Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Utah State Highways

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut: WT:UTSH

To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Utah State Highways:	edit · history · watch · refresh
Change all articles that use Template:Infobox Utah Route to Template:infobox road Move all Utah law sections to the infobox change route length and milepost logs to use official UDOT route log figures

Contents 1 New Route List Input requested 2 Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Utah 3 Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll/Part2 4 Project directory 5 Wikipedia Day Awards 6 TfD nomination of All USRD Clean-up Templates 7 Reminder from USRD 8 Restoring this project? 9 Utah project promotion 10 Discussion about state law sections 11 What purpose does a list of minor state routes serve? 12 US 6, US-6, U.S. 6, etc. 13 Anybody have information about the causes for the 1977 renumbering 14 Pre-1953 history

[edit] New Route List Input requested

[edit] Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Utah

Many articles covered by this WikiProject lack photographs. As part of a subcategorization of the requested photos category, there is now a category for Utah articles needing photos - to use it, just add {{reqphotoin|Utah}} to the article's talk page. I have only added a few articles to the category so far, but it would be an easy way to make an extensive list California-related articles lacking photos. I hope you find it useful! TheGrappler 05:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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) 00:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 son^{T - C} 16:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

As a footnote (if not to say, afterthought), I note that {{Utah-road-stub}} is a little small, especially given the "demotion" of Utah roads to non-Wikiproject status. Would it perhaps be more useful to useful to upmerge that template to Cat:United States road stubs (or else to Cat:Western United States road stubs, proposed some time ago), by way of "consolidation"? Alai 23:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That may be feasible, but only to a Western US road stub, as there's no sense in adding more stubs to the already semi-hefty US stub cat. Additionally, after some examination, at least 78 of the current US road stubs would fit into a Western US road stub, and that would increase to about 102 if Utah is included. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 06:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'm all in favour of putting US-road-stub on a diet; the other two "regions" may be worthwhile pushing ahead with, on the same sort of basis. Alai 16:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 03:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reminder from USRD

In response to a few issues that came up, we are giving a reminder to all state highway wikiprojects and task forces:

1. Each project needs to remain aware of developments at WT:USRD and subpages to ensure that each project is aware of decisions / discussions that affect that project. It is impossible to notify every single project about every single discussion that may affect it. Therefore, it is the state highway wikiproject's responsiblity to monitor discussions.
2. If a project does not remain aware of such developments and complains later, then there is most likely nothing USRD can do about it.
3. USRD, in most to nearly all cases, will not interfere with a properly functioning state highway wikiproject. All projects currently existing are "properly functioning" for the purposes mentioned here. All task forces currently existing are not "properly functioning" (that is why they are task forces). Departments of USRD (for example, MTF, shields, assessment, INNA) may have specific requirements for the state highway wikiprojects, but complaints regarding those need to be taken up with those departments.
4. However, this is a reminder that USRD standards need to be followed by the state highway wikiprojects, regardless of the age of the wikiproject.

Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 05:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restoring this project?

Is there interest in the repromotion of this project? --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Utah project promotion

I am proposing the repromotion of the project at WT:USRD/SUB. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion about state law sections

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#State law sections --NE2 21:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What purpose does a list of minor state routes serve?

There is a discussion going on here: Talk:List of minor state routes in Utah that may interest all editors interested in Utah highways.Davemeistermoab (talk) 02:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] US 6, US-6, U.S. 6, etc.

This is a result of a discussion at: Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/Interstate 70 in Utah. The Template:Jct for Utah routes formats abbreviations for U.S. Routes as "US-491". It is one of the few states to do so, as most states use the format "US 491". The rationale given by the editor who changed the jct template to respond this way is "UDOT uses a dash". While I have not found a style guide on UDOT's homepage, this appears to be true, UDOT's website does consistently use a dash. The problem is for multistate articles, the Utah section looks different. So... should we follow UDOT's standard, or the "consensus" of other projects under WP:USRD's umbrella? Davemeistermoab (talk) 04:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the dash should be included, so be it if the Utah section looks different... The problem is almost nothing in Utah is standardized when it comes to road signs, you see different series of Highway Gothic being used all over the place as one example. Also with a US highway you'll see something like US-89, U.S.-89, or even SR-89. But I've never seen US 89. UDOT uses the dash, so my preference would be to keep using here as well. First though, what are the few other states that use a dash, and what do they do for this problem? CL — 04:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anybody have information about the causes for the 1977 renumbering

The stated reason for the 1977 Utah state route renumbering was to simplify the state route system by using the same number in the state law as what is signed for U.S. and interstate routes. I.E. Interstate 15 will now also be state route 15. Although the UDOT highway resolutions only talks in general terms, I had often wondered if there were one or two specific instances that had spurred the momentum to renumber the routes that could cause confusion. I had often speculated that the primary source of confusion was state route 15 which existed in SW Utah and came within 15 miles of Interstate 15.

However, while helping user CountryLemonade with Utah State Route 126 (which was formerly state route 84) I now suspect that if there was a specific instance to motivate the legislature to renumber routes, it would have been this one. Then SR-84 crossed then I-80N at least 3 times according to my 1974 map. 1977 is also when the discussions got serious to renumber I-80N to I-84, meaning SR-84 and I-84 would have ran parallel and crossed each other for a significant length. Does anybody know of any newspaper articles, etc. from this period? I'm now wondering. That would have been a confusing mess =-) Dave (talk) 23:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the SR-126 history PDF, the 82 → 84 → 126 renumbering was three months after the main renumbering, and 1.5 months after AASHTO changed I-80N to I-84. The reason stated for the main renumbering, for instance in the SR-9 PDF, is that "it would be advantageous for record keeping and developing a Highway Reference System that various state routes be redesignated by hierarchy with the route number being synonymous with the US route designation". So if the I-84 change was what spurred the change, they really screwed it up. It looks like the real culprit is the Highway Reference System that gives us mileage figures. --NE2 11:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That's what I get for being in a hurry. I never looked at the months. I was just looking for the year and saw 1977. ThanksDave (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-1953 history

You guys might find Wikipedia:WikiProject Utah State Highways/Early state roads useful; it has some information that's not in the history PDFs. I also have the file that used to be at http://www.udot.utah.gov/download.php/tid=1348/StateRouteHistory.pdf , which includes the histories of routes without scanned resolutions, and have temporarily uploaded it to http://www.sendspace.com/file/dnz06x ; once that goes dead, email me if you want a copy of it. --NE2 12:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)