Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Michigan State Highways/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Counties in infobox? 2 Concurrencies in Infobox 3 Upper Peninsula Pages 4 Any thoughts on the Letter then # routes 5 State route naming convention poll 5.1 Exemption from process 6 State highway naming convention part 2 7 Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll/Part2 8 Business/Connector M-routes

Counties in infobox?

I've noticed that the Road infobox has support for counties (see here). Perhaps we should consider adding that to the list? I don't think it'd be very ungainly for all but the longest Ms (M-66, for example). —IW4^U_T^C 23:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

While I feel it useful to list the counties, I think that type of information is too specific for the infobox. The counties that the route goes through makes more sense to me discussed in the body of the article. That said, we haven't set a standard regarding this yet, and I suppose that is your intention, so I'd encourage some discussion. Stratosphere (talk - Contrib) 01:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't find it too specific. Listing individual municipalities...yeah, that's way too specific. —IW4^U_T^C 02:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to listing the counties in the infobox, my only concern is that on some articles the infobox already is longer than the body of the article...I suppose if counties are listed in the infobox (west -> east; south -> north) then expanded on in the body in the route description, perhaps that will flesh out the articles nicely. Stratosphere (talk - Contrib) 04:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

As a side note, there are times when listing municipalities (by this, I mean cities) is an advantage over counties: take NY 5, which goes through 20 or so counties.

That said, since I was actually the one who convinced SPUI to incorporate a county entry into Infobox road (as part of the "compromise" that led to the switch from "Routeboxny" to "Infobox road"), I see no problems with listing counties in the infobox (as is done on WP:NYSR). Simply put, if an infobox is longer than the article, the article is either a stub or of stub length or the route has a lot of major intersections. =) --TMF ^{T - C} 06:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

In most cases, cities have major intersections in them. I could see that covering the city portion in eight cases out of ten. —IW4^U_T^C 11:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I've taken to listing counties in the pages I've updated. With the exception of M-28 at nine counties, most of the UP trunklines have only a couple if not just one. It is working nicely so far.Imzadi1979 10:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Concurrencies in Infobox

I'd like to come up with a reasonable way to indicate concurrencies in the infobox. Case in point the M-35 article. M-35 has an 8 mile conccrency with US 2/41 that begins at Escanaba and ends at Gladstone. For an example of how the Interstate project handles this, the I-94 article shows the concurrency between Tomah and Madison, WI by including I-94's shield in the junction. I'd prefer some kind of merge and split sign. I was unable to find any suitable ones on the Commons that have a road sign-like appearance. The closest thing I found were the images to the right. The theory is these could be used to the left of the junction shields in the junction list (sized to 20px), but I think something without a sign shape would be best; i.e. just a merge and split symbol with a transparent background. Comments? Ideas? Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 06:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• I've never seen that particular sign, but I like it. Looks like it could work. —IW4^U_T^C 09:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• • ...but, I always feel there's room for improvement, deobfuscation, and universalization. —IW4^U_T^C 10:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I like what you've designed, I put them in action at M-35 but I think they are too thin, and they need to be nearly square so they fit in with the 20x20px route signs. I didn't use the ones I posted originally because I didn't want to use a yellow sign, I think they are too intrusive. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 14:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't think that the icon is very intuitive at all. I think the yellow signs would be more intuitive. Drivers have seen them before and have some idea what it means.Imzadi1979 04:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
        • No offense intended, but I don't think either image style is obvious or intuitive. Especially at iconic size, I think they will likely cause more confusion than clarification. older ≠ wiser 12:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Yeah, I'm beginning to agree, but I'd like to come up with ideas to address concurrencies, maybe a seperate section in the infobox, or maybe I'm going overboard...wouldn't be the first time...:P Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 14:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
            • What we do at WP:NYSR is list the route then the town/city/area where the concurrency begins and then the area where the concurrency ends. New York State Route 55 is one example of this. Of course, we also have the detailed junction list, so that makes it easier to do the "double-mention" procedure in the infobox. I dunno, I definitely see the point of the signage to indicate concurrency starts/ends, but is the signage too much for an infobox? --TMF ^{T - C} 14:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
              • I think the signs are too much after looking at them in action. I think I might try out what has been done on the I-94 page. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 16:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

(too many bullets =), back left) The I-94 layout looks pretty good to me. In fact, I may have to bring that up over at WP:NYSR as, for some reason, the I-94 concurrency design appears to me to be much better than what we're using now. --TMF ^{T - C} 16:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• How about this: Test M-64 Article with concurrency section in infobox Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 03:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Eh, ya know, I think that looks bad...I think I'm trying to put too much into the infobox. While I liked the I-94 page's handling of concurrencies I realized it didn't have a clickable text for I-90 next to the shield and putting it in looks clumsy. I think we should just put both shields in and just list the concurrent highway. See M-33 (Michigan highway) for an example. I also think we should limit ourselves to listing concurrencies and show them only if it's longer than 20 miles, otherwise just list it as a junction near the closest city/town. Anything less just seems trivial. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 04:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Putting the shield in there doesn't seem very obvious. I see it more as just junctioning with the route, not actually merging and forming a concurrency. On M-40, I just put the shield of the concurrent route, Concurrency in italics with small text (just like that) linked to Concurrency (road), then the other route's shield and Concurrency ends (with no extra text identifier) for the end of it. Sometimes, things just need to be spelled out. —IW4^U_T^C 02:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Since we never decided, wholly, on how to handle concurrencies in the infobox, I think we might just leave them out and do them as junctions as we did before. Looking at M-69, I think listing it like that detracts from the infobox...I think line wraps should be avoided as much as possible. What are other's input on this? Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 22:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Upper Peninsula Pages

Unless I missed one, all of the UP trunkline articles have been updated or created. There are some really small spur routes (M-98, M-162, M-170, M-178, M-180, M-200 & M-206) that have either been long decommissioned or subsumed in other trunklines that don't have pages. Also, I've used the counties= attribute in all of the UP pages. Any thoughts or comments on that?Imzadi1979 05:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Any thoughts on the Letter then # routes

Think we should have articles on these-they are spread around the state? How would you feel if we added these to the project?Mitchazenia 19:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, first off, let me say that I have recently created shields for these. They're known as county-designated highways, and are actually named, maintained, and controlled by the counties they traverse. As such, they are not state highways, but perhaps we could incorporate CDHs as a subproject of MSHP. I wouldn't be averse to this; after all, even though MDOT has nothing to do with them, they're still part of Michigan's road system. —IW4^U_T^C 19:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link: http://www.michiganhighways.org/listings/county_highways.html. Mitchazenia 19:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

See List of Michigan County-Designated Highways. There aren't many of these articles existing yet, but the list is there with red-links ready to go. I think we could use a better overview/introduction to them though. But I didn't want to rip-off Bessert's site and I don't know much more about these highways except for what Bessert has already done such a good job of putting together. older ≠ wiser

You missed H-16.Mitchazenia 19:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't put that together, I was only pointing out its existence. older ≠ wiser 19:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"H-16" was omitted because it's not a CDH; it's a recurring typo on the Official Transportation Map of Federal Forest Highway (FFH-)16. It's not even in the H zone; the entirety of Iron, Houghton, and Ontonagon Counties are in the G zone. —IW4^U_T^C 21:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

A reply to IW4's first comment, MDOT doesn't directly maintain them, but they coordinate the grid system for numbering, and they will sign CDH's on trunklines with shields. Other county roads don't get the county road's shield signed on the trunkline for junctions (although I live by an exception). They, unlike other CRs keep their numbering across county lines. For instance, Alba Road connects US 131 at Alba to M-32 near Gaylord. It is C-42 in Antrim and Otsego counties, not something most county roads do. As such, the CDH system is almost akin to a "secondary" highway system in the state. I'd be all for a subproject on these routes. What would we need to do at some point to created a variation of the infobox for them, etc? Since I have the UP trunklines done (except those really old decommissioned ones that little info exists) I'd be willing to start writing some articles after my extended Labor Day/birthday vacation. Imzadi1979 00:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

State route naming convention poll

I have listed the Michigan State Highway WikiProject as opting to be exempted from the process and maintain our current article naming structure as it makes the most sense for our named highways, M-X. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 06:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Reminder

• Voting commences at 23:59, Monday, September 4, 2006 (UTC).
• Voting ends 23:59, Tuesday, September 12, 2006 (UTC).
• The current time is 04:17, Saturday June 14, 2008 (UTC).

The following is a transclusion from another page. Edits (like commenting and voting) are made by clicking the "edit" links to the right of the headings below. This will redirect you to the original page's edit box. You can't make edits to the section below by clicking the "edit this page" tab at the top of this page (you will only see the transclusion code). Your edits will be viewable here, the original page, and on the second page of the State Route Naming Conventions poll. – Stratosphere (U T) 19:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Exemption from process

Per the guideline above and offered exception for Michigan (and Kansas), If your state has already discussed this issue and it agrees with the passed principle, you can link to the discussion and be exempted from the process (unless a few people object). However, you MUST be able to point to a specific discussion with a clear consensus, the Michigan State Highway WikiProject, and the pages it oversees -- namely all Michigan state trunk line related articles -- wishes to be exempted from the process as the current naming scheme has been agreed upon[1], previously, barring any objections that appear here.

The naming format to be used in the title of the state highways of Michigan shall be M-XX (Michigan highway).

State highway naming convention part 2

• I'm wondering if we should attempt to exempt ourselves from the process (compromise offered here) since the current naming format has already been discussed here, with consensus. I think leaving the articles where they are (even though it is technically Principle II) makes the most sense for our M-X format. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 03:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I concur. Leave 'em lie; all the other ways are just too unwieldy for us (and Kansas' K-routes). —IW4^U_T^C 04:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• As noted above, I've issued a request for exemption for all Michigan state trunk line articles, which would in effect leave them where they are. If anyone has an objection to this, please say so and I'll reinstate the four principles for voting which I had listed earlier. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 06:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

While you list your exemption, please also list your naming format (i.e. M-XX (Michigan Highway), etc.). Thanks! --physicq210 06:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

good call. Done and done. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 06:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of the current format, to be honest. I would prefer either Michigan M-XX or, if "M" is an abbreviation, "Michigan XX". Powers ^T 20:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

M isn't an abbreviation, though we all know where it came from. That's the thing. The problem I see with "Michigan M-XX" is that you don't know what it is. At least with other states, "California Route 52" or "Wisconsin State Highway 76" gives you an idea of what exactly the article you're about to click on is. If anyone looks at ours, they'd probably think, what the heck is an M-25, and why is Michigan's so special? This still plenty disambigs Michigan's highway designated M-25 from the other Ms in the universe, like the British motorway, the sniper rifle, the and the star cluster. —IW4^U_T^C 21:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly right. older ≠ wiser 22:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

per the above comments, since there is support here to maintain the existing naming scheme as well as in previous discussions which I referenced before, I'll be leaving the Michigan request for exemption unchanged in the poll. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 02:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

True enough. How about "Michigan highway M-XX"? Note the lowercase. Powers ^T 16:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

We notice it now, but hardly anyone else will. I can also see undue confusion stemming from the CDHs with that, too. —IW4^U_T^C 05:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's something else. I mean, wow. Powers ^T 17:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What? You see "highway M-1," and you think there should be other letters for the routes. Where's highways A-1 through L-1? That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about. It's not like Britain with the M/A/B road naming system; the name is M-1, and it's a highway in Michigan, plain and simple. (You may think me crazy (and you're probably right), but being a lifelong resident of this state, that's just how I see it.) —IW4^U_T^C 19:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it does make sense given the precedent, but there are so many things named letter-number in this world it's patently confusing to an outsider. =) Powers ^T 12:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll/Part2

Your state is invited to participate in discussions for its highway naming convention. Please feel free to participate in this discussion. If you already have a convention that follows the State Name Type xx designation, it is possible to request an exemption as well. Thanks! --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Business/Connector M-routes

I've adapted the road Infobox to support BUS and CONN Ms. Examples can be seen on BUS M-60) and CONN M-13. To go along with that, do BUS Ms really need to have the city listed in the title? There are only three of them, and they're all in very different cities, so I think we should be able to change them to, for example, M-32 Business (Michigan highway), as no further disambiguation is needed than that. That said, for other BUS and CONN Ms, use the BusM and ConnM type in the Infobox. —IW4^U_T^C 05:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The disambiguation stems from the format used for the Interstate highway pages, Interstate business loops and spurs are demarcated by the city within which they run. For example: Interstate 96 Business (Farmington, Michigan) since there is other BL-96's in Muskegon, Portland, Lansing, Howell, and Detroit. While I agree this might be overkill for M-routes, it might be best to leave them at their current format in case in the future it comes up that there are two M-60 Business loops. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 05:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do understand that. What if we put in as a redirect to the current article, and then, in the (very unlikely) instance another BUS M-60 pops up somewhere, it can be turned into a disambig page. —IW4^U_T^C 10:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds fair to me. I just wouldn't be surprised to see SPUI jump all over that ;) Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 13:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Noted; I'll take my chances. It'll make further Infobox integration easier. —IW4^U_T^C 14:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me... I'm thinking tht BUS M-28 is ready for an update :-) Will the changes work with the BUS US nn and BL I-nn pages yet? Imzadi1979 23:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I only applied it to the BUS Ms because there's only one of each. There's a lot more BUS USes and BL/S Is each, and they're in multiple states (save BL/S I-96), so I don't see that one happening. As far as the infobox, I don't know if there are already adaptations for those Business routes, but if there aren't, they're pretty easy to create. —IW4^U_T^C 18:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)