Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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

Deletion discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashford-Dunwoody Road --NE2 15:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Shock and awe

Would one of the "fearless leaders" mind enlightening the laypeople of the project what the recent newsletter was supposed to mean?

“ Right now, as some of you may know, something that may cause controversy is being negotiated. Because of the sensitive nature of this and the efforts to keep the newsletter NPOV, it will not be disclosed. ”

If it can cause controversy, it needs to be discussed out in the open. You've been down this road before. -- NORTH talk 07:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If the mere mention of it is NPOV, it makes one wonder. --Holderca1 11:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
If somebody seriously wants to know, feel free to email me. This was something that was not appropriate to discuss in a newsletter. (→zelzany - new age roads) 14:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
[Edit conflict]Well, I'm rather critical of the quote, myself. As some people know, I'm the editor of my college's student newspaper. And my best be damned, I try my hardest to make sure each story is NPOV. News stories are always NPOV; it's the entertainment/tech stories that are the hardest.
As result, I believe that this "controversy" can be mentioned in the newsletter, reported via NPOV means. If the editors of the newsletter seem to have an issue with being able to write in an NPOV viewpoint, then they shouldn't be writing the newsletter. Besides, I don't even know which "controversy" they even mean.
Additionally, I believe that whatever it is, if it's worth mentioning as an editorial note at the beginning of the newsletter, should be mentioned here. --Son 14:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Son, please be civil and assume good faith. As for writing about it, the editors conversed about this this week, and it was decided not to. It is raking into controversy over one member, which frankly doesn't warrant a section in this newsletter. I really don't want to disclose it even here, because it can seriously upset somebody. As I've said above, if you want to know, feel free to email me. Thanks, (→zelzany - new age roads) 15:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
In that case, it probably is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NE2. I wonder what's being "negotiated", since I haven't been involved in any negotiations. By the way, Son was being civil; you should not throw around accusations of incivility lightly. --NE2 15:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for disclosing it, NE2. RFCs, according to dispute resolution, is negotiating. (→zelzany - new age roads) 15:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

In the future, just don't mention things if you don't intend to put them in the newsletter. "Something may be going on, but we won't tell you" - if you're not going to go into it, why mention it? —Scott5114↗ 16:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Scott5114. There was no need to mention it at all. Also, I don't see how I was incivil. I understand AGF, but how am I supposed to assume good faith in a situation as such, when a past newsletter (Issue 005) clearly had POV in it? --myselfalso 16:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

So the point has been made: "Don't tease with stuff you won't talk about." It's like middle school: "I know a secret! But I'm not going to tell you!" I don't know about every editor, but since we're all (usually) civil, smart, and mature enough to be writing about roads and creating in-depth projects about roads, we're mature enough to make the point, let it go, and move on. Thanks, --MPD T / C 17:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that wasn't a good idea (but I wasn't involved in this newsletter.) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I am not sure how a personal spat amongst a few editors is even newsworthy to begin with and I don't see where there is an controversy involved. If it doesn't affect most or all of the articles of the project, it shouldn't be mentioned in the newsletter. --Holderca1 09:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason to use infobox Maryland highway over infobox road?

I decided to clean up some Maryland infoboxes, including those listed on User:vishwin60/Roads/MD. In the process, I replaced template:infobox Maryland highway with template:infobox road. I was reverted on several articles: [1][2]. Is there a reason why the Maryland template should be preferred? The only "advantage", if it can be called that, I can see with infobox Maryland highway is that you don't have to specify the state parameter - you use "infobox Maryland highway" rather than "infobox road|state=MD". On the other hand, using the state-specific templates means that whenever a new parameter, like maint, is added, it needs to be added to each of the state infoboxes before it can be used. --NE2 08:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, states like IL, MO, MA, and NH use the state infobox. This would be the same for MD, as that project was a precursor of WP:USRD/INNA, however, those guidelines permit the usage of state-specific routeboxes. (→zelzany - new age roads) 16:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
On another note, it might be better to discuss this at the infobox subpage of WT:USRD/INNA. (→zelzany - new age roads) 18:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
But why should they permit changing the infobox back when no other changes are being made? This is like bypassing redirects - it adds a useless edit to the history without improving the article. --NE2 19:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I've convinced the guys over at that project—ages ago, to switch to an Infobox road infrastructure. It is recommended that you use that template, as it was agreed to by consensus (WP:MDRD/EG). (→zelzany - new age roads) 19:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
It's recommended that I don't help clean any more up then, as I prefer working with infobox road. --NE2 20:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
If you prefer to use infobox road, please discuss it over at WT:MDRD. Please note that you may upset some people. If you want to know my opinion on this, I don't have one, because I don't care. I'm just saying that that project uses their own infobox, and you should try to work with it. (→zelzany - new age roads) 20:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Why does U.S. Route 94 redirect to Tamiami Trail?

I noticed this on User:TwinsMetsFan/cleanup. US 94 was directly absorbed into US 41; shouldn't it redirect there? --NE2 10:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting question, I think once we create the US 41 in Florida article, that would be a better redirect, but since US 94 was the southern half of the Tamiami Trail, someone would be able to find more info from that article than they would from the US 41 article. --Holderca1 14:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Reformatting of U.S. Route articles

I rewrote U.S. Route 50 and added some history. Before I do it to others, can someone let me know if I did anything wrong? --NE2 10:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Also relating to this article, does anyone have a map of Utah from the early-to-mid 1970s that shows US 50 on its new alignment via Salina and I-70? Thank you. --NE2 14:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
First time I've ever seen a reference in a heading... Other than that, it looks fine. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any other way to do it, at least with inline referencing. --NE2 20:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
You are going to need to cite independent Google Map sources. This article might go to GA soon—somebody might comment on the blown-up ref number in the TOC and the heading. (→vishwin60 - new age roads) 20:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by "independent Google Map sources"? --NE2 21:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Here's an example. (→vishwin60 - new age roads) 22:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
That seems like overreferencing. I'll add to my question at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#References in headings? --NE2 22:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I dunno about that. But sure, it's good to get a third opinion. (→vishwin60 - new age roads) 22:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

List of Nevada state highways needs fixing

There are three columns but two headers, and many of the routes are in the wrong column. --NE2 14:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Google Maps for U.S. / state route estimates?

Would Google Maps (and specifically, the new feature to re-route your directions by dragging) qualify as a valid source for listing highway lengths to the nearest .1 mile? —Rob (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

If you can't find any better source, I don't see why not. --NE2 04:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
The Illinois GIS data is the best source, but after lots of crashing and burning with Quantum GIS and ArcViewer, I'm ready to do something else. For the time being. :-) —Rob (talk) 04:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Most state DOTs have highway maps that include lengths to the nearest .1 mile. I used those for all Minnesota articles, and I believe I found the info for both Dakotas as well. --Sable232 15:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you find any sources for lengths, be sure it is listed here Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Lengths, otherwise it will get lost in the talk archives. --Holderca1 16:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

One source that is bound to have lengths for almost every route in the US is the National Highway Planning Network GIS data. Census 2000 TIGER/Line data might also help. (→zelzany - new age roads) 16:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
TIGER/Line data is not precise enough. When making the elevation profile on NY 52, the mileage from the data was several miles less than the actualy length, due to curving in hilly areas. --NE2 07:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
This discussion's scope was never at or meant to be discussing elevation profiles. This was finding reliable sources for a route's length. (→zelzany - new age roads) 14:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I think what NE2 meant was that the TIGER line data is a projection of the road length on a flat surface. If a road has extreme elevation changes, the projected length and the actual length may be off. In any case, TIGER data is still a valid source in the absence of DOT sources. --Polaron | Talk 14:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
If you use TIGER data in hilly areas, whether due to elevation changes or due to curviness, the length will be off. This is not a valid source. It's also very annoying to deal with, since every portion of the road between two intersections is a separate element. --NE2 15:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Does NHPN data have those same inaccuracies? (→zelzany - new age roads) 16:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea; I haven't looked at it. Try comparing it to a known length of a curvy road and see what you get. --NE2 18:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I just took a look at the NHPN data, and, as long as you add up the "MILES" field to get the length, it should be fine. --NE2 20:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just used it on U.S. Route 6N; droz said 27 miles, where NHPN said 27.84, so it should be fine. (→zelzany - new age roads) 23:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The data is certainly very accurate; it gives 467.77 miles for U.S. Route 50 in Colorado while the CDOT data gives 467.58 miles - a difference of 0.04%. This difference is probably due to differences in how it's measured, particularly on ramps, but may also be because of minor errors in the NHPN data; for instance US 50 east of Bedford, IN has a duplicated length. --NE2 08:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Exit list pages

I redirected I-10 exit list to Interstate 10 since it was just redundant and less complete then the state specific interstate exit lists anyway. What is the opinion on this, leave as a redirect or use as a dab page linking to the exit lists on each of the state specific articles? A more appropriate title should be used such as Interstate 10 exit list.--Holderca1 23:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

According to article size, tables do not count as part of the overall article size. What is best to do with the redundant article is just to redirect it to the national Interstate article. (→vishwin60 - new age roads) 23:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for comments

Does the format of U.S. Route 66 in Oklahoma look good? --NE2 22:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd normally put the route description before history, but I guess since the article is about a decommissioned route, it can go first. Other than that, everything looks fine to me. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Proper term for "highway community"?

What is the proper name (if any) for a town primarily supported by the presence of an Interstate? Moreover, is it encyclopedic? —Rob (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"One-road town" is the closest I can come up with. --NE2 01:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, "service-based town" seems to be used in a few scholarly papers, but I'm not sure if it's quite what you're looking for. --NE2 01:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
That's probably the best that exists. There's a few concepts in Types of rural communities, which looks to be a never-touched article. But highway community is not among the choices. —Rob (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps there's a term called "Breezewoods", considering the I-70 stuff? (→O - RLY?) 17:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
That seems to be a roadgeek neologism like multiplex and ghost ramp. --NE2 23:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, right. That was just off the top of my head, which was the first thing I thought of. (→O - RLY?) 23:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Adopt a highway (an idea)

Here's an idea that's been bouncing around my head for the past few days. We've got hundreds of articles, of course, even just counting the national systems. Our standards continue to gradually evolve, as they should, but it's difficult keeping track of who's doing what in the way of keeping articles up to spec and free of vandalism. Naturally people will want to help out on their local interstates and U.S. routes, but you really only need one person to keep on top of standards and vandalism.

So I remembered a minor thing mentioned in the template that you use when starting a brand new wikiproject: article adoption. This isn't ownership, but rather just a way of letting people volunteer to keep tabs on the article and whenever we come up with the next thing we want to apply throughout a whole project (like when we came up with the Major Cities box, which still hasn't been applied to all the Interstates yet) each person can have a number of routes (I'd say about ten would be the right number, about four primaries and six auxiliaries in one system should be a good mix) they go and fix rather than feeling they need to work through a whole bunch of routes and get exhausted and we end up missing half of them.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 7/usrd-adopt (Please ignore the image, I've got a spiffy Adopt A Highway sign I made from the SHS that we could use, but I don't want to upload it unless I know there's support for this idea. We'll move it to template space too if it goes through)

The "adopt a highway" name gives the right idea: keeping the article clean and free of trash. When there's a change in standards, you have a clear focus to work on improving first, and then if you've got extra time and energy you can work on unadopted articles. I think this might help us improve the general quality of the project. The AID model is best for drastically improving single articles (it doesn't seem to be working, but that's another topic), but this will help us improve a broad range of articles quickly. Think it's a good idea? —Scott5114↗ 08:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Can't hurt to try it for a while. I'd be game for participating. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 18:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah sure. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm all for it! --Son 19:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan! --MPD T / C 19:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Now live at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Adopt-a-Highway!—Scott5114↗ 09:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Good article review

I have listed U.S. Route 40 on good article review. --NE2 08:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Utah highways known as U-xx?

There is a trivia section at List of Kansas numbered highways which lists this. This isn't true, is it? I would think something like this would be in the Utah highway list article. DandyDan2007 22:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This isn't correct; the proper abbreviation is SR #, per this. (→O - RLY?) 23:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
removed it earlier DandyDan2007 06:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It's one of the common ways to refer to them, though not one that UDOT uses: [3] --NE2 14:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Signing Up

Um, how do I sign up for the WikiProject U.S. Roads? --Martin4647

Put your name in Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Participants. (→O - RLY?) 23:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Utah

If anyone wants to help with Utah, whose project was "demoted" due to low activity, UDOT has put a lot of history online. The State Route History describes most changes - though it should be noted that early dates, before the 1930s, are when the roadway was taken over by the state; it was not until the 1930s that all routes were numbered. There are also scans of documents relating to most routes, including some AASHTO correspondence, at http://www.udot.utah.gov/download.php/tid=1348/SR-XXX.pdf , where XXX is the number (with zeros padding out the beginning if necessary). --NE2 23:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Why does this exist? Should it?

Interstates that intersect Interstate 80 --NE2 04:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No! Delete! --MPD T / C 04:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
If we decide it's bad, we can just redirect to I-80. There's no need to delete. --NE2 09:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This explains many issues I have with putting the "Intersections with other interstates" section in articles. So what? That's what the Infobox is used for and I personally could give a rip about what interstates cross each other - there's no "Intersection with other U.S. Routes" in the US route articles, nor has anyone seen this in state routes or other countries' routes. Its a list inside an article. editors keep adding to it - and it balloons. I agree with NE2 and MPD. but merging is going to cause more problems than deleting. If having the intersection list is so important, separate into state specific articles and build an exit list. master sonT - C 13:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with all. I'll be redirecting it after I finish posting this. (→O - RLY?) 15:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
It used to be part of the main I-80 article. This could've been useful in a parallel universe of some sort, but I moved it to that article because it certainly didn't belong in the main I-80 article. —Rob (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyright status of images

See this disussion for more info: Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#To_throw_it_out_there.2C_road_signs

I think the best remedy here is to start contacting the toll road authorities and ask the status of these shields, if they are public domain, if not, can we have permission to use them as we have been, etc... --Holderca1 16:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Started page here to keep track of them: Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Shields/Database/toll_roads --Holderca1 18:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pennsylvania Route 39 (1920s) --NE2 05:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of long-distance mileage signs in the United States. —Scott5114↗ 09:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Details on the National Highway System

I am looking for an up-to-date list of NHS roadways. [4] shows that the Fairfax County Parkway north of US 29 is not part of the NHS, but this doesn't make sense, and the map is outdated (for instance it shows the SR 234 bypass of Manassas as unbuilt). --NE2 01:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Interstate completion list

I made Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways/Completion list. If you make a state-detail article, please find it in the list (what links here is useful for getting to the list) and make sure all the redirects point correctly. I also made a list on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways/Completion list of ones that redirect to the main page but could be separate; there's also the issue of I-90 in Ohio and New York, which should not be redirects. Please do not make any redirects to the main article like this, unless it's a single-state Interstate or we can agree that it's short enough. --NE2 20:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the consensus on having articles such as Interstate 44 in Texas or Interstate 15 in Arizona? --Holderca1 02:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
General consensus is to write an article if an article can be written. I'm not sure about I-44 in Texas, but I-15 in Arizona has won awards for its scenic nature through the Virgin River Gorge. If very little can be written about a short section, the alternative is something like Interstate 59 in Louisiana and Mississippi. --NE2 02:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't endorse the creation of either article. The segments are too short to merit their own article, especially based on the information currently present about the segments in the "main" articles. We don't need more lousy state-detail articles; at least, not until the main articles are complete and fleshed out. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Created a template, {{R from highway}} to help manage the redirects. Just place it on the redirect page that has the possibility of becoming a separate article. --Holderca1 14:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like the idea. It has good intentions, but I personally fear that the template could be overused and placed on redirects that should never be turned into an article, at least not in the foreseeable future. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
How about this: only add it to articles of the exact form "route in state" where that route does go through more than one state. Maybe two similar categories can be used - one when it fits those conditions, but we agree it should not ever be a separate article, like the two states of Interstate 155 (Missouri-Tennessee) or U.S. Route 611, and another for most cases, where it could be a reasonable article. --NE2 05:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with most of that, up to the "most cases". Consider an example: U.S. Route 219 in West Virginia. Could a separate article be made potentially? Yes, and I don't think most editors would have an issue with its existence. But should it exist right now, with the West Virginia section on U.S. Route 219 in its current state? Absolutely not. So what I'm saying is that this template may tempt editors to create a state-detail article prematurely, before the "main" article is ready for such detail article to be made, if it is to be made at all. Note this is only for the "most cases"; I agree 100% with the two examples you gave that should never be state-detail articles. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I created Category:Redirects from highway in region and Category:Redirects from highway in region without possibilities and categorized the existing redirects. --NE2 23:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

More county road joy

Clark County Route 215 appears to be a cut-and-paste copy of Interstate 215 and Washoe County Route 447 has nothing more than an infobox. To me, it looks like any article on Clark CR 215 should be part of I-215 and I fail to see how Washoe CR 447 is notable enough for an article. Template:Template:Cleanup-nvcr and Template:Nevada-State-County-Highway-stub also seem unneeded. Also see Wikipedia:WikiProject Nevada State County Routes. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I redirected CC 215. It's not even clear that CR 447 exists; it should probably redirect to SR 447 either way, and then the SR 447 article can talk about the road, which it appears was to become part of SR 447 in the 1976 renumbering ([5]) but did not actually become it ([6]). --NE2 05:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
He seems to be a bit vandalistic, though we should certainly assume good faith on his highway edits, which look pretty solid though "noobish". --NE2 05:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I thing he is simply a new user trying to fill in articles that are missing. Redirects appear to be the right solution. Vegaswikian 06:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The user reverted the CC 215 redirect, and seems insistent on pushing his ill-advised project. I wonder where inexperience stops and intentionally spotty editing begins... --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 17:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Also see [7]. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 18:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
And Interstate 215/Clark County 215. This was a redirect from I-215 (Nevada). I added a waning to the user page and reverted the redirect. Can Interstate 215/Clark County 215 be speedy deleted? Vegaswikian 03:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Fingers-of-Pyrex is at it again

[8], [9]. I'd be willing to sign the RFC now; if the other person who signed requests undeletion and re-signs it, or starts a new one with the same text, it should work. --NE2 05:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and put my name on it if needed. Point to this diff, which explicitly gives my permission for them to do so. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I undeleted, could someone fix it? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

A new WikiProject

We've had another WikiProject created, this time for Nevada State County Routes. Woo hoo! Wikipedia:WikiProject Nevada State County Routes --Son 16:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I touched on that above. I think its existence is a bad thing - the last thing we need are more non-notable county road articles. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 17:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The project has been tagged for demotion. --Holderca1 18:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
How 'bout merge with the State route task force... (as explained elsewhere) master sonT - C 18:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Given that there is a ton of work left on the state routes, I don't see the harm in a merger. Not many editors are doing much on the Nevada roads. So a single project to cover both would be reasonable, no sense to split a small team of editors. I know I have not been doing much, but I'm not sure anyone has on Nevada roads. I think it is reasonable for the State projects to include county roads, but concentrate on the state roads until they are in good shape. Vegaswikian 19:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Project should be trashed. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Issue with WP:USSH

Neutralhomer (talk · contribs) is misreading it with respect to Stephens City, Virginia; is it possible that it's unclear? --NE2 03:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hard for me to understand what's being said here, I can see that the article has multiple links to one article and everything spelt out, but from what I interpret the convention's being followed. (NOTE: I think any restate of U.S. Route 11 could be shortened to US 11 or similar.) master sonT - C 04:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Followed by who? Neutralhomer is changing the text back to "Virginia State Route 277" and "VA State Route 277". --NE2 04:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying - what he did was wrong - so a misread did happen. master sonT - C 13:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Any restate of anything could be shortened (SR 277, VA 277, US 11, etc, whatever, just stay consistent with abbreviations). I'm understood that if not abbreviated, short names should be State Route X, but that's not to say that Virginia State Route X isn't ok. VA State Route X, IMO, isn't acceptable. It is possible there is a misread. Where's our list of acceptable non-formal versions, and what to write in links? There's one somewhere. --MPD T / C 04:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
"Virginia State Route X" is not OK; see WP:USSH. This is the long name; the short name is "SR X". By the way, you'll have to look back a few edits for his version; his latest edit was to bypass the redirects but keep the text, which is not actively bad, only useless. --NE2 04:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The key sentence to me is The official name is to be used when writing about the road in an article; only use the article title in another article if the sentence would otherwise be ambiguous. If "Virginia" is being displayed, that's clearly against the guideline as the "official name" does not include it. What was the state of the link before this back and forth started? That should be restored whether it was a direct or a redirect for compliance with WP:REDIRECT. --Polaron | Talk 04:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not it was a direct link shouldn't matter; it's easier to delete the Virginia and add it to the end in parentheses than to add the whole part after the pipe. (In this particular case, I used AWB, but the idea is the same.) --NE2 04:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
True and I agree with you here. But some people seem to really hate redirects. This was one of the arguments for not putting the state name in front for article titles for highways in certain states, but it's best not to re-open this SRNC related stuff again. The current solution in the Stephens City article is not ideal but acceptable. --Polaron | Talk 04:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the current state is acceptable to me; when this had started, Neutralhomer was placing the status of the link ahead of that of the text. Maybe we should make it clear in the guideline that what matters most is how it's read, and maybe also put this before the long table? --NE2 04:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Go ahead and add all this to avoid confusion and heated debate. (→O - RLY?) 03:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Stub template discussion

Check this out. See Stub Sorting/Proposals. --Son 14:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

There's also a massive renaming proposal regarding existing stubs at WP:WSS. Link is in the {{Project U.S. Roads}} template. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Potential neologism

As if there isn't enough things going on, I found an article that's likely a neologism: Hidden route. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It should be moved to Unsigned route or something of the like. --MPD T / C 00:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I would support a move to unsigned route. --NE2 02:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, that article is a good idea, but needs to be rewritten. --MPD T / C 02:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the move. --Holderca1 13:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Tags on the Talk pages of Disambiguation pages

Do we need to remove these from all Dab pages? such as done here? if so - I'm curious as to the rationale. In this case it still contained links to US Road subject articles. Thoughts? master sonT - C 20:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. It's still part of the WikiProject, even if it is just a disambiguation page. I'd like to know the rationale for removal also. --Son 23:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup templates, again

Earlier tonight, User:Bkonrad removed {{cleanup-ush}} from U.S. Route 131, calling it "project clutter". After a discussion, I was unable to reach a compromise. So, now that the cleanup tags have surfaced as an issue once more, what's the next step? One idea I got was to genericize and consolidate the road cleanup templates into a single {{cleanup-road}}, but I'd rather not do this unless necessary. Any thoughts? --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 03:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not add a parameter to the banner for the talk page? Such a tag can categorize the pages for easy identification by cleanup crews. I mean, what is the purpose of such tags? If the primary persons working on them are associated with the project, then they can find them and track them through the project banner mechanisms. If the articles are in such dire need of cleanup that an "in-your-face" caution to the reader is necessary, then a more generic (non-project specific) tag is appropriate. older ≠ wiser 03:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
USRD is the only project that has a heavy stock of cleanup templates. Yes they are good for categorizing shoddy articles, but some of the points that Bkonrad mentioned were valid points - he sees a cleanup template as something that be placed on very poorly written article - grammar wise. (see his discussion (linked above in TMF's comment) The same point holds for many of the cleanup templates. I am all for having the cleanup template(s), but they need to be used properly. My proposal:
  • genericize the template - and put guidelines for when to use it - is the article really awful? or does it simply have a policy issue? Policy issues seem to be the norm for such things here - but this seems to be not what the template is really for.
  • As for sorting - could we have a paramter and a list of valid categories (those that exist now) to put one of into that parameter. Rationale does need to go to the talk page.
  • Move rationale to the talk page. master sonT - C 03:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
If policy issues are eliminated, that all but eliminates the need and usefulness of the templates in my eyes. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

How about we just keep as is and move to the talk page? I am all for a simple solution to a simple problem. Shouldn't make any more difficult to find the articles, it will just be their talk pages listed in the cat rather than the article itself. --Holderca1 20:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

If we do that, we're probably better off incorporating the cleanup flag into the WP templates as an "attention=" parameter or something along those lines, like what Template:WikiProject New York has. Then, if anyone is confused as to why it is flagged, then they can ask. I'd rather not move the cleanup templates themselves onto the talk, as there are a lot of people who complain when a talk page is filled with boilerplate messages. So my preference, if we have to go this route, would be to incorporate the attention into the WP templates and delete the existing cleanup templates. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
If the purpose of this is to categorize then I'm all for this. Probably the better solution master sonT - C 21:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Support. This is the way to go. --Son 23:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll begin coding the attention parameter into the templates as part of a planned upgrade to all of the templates that will fix a bug introduced with the List-Class last night. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Coding has been completed and all articles have been converted from cleanup tags to a talk-page based system. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 07:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Aaahhh, not sure if this is happening everywhere, but on the few that I have looked at, the cleanup tag has been removed and the parameter added on the talk page, but nothing on the talk page about what needs cleaned up. When making the change, make sure to preserve what needs fixed or else it is worthless in my opinion. How am I to guess and figure out what exactly is wrong with the article? --Holderca1 15:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Errr, nevermind, didn't see it in the todo, my apologies. --Holderca1 16:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

How dire a condition does the article need to be for it to be flagged as needing attention? Interstate 8 is a pretty sorry article by any standard, but it's good as far as copyediting, wikification, and that sort of thing. I'm just concerned that we might end up flagging so much it means nothing. (Like those yellow signs in Pennsylvania that we love to make fun of.) —Scott5114↗ 18:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it'd have to be violating standards or have a weird exit list, something along those lines. I wouldn't flag I-8 myself. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 19:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
How about a history composed of bullet points? (I went ahead and flagged this one.) —Scott5114↗ 06:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of All USRD Clean-up Templates

All of the USRD Clean-up Templates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. master sonT - C 16:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

New article feed

I started User:AlexNewArtBot on a feed of new articles that might be U.S. road related. As you can see from its first results, it does a decent job but the rules could use improvement. You can check the log and try to improve the rules. --NE2 00:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Foster County CR 1605

This article was just created. I was going to take it to AFD, since the road doesn't look any different from any other road, but saw that the part north of Carrington (which is not mentioned in the article) was once part of ND 4 (now US 281), ND 9, and some auto trails: [10] I don't think this is enough to keep the article, but it might be a reasonable redirect to US 281, so I decided to take it here for a second opinion. --NE2 11:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

As a member of WikiProject North Dakota, I agree that having articles for county roads is really not the direction we should be going. I would say either delete or turn into a redirect. --MatthewUND(talk) 23:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to US 281, then I guess the road could be mentioned in the route description as an alternate route through Carrington, or something like that. Regardless, I agree with the essence of the point, that this road isn't deserving of a standalone article. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 03:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I redirected, but it probably won't stick. --NE2 03:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I was right; it's been undone. Can somebody assist? --NE2 05:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Done. I think if it's reverted again, the next stop would be AfD. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Wyoming state highway

Moose-Wilson Road, created today, is an article about a road in northwestern Wyoming. According to the article, half of it is in Grand Teton National Park, and half is not; the park's section is unsigned, while the outofpark section is Wyoming Highway 390 (Wyoming Highway 390 is a newly-created redirect). It seems to me that Moose-Wilson Road would not be notable, aside from the state highway, which is inherently notable, and that therefore Moose-Wilson Road should be a redirect to Wyoming Highway 390. What do all of you think on this matter? Nyttend 04:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense the way it is, with WYO 390 redirecting, since not all of the road is WYO 390. --NE2 05:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed with NE2 for the same reasoning. Making Moose-Wilson Road a redirect to WYO 390 implies that M-W Road is either a single part of WYO 390 or WYO 390 along its entire length; neither is true. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I wrote the article. I happened to be updating an article that is related to the road, and I thought that as long as I was in the neighborhood, I would go ahead and create the article for the road itself. I started writing it for the Wyoming Highway 390 page, but when I got done with that, I thought it felt better to rewrite it as Moose-Wilson Road to take into account the part that is in the park, and make the full connection between Moose and Wilson. I will also note that the name for the census designated place located along highway 390 is indeed Moose Wilson Road, Wyoming, so the name itself has a little bit notability then just a local nickname. So to be honest with you, it was just a judgment call; the way it is felt right to me, but I wouldn't be upset if it got switched. Thanks. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 05:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I guess the thing I'm curious about is this: is the road inherently notable? Of course, state highways are inherently notable, but as this road is halfway not state highway, it just seems to me that only part is notable, and that for being WY390. But whatever all of you decide :-) Nyttend 14:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I think thats the million dollar question. I'm not sure if any national park roads are signed - I know that the ones in the two Wyoming parks are not, and most of the Wikipedia articles for the major roads going in and out of Yellowstone National Park mention that fact (U.S. Route 89 and U.S. Route 20 are notable examples). So do park roads lack notability simply because the park service chooses not to sign them or do they have to "earn" their notability? Maybe so - there are a lot of smart people in the US. Roads WikiProject that are better suited to answer that question. But could this road "earn" its notability if it had to? Thats a good question. We know that the trail / road existed prior to the creation of the national park, but I don't know if it extended all the way to Wilson or not. It served as the access road to JY Ranch, which was owned by John D. Rockefeller, Jr., and one of the only parcels of land that he didn't transfer to the government to create Grand Teton National Park (though the ranch was recently gifted to the government by his son ([11]). There are a few popular trailheads accessible from the road, and it is a local favorite for being a shortcut from Wilson to the park without going through the town of Jackson, which can be hectic in the summer time. So I don't know - I hate to make this about more then a single road in a national park, but there is an opportunity for some consensus here. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 17:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I was just there a few weeks ago in Yellowstone :) I would say that the article should stay at WY-309 and the redirect should exist. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:FEUS

Template:FEUS has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. master sonT - C 23:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Photo request

Can someone get a photo of the parkway section of Interstate 35E, either from a car or from above? Thank you. --NE2 01:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Major change to all project banners

All, I have created a master template that will replace all of the state level project banners. You can see the template itself at User:Holderca1/sandbox1 and the template in use at User talk:Holderca1/sandbox1. Let me know if you see any problems. There is a sample for every state, even those without a project. You can see how it handles the states without a project. Let me know what you think and I will implement. --Holderca1 12:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok - after looking at it - here's a few pointers.
  • what happens to the template if the task force is promoted to Subproject, or if a state without a project gets a project created? The code will break as it is now. After looking at the code - I find that that section of it is pretty high-maintenance.
  • There's no point to identifying task force/Project. The WikiProject link redirects to the task force.
  • Somehow I don't see the reason for including banners for those states without project/task force right now until the code can be streamlined to ease changes based on project existence.
  • Also - in the case of OK and TX, the params programmed for those project will work. In all other cases, they will not. Use of the banner will require great care in remembering which parameters work for which state - unless all of them are set up ahead of time.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Master son (talk • contribs)
  • It is pretty simple actually, you just move the two-letter state abbreviation in the switch code, I could make the change in about 5 seconds.
  • That was something that I just changed, doesn't matter one way or the other, just showing it is possible.
  • As I mentioned in point 1, it is pretty easy to make the change, also, if a state does get a project, it will be a lot easier to change the template, than it would be to change every talk page that would fall under the new project
  • Not sure what you mean, OK and TX have state specific cats, the rest feed into the main cat. All parameters work for all states.
--Holderca1 14:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • OK.
  • OK.
  • Quite true - so OK.
  • How about the categories - state specific categories (if needed) would not be present - especially in the case of assessment. The default assessment levels are FA, A, GA, B, Start, Stub, NA and List. Needed, Template, Redirect and Disambiguation aren't used. (except where customized)
I'm all in favor of this - I just want to make sure it works correctly the first time :) master sonT - C 17:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't add any of the state specific assessment cats yet, they all would feed into the main US cat anyways to keep the assessment count accurate. It currently supports Category, Needed, and Template; not sure if the destination category exists yet.
Absolutely, I wanted to bring it here first to get more eyes on it, I think I have the kinks worked out, but you never know. --Holderca1 17:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I think this new all-in-one template is pretty impressive. -- KelleyCook 20:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to put the state WikiProjects, like WikiProject California, in the template? --NE2 00:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean like it is on {{Texas State Highway WikiProject}}? If so, yeah, shouldn't be too difficult. --Holderca1 03:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
However, importances should be handled differently for the state projects, and not identical to the USRD importance assessment, as the importance to USRD and to a state WP not only can vary, but based on common practice right now, does vary. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 03:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Just for clarification, do you want to add a link to the state project to the template, or have it sort into the state project's assessment cats? Actually, it shouldn't vary, the importance cat is the importance to Wikipedia as a whole, and not to a certain project, at least that is how I understood it. --Holderca1 21:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I know for a fact that's not how other projects handle that, instead electing to determine an article's importance based on how important it is to the topic. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Question: would AWB be okay to fix the templates? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 15:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Fingers-of-Pyrex

He's at it again; I gave him a final warning. Can I be assured of a block if he continues, or do I have to reword that to say that it's not necessarily final? --NE2 09:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Be assured, one will be given if it continues. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 10:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Interstate 35E (Minnesota)

Does anyone have any issues with this before I do a final check and take it to GAC? --NE2 04:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Major cities box. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The only major city is Saint Paul. --NE2 05:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh okay. That's what I was told... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Explain why a box exists on its directional counterpart then... --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Because I haven't removed it? --NE2 06:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Notability

We're trying to revive the notability discussion above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Another article improved

Besides the missing shields, is there anything that should be fixed with Interstate 27? --NE2 07:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The second section is non-standard and has the browsing located in a weird position. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 07:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean? --NE2 07:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The second section header isn't part of the WP:IH standards and all browsing is restricted to either the infobox or a box at the bottom. In this case, since the route is intrastate, all browsing belongs in the infobox. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 07:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Section headers should be whatever best describes the section. Do you have a better title? The browsing is where it is because that section acts as a merge of minor routes into a more major one. Loop 461 redirects to that part, and someone can then easily browse to the previous or next route in the sequence. --NE2 07:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
TBH, I wouldn't have included that section at all. As for where the browsing is placed, to me, it looks clunky and disorganized. If I'm reading the article from top to bottom, I don't want to be interrupted by a box in mid-section. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 08:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
What would you do then? That is basically all that can be written about those highways; I thought we agreed that routes like that should be merged. --NE2 08:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I would've put them in a separate, dedicated article such as List of minor State Highway Loops in Texas, or if they're mostly minor, kept them in List of State Highway Loops in Texas. As for the business Interstates, the same logic applies. Whether the list is configured to hold this information is another story, and if it isn't, is the problem of the list. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 08:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
It's pointless to make one of those "list of minor" articles, since it's exactly the same as taking several articles and concatenating them. The main list cannot be configured to hold this information without being way too large. --NE2 08:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[Indent reset] I think the section should be shortened or removed from the article. As for the succession boxes, they aren't necessary. --Son 19:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The succession boxes are necessary to preserve the browsing order. --NE2 02:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
First off, browsing order for what? Right now, it's all red links. Also, why does it need to be in the middle of the article? It should be at the bottom. I agree with TMF, however; it should be in an article like a "list of minor loops". --Son 03:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow. Those redlinked things a bad idea and I agree they probably need to just go away. But for now I moved them to the end of the article until a decision is made. -- KelleyCook 03:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Browsing for the loops. These are essentially business loops that have not been designated as such. --NE2 03:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Since you guys apparently don't like merging, I've created a "perma-stub" at Texas State Highway Loop 461. I'll do the same with the other three loops. --NE2 04:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You obviously didn't read what I wrote. First, I know what the purpose of the succession boxes are for. Second, I said that it should be merged into a "List of minor loops" article. So where do you come from saying you guys apparently don't like merging? --Son 04:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
There are too many "minor loops" for an article about them. On the other hand, almost every one fits perfectly with the highway that it's an old alignment of. But no, you're so stuck on standards that you can't see when you're wrong. --NE2 04:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why you feel the need to drop, what I feel is, a personal attack. I merely made some comments about what I believe should be changed in the article. Having succession boxes in the middle of the page is simply not necessary. Put it in the infobox or at the bottom of the page. Not in the middle disrupting the flow of the article.
And, if you're going to mention the loops in the article, move that section towards the bottom of the article as well, as it doesn't belong between the route description and the route history. It should be after the route history, I believe. --Son 04:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

There's already a "standard" method of incorporating browsing for former designations or former alignments for intrastate routes -- by putting the browse boxes in the infobox itself. --Polaron | Talk 12:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume that was decided before redirects to sections were implemented, right? --NE2 16:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Issues with {{Jct}}

See Template talk:Jct. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 02:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Another merge issue

U.S. Route 51 in Tennessee and Tennessee State Route 3: should they be separate or merged? --NE2 02:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I say merged; the routing is nearly identical, and the locations where the routings aren't identical are fairly short (based on a cursory glance). --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 02:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Warner Road, Arizona

Can anyone see a reason that this shouldn't be deleted? --NE2 09:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, it probably should be deleted. A shame, though. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
It does assert some notability. First it is a 'major arterial road' and second it was apparently built to connect the first schools. Is that sufficient? Maybe if it meet WP:V and WP:RS. Vegaswikian 20:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
"Major arterial road" seems to mean a typical suburban arterial here. --NE2 02:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I took it to AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warner Road, Arizona --NE2 20:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It is incorrectly named, it is named like a city, state, should be at Warner Road (Phoenix, Arizona). --Holderca1 20:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I-169

Before I go and remove or change all incoming links, can anybody find any reliable sources for Interstate 169 (Tennessee) or Interstate 169 (Mississippi)? For the former, I found a city council meeting where the town said they wanted it and a failed state law that would have mentioned it; for the latter I couldn't find even that much. --NE2 10:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Tennessee seems to be legit. Kurumi cites Tennessee Joint Resolution 512, which means at least it's seriously considered and not just some lunatic roadgeek rambling. The Mississippi one seems to fall under the latter, so I'd say unless you can dig something up I'd have that one disposed of. —Scott5114↗ 04:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
It was a failed resolution; I don't think that should count as enough for an article, or we'd have many articles about things that were never considered by the state DOTs or other planning commissions. --NE2 04:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Lists of proposed auxiliary interstate highways

Does this need to exist? Should it redirect to List of auxiliary Interstate Highways, or elsewhere? --NE2 17:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a list of proposed main Interstates; however, this one, as it is now, is unreferenced and poorly named and conceived. Probably best to redirect it to the main Auxiliary list for now. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 18:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

What is this interchange type called?

[12]: I know that this is basically a folded diamond interchange, but the frontage roads add some complexity; does anyone know a standard way of referring to that? --NE2 09:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

hmm - wierd - but I have no clue. master sonT - C 10:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there's a specific name for that type of interchange. It's common on I-94 in southeastern Wisconsin, and most Texas freeways. I just note that the exit leads to the frontage road, as opposed to the road mentioned on the exit directly. Both on I-27 and I-94, the frontage roads are bidirectional, since traffic volumes are light. On I-45, it's more of a local-express setup. —Rob (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Need help with parser functions

Does anyone know of a function that will check if an image exists on the commons? #ifexist: works if it is located here, but it won't work trans wikis. I am wanting to add something to {{Infobox road}} and {{jct}} to dump the article into a cat if a shield doesn't exist. Would make it easier to create needed shields that haven't been formally requested. --Holderca1 16:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Map parameter in infobox road

Last night, I got the idea to add a preset line for maps in {{Infobox road}} similar to the one present in both {{Infobox Interstate}} and {{Infobox U.S. Route}}. However, in the one for Infobox road, the size would be entered as "290x172px" - the size recommended by the Maps task force for infobox maps. It will not distort maps that are not made to that proportion; what it will do is resize the image so that it will fit within a 290x172px box. The pros to this is that it will standardize how much room is taken up vertically in infoboxes by maps and it will no longer require entering the full image markup ("[[Image:Image.png|290x172px]]"), just the file name. Cons, of course, would be converting the articles that already use infobox road and have full image markup; however, I can use AWB to fix those and would be willing to do so. Comments/thoughts? --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 09:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine, but the real solution is to migrate all the maps to SVG. Allowing bitmap pictures for maps that were generated from vector data was not a correct decision and is what led to this "problem". -- KelleyCook 09:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
What led to this problem is that the image markup wasn't coded into Infobox road like it was for the other two infoboxes. I'm not following how SVG plays any role in this; the markup for SVGs is the same as any other image. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 10:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

For status updates regarding the conversions, see Template talk:U.S. Roads WikiProject. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The change detailed above has been implemented. I'll be performing AWB runs over the next couple of days to fix the affected articles (ones using image markup). --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

SH cat rename

Alaska State Routes articles

Working on these before I leave, and when I get back from Alaska. There's already some great pictures for these articles, so hopefully I'll be able to add to the collection while I'm up there. There are 14 routes (Alaska State Route 1) and about 19 named highways (Seward Highway), and one of the problems is that any one route can be a part of any one highway at any time.

So I'm working on untangling the articles and having a base set of route articles, and a base set of highway articles. The routes would be connected by the browse box in the infobox. The named highways are connected by succession boxes. This seems to be working relatively well.

Feel free to jump in. —Rob (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Already started to a point - Some of the numbered routes need to be renamed/pointed - and should be set up as disambig pages. master sonT - C 03:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned up Alaska State Route 1; the other three that are not redirects are Alaska State Route 2, Alaska State Route 7, and Alaska State Route 10. --NE2 06:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright on highway shields

I have created Wikipedia:Copyright on highway shields as a page to discuss and determine the copyright status of logos for highways, mainly toll roads. Please help, especially if you are familiar with copyright law. Thank you. --NE2 04:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why you are duplicating efforts: Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Shields/Database/toll roads. --Holderca1 15:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
That page was somewhat dead and not set up for discussion. --NE2 22:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
All pages have a talk page, I don't understand what you are saying. --Holderca1 01:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but it's easier to list shields and discuss them in the same place. --NE2 03:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless anyone helps, either on this page or anywhere else (such as the image description pages, with evidence of course), I'm going to start removing the nonfree ones from everywhere but the articles about the roads themselves. --NE2 09:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

What evidence are you looking for, as I have said in the past, none of them have registered copyrights. In lieu of a registration you have to use your own judgment on whether the image has enough originality to be eligible for copyright. --Holderca1 11:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
well it seems that some had evidence in the past - since they're tagged for Fair Use master sonT - C 11:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Evidence of no copyright notice would be good. All I saw you add to Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Shields/Database/toll roads was trademark registrations. --NE2 11:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Master_son, just because they're FU doesn't mean that there was evidence for it. It was rather that someone thought they should be FU, and tagged them as such. Doesn't mean they really are/should be FU. --MPD T / C 12:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Evidence of no copyright notice doesn't really do us much good, all that says is that they didn't register it with the copyright office. Copyright holders aren't required to register their work to enforce a copyright on it. The only way that I can think of to be sure that there is not a copyright is to email the organizations and ask. Yeah, tagging the image FU would be the default choice if you had no evidence. --Holderca1 13:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Before 1989, works had to have copyright notices on them to be copyrighted. Also, works published before 1964 have had to be renewed at least once to remain copyrighted. --NE2 14:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, we need to list on that page when the shield was created. I haven't been able to find a way to link to search results (to show a negative result) at http://www.copyright.gov/records/cohm.html. --Holderca1 14:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Whatever I do, I'm going to wait until Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#Important question about copyright notices gets more input. --NE2 11:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The page NE2 made is good. I'll do some sleuthing later on some of those and offer my input later as well. --MPD T / C 12:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


So far, the conclusion is that all shields used before 1978 are public domain, and have been tagged with template:PD-Pre1978. Shields used before 1989 are probably PD, but need a bit more research. All of these - the majority of major toll roads - can be used in any article or other namespace for any purpose. Shields used after 1989, unless they are very simple designs or simple modifications to older designs, are copyrighted and can only be used in the article about the highway.

If anyone knows when Image:Grand Central Pkwy.png, Image:Maine Turnpike logo.gif, and Image:Masspike.png were adopted, it would help. Also, if you know of any shields that were used before 1989 and are not on the list, please add them to the "Probably copyrighted unless expired" section. --NE2 13:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Move Texas State Highway NASA Road 1 to NASA Road 1?

Does anybody object to this move, or can I tag the redirect with Template:Db-move? Everyone, even TxDOT, uses "NASA Road 1".[13] --NE2 15:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I object, TXDOT uses State Highway NASA Road 1, [14]. The road is officially part of the primary state highway system. --Holderca1 17:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
They use it in one place. They also use "Interstate Highway 45", but we go with the more common "Interstate 45". --NE2 17:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Interstate Highway and IH are fairly common in Texas outside of TXDOT, but to stay with the convention of the other interstates, we leave off highway. State Highway NASA Road 1 is for consistancy with other state highways. Along the lines of common usage, why is it U.S. Route 90 in Texas? Shouldn't it be U.S. Highway 90 in Texas? --Holderca1 17:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
As you say, that's for consistency with other states. But NASA Road 1 is a special case; there's only one NASA Road, and nobody calls it State Highway NASA Road 1. --NE2 18:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
So are we going for consistency or common usage? What about Texas State Highway OSR? --Holderca1 18:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
That's in a standard State Highway shield. --NE2 18:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
So are we going for consistency or common usage? --Holderca1 18:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Consistency. --Son 18:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Common usage, since there's no consistency here. TxDOT treats it differently, with a different shield. --NE2 18:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Thats the only difference, it is the same as the rest of the state highways. Also, it wouldn't be practical to squeeze NASA Road 1 all in the standard sign. So then it should also be taken out of the state highway browse order as well I imagine. --Holderca1 19:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


Are we sure that it's not a computer issue that forces it to be displayed on the TxDot site as "State Highway NASA Road 1"? Maybe there's a blank where they put the route number, and so they filled in "NASA Route 1", which then the computer read as "State Highway NASA Road 1". As for browse, it would go after "O", as in "OSR", (since N follows O), which would follow the 900s. --MPD T / C 06:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Why does N follow O? I don't know whether it is a computer issue or not, but it is officially a state highway. Not sure the logic behind the shield argument above, using that logic, Farm to Market Road X should be moved to Farm Road X, and Texas State Highway Loop 1 should be moved to Texas Loop 1. --Holderca1 14:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
You're right; N then O. I forgot my alphabet. --MPD T / C 15:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Minor issues with shield sizes

You may have noticed that some shields are larger than they should be. Don't panic, and above all don't try to "fix" it; it was a temporary bug, and all you have to do is purge: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#What happened to image sizing? --NE2 15:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed that, for some reason it didn't affect IE, just Firefox, not sure about other browsers. --Holderca1 15:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Alaska naming - State Route or Alaska Route?

I really hate to bring this up, but I'm convinced that the naming on WP:USSH for Alaska is incorrect. The state and media normally refer to the roads by their highway names, but, when they talk about the numbers, it's almost always "Alaska Route x", abbreviated "AK-x". For example, compare Alaska state website searches for Alaska Route with State Route, and the same with several numbers and names in the media (and state laws, which also show up in the Google News search): Route 11 Dalton Highway and Route 4 Richardson Highway. The one piece of evidence for "State Route x" brought up at Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll/Part2#Alaska - [15] - does not match the signed numbers. For example, on page 114, it lists the Glenn Highway as State Route 135000, but it's signed as Route 1. Please consider the evidence carefully before giving input, and please give evidence of the "State Route x" format if you find any. Thank you. --NE2 22:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I was expecting a massive argument, but nobody's said anything. Is this because everybody agrees, or what? --NE2 05:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with Alaska Route. They have 12 articles? No biggie. --MPD T / C 05:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Ditto what MPD said. The evidence above looks legit, and I don't think anyone's going to cry foul if we get the common name wrong for Alaska. As for expecting a "massive argument"...that may have been the case if we had any Alaskan editors, but AFAIK we don't. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Concur. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Maybe we don't know. I will ask, if it is wrong and no one has complained do we need to change? Vegaswikian 05:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I just "complained", I guess. I'm currently working on Alaska articles and noticed the discrepancy. --NE2 05:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it, and will change the few articles in about an hour. Speak now or forever hold your peace. --NE2 06:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I need an admin to delete the Alaska Route 2 redirect so Alaska State Route 2 can be moved there. Thank you. --NE2 07:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 08:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. --NE2 08:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

State MUTCD supplements

I just found a source for several state MUTCD supplements: [16] Maybe this will help people make accurate shields or with other things; for instance the Alaska one includes a list of routes. --NE2 06:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

New book about the Pulaski Skyway

I noticed in my AWB run that someone had added an "external link" to Pulaski Skyway: "The Last Three Miles: Politics, Murder, and the Construction of America's First Superhighway" (ISBN 1595580980). From reading the reviews on Amazon, it seems to be a good book with more of a focus on politics than the highway. That might be good, since the current article, while featured, probably needs a rework, and concentrates almost exclusively on the highway. (It should probably include a bit more on the engineering too.) Is anyone interested in this, or should I consider it? --NE2 10:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good read. I can't afford it right now, but I would if I could. --MPD T / C 12:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
You should try interlibrary loan, if your local library participates. --NE2 12:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I requested it, and will try to apply the "Ridge Route treatment". --NE2 19:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Question about infoboxes

I recently started using the "city1" parameter of template:jct for infoboxes, such as on Nova Scotia Highway 104. This is a little easier, but I realize that it provides less information than the standard in/at/near. Should I go back to the old style, or is this enough information? I think I actually have a slight preference for the word, but if you like the dash I'll keep using it. --NE2 20:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Definitely back to the old style. As you said, the dash doesn't provide nearly the amount of information as the words. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'm changing to words. --NE2 20:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Strange category name

Does anyone find this category to have a strange name: Category:U.S. Highways in Georgia (U.S. state)? Why is Georgia have the U.S. state disamb when it already says U.S. from the start. Is anyone really going to confuse this with the country? I can't think of any United States Highways in the country. --Holderca1 15:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Add this one as well Category:Interstate Highways in Georgia (U.S. state), none of the articles of either cat have this disamb, using this logic, Interstate 20 in Georgia should be moved to Interstate 20 in Georgia (U.S. state) --Holderca1 15:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmm baffling - someone seems to like the department of redundancy department ;) :P - and it's not me :? master sonT - C 15:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Probably done for consistency, because most other things involving the state of Georgia say Georgia (U.S. state). (Note that doesn't necessarily mean I'm in favor of it. :P) —Scott5114↗ 16:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
It was done by bots
  • Cydebot did the Interstate one on Aug 26, 2007
  • RobotG (now defunct) did the U.S. Route one on Dec 1, 2007
master sonT - C 17:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:DAB specifically says to only disambiguate when confusion may occur. I would like to meet the person that would go in the U.S. Highways in Georgia cat looking for a road in the country. --Holderca1 18:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree; there's no possibility of confusion here. --NE2 06:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait wait wait...I definitely thought US 84 went through Kutaisi. Well, that ends that confusion. --MPD T / C 07:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

--NE2 22:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

User list revamp

Would anyone object if we combined all the participant lists for all of the U.S. Road subwikiprojects into Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Participants? This would make it easier for maintenance and structure. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

New Mexico State Road or Route

It appears it should be State Route, see here [17] towards the bottom where there are links to each of the highway logs. --Holderca1 12:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you look at the logs? The "State Routes" one is very inconsistent; on the first page alone it uses "State Route NM x", "State Road NM x", and "NM x". I don't know how "State Road x" was chosen, but this isn't evidence of "State Route" being the definite style. --NE2 14:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
But so there's no evidence of "State Road" being the definite style either? Then, we need to find a source. --MPD T / C 16:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
If anything, it looks like "NM x" is the most common style: [18][19][20] Do we want to go Michigan and Kansas style here? "NM x (New Mexico highway)"? Or "NM x (highway)"? --NE2 16:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Using an abbreviation for the name is problematic. For a while, North Carolina articles were at "NC x" before they were moved to their current name to eliminate the awkwardness. This move did not come without discussion; the exact location(s) of it, I can't remember. Some might be found at SRNC, maybe others in the NCSH and USRD archives. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 19:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I found it at Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll/Part2#<New Mexico> State Road X. Apparently the "tie-breaker" was that older signs included "State Road"; see [21]. This seems reasonable to me, though I wonder why the common name was "State Road x", not "New Mexico State Road x". --NE2 20:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this another case like Alaska, where nobody cares? --NE2 19:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)