high standards in WP:USRD articles, as shown by the enthusiasm among editors here for delisting substandard good articles. I thought I would point out that there is a procedure at Good article review for delisting an article without going through the GA/R process: a single person can delist, as long as it done properly. I also had a look at some of the other WP:USRD GAs, and think that New Jersey Route 33, California State Route 37, and Interstate 295 (Delaware-New Jersey) are a bit weak as well. Geometry guy 21:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)