Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Wikipedia:Song/We didn't start the fire (Roads)

Check it out. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Laugh a little

Click here. --MPD ^{T / C} 17:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh -- master_son^{Talk - Edits} 23:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Montana State Highways

Template:Montana State Highways 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.—Scott5114↗ 06:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's the problem

Or at least a problem. Many of the cleanup templates violate the norms on Wikipedia (like Wikipedia:Avoid self-references and such) by mentioning a wikiproject in actual article mainspace. Is there any reason why one of these solutions wouldn't work:

• A) The cleanup templates being placed on talk pages
• B) The links to Wikiproject pages being removed
• C) The template being replaced with a {{cleanup}} tag
• D) Moving the Wikiproject subpage to a proper namespace location (e.g., Wikipedia:Manual of Style (interstate highways)

Just my thoughts. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm totally okay with (B). The editor placing the tag should explain exactly why the article needs to be cleaned up, not just some vague statement about it not meeting standards. For example, this is unacceptable. If a specific explanation is given, the link to the WikiProject is unnecessary.

(A) is okay, but less than ideal, and might clutter up the top of the talk page too much (i.e. having it and the WikiProject banner). (C) doesn't work for the reasons mentioned at the TfD. (D) would be a good option, but one we're not quite ready for yet. I don't think there's a true enough consensus yet to justify moving this to Wikipedia: space and making them actual guidelines (unlike the exit list guide). -- NORTH ^talk 06:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

How about no. A: Noone would notice the cleanup templates. B: Noone would see the standards that the articles are supposed to comply with. C: That defeats the purpose that we saved the tags for. D: It's a WikiProject for goodness sake. As you seem to be the only one obstinately insisting on this, I see no reason why this project has to change such a major element. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

How about yes. He makes a quite valid point about advertising the WikiProject in article space. They will see the standards if the person tagging the article actually provides a valid rationale, rather than just repeating "doesn't comply with standards". As it is, they click a link to the project page, and there's a good chance they won't be able to figure out exactly what's wrong with it. Also, this is far from a major element. New Jersey, a featured subproject, didn't have a cleanup template until quite recently, and still only uses it on one page. And Matt Yeager is not the only one insisting on it, as Woohookitty recently moved the tag to the talk page. -- NORTH ^talk 18:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur. (A) is definitely out, as it defeats the purpose and that the people checking articles outnumber people checking talk pages. (B) can be compromised, at least the links can still be linking to the respective project pages and the MOS, but the wording that comes out of it would be something along the lines of "higher standard of article quality and the accepted design standards." (C) is out of the question, with clear consensus already. (D) is out of the question until further notice. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路)} 19:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think B is a good option. It's a solid compromise and still makes the point that cleanup is necessary. I still prefer A or C, but B is perfectly acceptable. It's more important to say WHY the page needs cleanup as opposed to saying "It needs cleanup, look over at the Wikiproject's standards and try to see where this thing doesn't stack up." Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 21:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge!?>!??!?!?!?!?!

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Close as agreed below per WP:POINT. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Are you kidding me? This is a WP:POINT idiocracy. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok well, even though it may be POINT, it's still a merge suggestion. And although User:myselfalso should have started a merge section, this will do.

• Oppose merge. I may be jumping the gun, but I'm going to be busy tonight. Move this wherever it's needed. So okay, it can be a "subproject", but it can still have its own project page and pages thereof. --MPD ^{T / C} 22:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comments in the above section. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路)} 23:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If it's WP:POINT, then it's not really a merge suggestion. Discussion closed. -- NORTH ^talk 23:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ok everyone needs to backup and cool down I think. I think we can all agree that WP:USR was in no way intended to take over any of the State, Interstate or U.S. Highway projects, so a merge like this is out of line. It was designed to fill in the gaps where no such projects existed. Now we may not all agree thats been happening 100% of the time but that is the goal, and it's a laudable one. I think where we have the major disconnect is in 3 places.

1. That some people have started usurping other projects with this one or that people are perceiving that to be happening. It shouldn't be as that's not the stated scope of this project. And if it is happening, it should stop.

2. I've seen people complain about is the "demotion" issue. That should also be moot. If a project has become stagnant, it shouldn't be abandoned, but rather reactivated within it's own operating scope. No need to fold it in like this. There are obviously people who want to work states like PA. I say do so. Don't waste time demoting, merging or otherwise combining it, work it within its own framework would be my suggestion. Saves time and increases productivity. There is already a framework, no need to spend time working on guidelines etc..., work within what is there and make the project productive again since you already have an interest enough in it to merge, demote, combine it.

3. the issue of IRC seems to be a sore point. It should also be moot. Wiki policy states that IRC is to be used as a suppliment but is not a replacement for on Wiki consensus etc... So no issue should exist there. If a group wants to use IRC, go for it, but they have to bring any discussion here before they can impliment it unless I'm grossly misreading the policy.

These are just my 3 cents, take them for what you will. But enough with the tomfoolery (yes I just used that word in a sentence). JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

1. The usurpation of projects by USRD has occurred only in extreme cases. KY was demoted because it needed help badly- Three infoboxes attempting to do the same thing should be an indicator of that :| The rest were extremely inactive, with no edits to the WikiProject page being made in several months, and little work on the articles occurring; sometimes these others had fatal problems as well (Utah didn't even have all of its articles in the right category, and some pages didn't get moved after SRNC for many months). At present, there are no plans for further demotions, and I can definitively say that as long as PASH continues its current course, it should never need to be demoted.

2. I would say that there are points that we definitely agree on. We agree that USRD should be very influential on states that do not have a state highway WikiProject yet, for example.

3. The only circumstances where we would interfere in a project would be if it is blatantly violating standards and has serious problems: eg. no "route description", no headings, or something totally odd like that. INNA, ELG, MTF, and Shields may want separate requirements, but that needs to be discussed at those talk pages.

4. Agreed, IRC should be a tool for collaboration, not necesarily for final discussion. What has been grossly misunderstood is taht we want people to participate not necessarily for consensus discusisons, but to a) get to know the other road editors better, b) to confront any problems (such as 512theking, BAG, etc.) and c) "Do you think this is a good idea? ...."

--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think it took a while, and a couple of compromises had to be made along the way, but I think we definitely agree on all the major points. Go team! -- NORTH ^talk 20:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

AFD!

State Route 1002 (Lehigh County, Pennsylvania) is up for deletion, please vote to keep the article. -- JA10 ^{T · C} 20:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The perfect example of a secondary state highway that is notable. -- NORTH ^talk 21:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I tried my best to do a makeover of this article. -- JA10 ^{T · C} 21:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It was the nomer's first edit. Probably will be speedy closed. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

And it was. Which goes to show, an AFD doesn;t necessarily mean a deletion. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

When has AFD ever necessarily meant a deletion??? -- NORTH ^talk 22:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

True. lol --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Overstandardization of Common Names

Rschen7754,

You asked for an example of "overstandardization". Well, here is a good one: -- Jasper 05:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I am from California. Where I grew up (in the northern San Joaquin Valley), 99 is commonly known as "Highway 99", not "State Route 99". In this case, WP:USSH is misleading. By the way, Google searches show:

* 341,000 hits for "Highway 99" California

* 139,000 hits for "Hwy 99" California

* 45,000 hits for "State Route 99" California

* 41,000 hits for "SR 99" California

-- Jasper 04:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Then take it up with WT:USRD. Be forewarned, however, you will upset many people for bringing this up. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This had nothing to do with overstandardization: that had to do with principles and exit lists and junction lists. Furthermore, I would advise that you read the entirety of WP:SRNC- you're opening a can of worms here. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with you (Rschen) here, it's a perfect example of poor language choice by the "leaders." You can't discourage people from coming here. To paraphrase what JohnnyBGood said above, phrases like "you will upset many people for bringing this up" and "you're opening a can of worms here" are why editors are "scared" to participate here.

As for the actual issue, common names really only goes so far. "Highway 99" is a colloquial usage, and however common it might be, doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, except for perhaps once in the lead. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should reflect official usage, which is State Route 99. -- NORTH ^talk 05:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

100% agreed with NORTH. Highway 99 does not belong in Wikipedia. It will disrupt the naming conventions already set by consensus on WP:USSH. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路)} 14:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

As a clarification, I accept the article title conventions on WP:USSH; they make a great deal of sense. The problem is that WP:USSH prescribes a so-called "common name" that is different from what this highway is usually called by the public. -- Jasper 15:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

When are common names supposed to be used?

In what situations does this Project encourage (or tolerate) using the common name of a route?

• Obviously not as an article title (unless it happens to match the suggested article title in WP:USSH
• "[P]erhaps once in the lead" of the article about the route (to quote User:Vishwin60).
• If needed, in the history section of the article about the route?
• The common name does not seem to be needed in the junction lists in infoboxes of other routes.
• In the junction list in the body of a stub article about another route?
• In the junction list in the body of a mature article about another route, where the list has been fleshed out to have sentences and paragraphs?
• In a non-route article that mentions a notable highway? Some examples:
  • An article about a city that mentions a highway that it is on.
  • A biography that mentions a highway that the person helped develop.

-- Jasper 15:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If there's gonna be any change in name from the well-established standards at WP:USSH, even in the lead, there must be a reliable source to prove this. We will not have any more SPUI-like episodes where articles are moved without consensus. For CA, the naming convention for articles will always be "California State Route x", but in the lead, it should be "State Route x". There should be little mention of this in the history. It should never be mentioned in any junction list; always use abbreviations (CA uses SR). The common name should be in an non-article route. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路)} 18:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I believe he is talking about using the common name within the article... not as the article name (which would require a move). Besides, there are other common names that don't involve "State Route X", instead, full names like Red Mountain Freeway which is a loop and the route number is shared by Santan Freeway and South Mountain Freeway. These names are coined by the State DOT and are used to prevent confusion, or just there for whatever reason. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 18:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

We're aware of that... however, WP:USSH already has addressed this and is fully backed by consensus. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Acording to WP:USSH "The common name is to be used when writing about the road in an article; only use the article title in an another article if the sentence would otherwise be ambiguous." That appears to answer this question. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 18:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No; that was specifically to address the following situation: you are writing California State Route 62 and you need to link to Arizona State Route 95: you use [[State Route 95 (Arizona)|]]. This was teh SRNC compromise enacted during SRNC; you will upset a lot of people if you try to change it. Furthermore, there is no "official" common name for every road; thus, USRD decided in 2006 to use the official name for each road, unless it is used in a routebox or in an ambiguous sentence as defined earlier in my comment.--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that specifically outlined in WP:USSH, so I'm not finding where it was agreed upon and turned into a matter of rule of style. And second... things on Wiki aren't set in stone. Consensus changes all the time. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 18:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

What other "ambiguous cases" could there be? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) I think we may have our topics/meanings/thoughts crossed here. Are you referring to use of common names in the Article Title, or common names in the actual article itself? For example, using the common name in the body of the article that the common name refers to. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 19:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am referring to what you refer to as the "common names" in the text. WP:USSH says to only use the names listed there, which is why it is a Manual of Style page. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Then, from what I understand by reading the WP:USSH, the common name is appropriate within the body of the article, the article name is to be used when there is need for clarification, from the way I read it and understand it, and keep in mind, I'm reading it as if this was the first piece of information I've received on proper use of highway names. If one is to use specifically the common name format listed in WP:USSH, it really first should say this... but it should also not limit common names to that variation, as some roads do have a common name that deviates from this list. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 19:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

But those other common names are unsourced. They are usually deviated from a roadgeek site. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路)} 19:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Correct, and the fact that one is ONLY supposed to use the names listed there can easily be inferred. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) In the case of the Metro Phoenix Highway names, those are specifically assigned by AZDOT. Not all other common names are unsourced or unsourceable. Example of highways with Common Names that are Sourced. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 19:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

However, you only use "State Route x" when writing about AZ routes. Of course, you can mention that the other common names exist. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, WP:USSH defines the definition of "common name" for that page and then tells you to use it. That is a far cry from "It doesn't say that in there!" If you read sections 3 and 4, it even says to use teh common names as defined in the table above explicitly. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

First, Rschen7754, I understand that the WP:USSH defines what it believes a common name is, but what I am telling you is that there are deviations from this, an example is damn near every freeway in the Phoenix Metro area, whose common name is not "AZ Loop 101", but instead it's segment name. Or are we going to standardize this so much that when the common name differers from what WP:USSH says it should be, we're going to go with what WP:USSH says it should be and not what it actually is in common definition? There is a reason it is called a 'common name', because it is defined locally and by the Department of Transportation. The standardized name is the Article Name. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 19:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

However, Phoneix is not all of Arizona, and there are definitely different nomenclatures of common names for different routes and even for teh same route. Because of this, we have decided to use the names taht we have, that were decided in fall 2006. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

And I'm saying this needs to change, because if someone can source an common name for a roadway that deviates from the standardized common names presented in WP:USSH, then the actual common name needs to be used, not just what WP:USSH says it should be. If there is no sourcable common name, then it can go by what is outlined in WP:USSH. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 19:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Cascadia, please read through SRNC before posting here again. The naming conventions that are set now were approved by consensus. Your comment of this needs to change is not backed up by consensus. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路)} 20:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if we're going to start suggesting reading to each other, I recommend you read WP:CONSENSUS, as consensus can and does change. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 20:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to pull consensus can change on me. Consensus apparently hasn't changed, due to the fact that WP:USSH has been lying around stable for some time. If you were to ask almost all of the dedicated USRD members, they'd probably agree. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路)} 20:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because no one has challenged it until now, does not mean that the consensus from a while ago is set in stone. I'm going to take this to the village pump for some broader input, when I have my recommendation up, I will post a link. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 20:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we avoid hitting beehives with a stick here? Naming conventions have always been a sensitive issue and I'd really rather not have to waste the summer with the project beating a dead horse than getting some things done. We have five thousand stubs; they need to be taken care of.

Regarding using highway names: the problem is that names usually don't line up with the highway very nicely. Look into Alaska, where many named highways have multiple numbers and numbers have multiple highways. Same situation in Oregon. And even for simple, commemorative signage: only about half of Oklahoma State Highway 3 is the Northwest Passage (admittedly not a common name), but the other half is not. —Scott5114↗ 20:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

All right - time out here! We have already come to a consensus on WP:USSH (see WP:SRNC) - there are many common names out there which is why this setup is used. I agree with Scott5114 in that we already solved this issue. We have articles to expand and fix and we don't need to be fixing things that are not broken. -- master_son^{Talk - Edits} 20:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've seen your consensus from months ago, and although the rest of you may not feel the same way, there have been at least two editors here who have an issue with a standardized name being paraded around as the common name. If a deviation from WP:USSH's standardized common name list can be cited with a source from something other than a roadgeek site, then there should be no issue with it being used in that article as long as the deviation is properly cited. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 20:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

We have grown to support these guidelines because the alternative would be painful. Yes, they may be baroque, but the conventions are workable and they quelled a massive move war. We'd like to keep this firmly in the past if at all possible. Sometimes you have to take an unusual move to end an argument. —Scott5114↗ 20:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about renaming articles here, I'm talking about the use of the common name within the article. As in defining that Red Mountain Freeway is a segment of the Arizona State Route Loop 202, then in the sections pertaining to that segment be referred to as Red Mountain Freeway, for example. To ask that we start renaming articles by their common names would be a boneheaded stunt. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 21:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a simple answer would be, don't try to move articles, which you are not suggesting. Try to limit references in articles to the approved variants. If you choose to deviate, include a reference to a reliable source for the name. The consensus does not need to be changed if an editor uses reliable sources within an article. Those are my opinions for what their worth. Vegaswikian 21:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

From the responses I've gotten here, it seems that everyone is so afraid that any discussion about highway names = moving and renaming, that few people other than Vegaswikian have actually fully understood my comments. The standardized article names are 100% fine, correct, and if anyone proposes a change to that I'd be on your side as well... but my discussion here was merely about use of the common name in the article when sourced. Thanks Vegaswikian for actually reading and understanding my comments. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 21:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Rschen7754 has replied in IRC below:

Rschen7754: well you can mention the name
Rschen7754: i.e. you can mention I-5 is Golden State Freeway in the article [[Interstate 5]]
Rschen7754: but from SR-60, you shouldn't link to it as the [[Golden State Freeway]]

In this case, you can't do [[Interstate 5|Golden State Freeway]] either. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路)} 21:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I really don't see what the big problem is. If I'm reading the article on California State Route 1, and I'm going through the article, I will understand if I see "highway 1", "route 1", "state route 1", or any variation thereof. As long as it's consistent and falls within the norms of what a road is usually called, I don't see a big deal. If there's another state's route in the article, I name it its full name (i.e. "Route 9 begins in Virginia as a continuation of West Virginia State Route 9"). When abbreviating (i.e. in the infobox, exit/junction list, etc), I usually use "SR" or the state abbreviation, and if it connects to another state's route, I use the other state's state abbreviation (East end: SR 9 | West end: WV 9) etc. Since this has nothing to do with the article titles, I don't see what the big deal is. As long as it's consistent, why does it really matter?

To Rschen/V60- Sometimes it's better to link by the name, not the route though. Like the Fairfax County Parkway, is usually linked as such even though it's Route 7100. I do the same with the Capital Beltway and Dulles Toll Road/Dulles Greenway. Now if you're talking about something over and over again, you could do "Capital Beltway (I-495)...the Beltway...the Beltway..." or something like that. I'd understand. Most people probably would. --MPD ^{T / C} 21:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

After further thought, I'll agree to linking by name, but only if you can source it with a government or some official source. i.e. Golden State Freeway because signs on that freeway actually say "Golden State Freeway". However, anything like California State Highway 99 or New York 17 that goes against WP:USSH and against those names is not acceptable. The main reason this debate started was because the latter was exactly what Jasper was trying to do. The ONLY exceptions are with routeboxes, junction lists, ELG, and repeated mentions of the same road. Then, use an official abbreviation (for example, California State Route 17 would be SR 17). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Let me get this straight. The issue here is if a line should read "intersects State Highway X at Long Lake" or if it should read "intersects the Suchandsuch Parkway at Long Lake," right? I don't see an inherent problem with either one. Now, in some cases the title given to a highway isn't used very often. Minnesota State Highway 371 is the Purple Heart Memorial Highway over it's entire length, as well as the Paul Bunyan Expressway except for a section where it is the C. Elmer Anderson Memorial Highway. The highway is generally not referred to by those names, it's just called 371. --Sable232 04:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

If it's used by the government, it's okay. But Minnesota State Route 371 would be wrong. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Your best judgement applies here. Use Minnesota State Highway 371 here, think about the poor soul from California who sees this article and says "huh?".  ;) well, anyway - the fact that there are multiple names attached is reason enough to avoid that. -- master_son^{Talk - Edits} 04:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now I'm even more confused. Aren't we discussing the usage of the highway number versus an alternate "ceremonial" name? --Sable232 04:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Sort of. But how this got brought up was a user wrote California Highway 99, which is against WP:USSH. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Rschen7754, I think you have accidentally misquoted me. I wrote Highway 99 in an article (California State_Route 165) that alludes to (what is commonly known as) "the Lander Avenue exit from Highway 99". I was about to remove the redirect, so the link would have been Highway 99.

I can cite many references to these common names. For example:

• http://www.viamagazine.com/top_stories/articles/Roadside_attractions04.asp Dean Blaine. Via Magazine. "Roadside Stops along California's Highway 99", Hilmar paragraph.
• [1] Blurb for the Turlock Travelodge at an on-line listing of motels, lead paragraph.
• Googling "Lander Avenue exit" gives 6 more such references (not counting duplicates).
• Googling the Modesto Bee website returns these results. The Modesto Bee is the largest newspaper in the area, and owns most of the smaller newspapers in the area (with the notable exceptions of the Turlock Journal and the Delhi Express):
  • 97 results for site:www.modbee.com "Highway 99"
  • 9 results for site:www.modbee.com "Hwy 99"
  • 2 results for site:www.modbee.com "Route 99"
  • 2 results for site:www.modbee.com "SR 99"
  • 1 result for site:www.modbee.com "Rte 99"

-- Jasper 16:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

However, that does not matter. The official and proper name is State Route 99. You must use that per WP:USSH. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 17:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Rschen7754... ever think for a moment some people here may feel that WP:USSH is 1)Incorrect and 2)Your interpretation that the common name is set in stone is incorrect? CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 17:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

However, the majority of people, here and on IRC, still uphold [WP:USSH]]. As consensus remains for USSH, the policy cannot be changed just because two users disagree with it. Furthermore, reliable sources are needed. Caltrans uses State Route x as teh official name of each highway. Therefore, that is the name that we are using. If we did use whatever people called them, then a) there would be no standard and b) how in heck would we determine the common name for every highway? We have more important things on our hands. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 17:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

First, IRC discussions cannot be used to determine consensus, as there is no accessible record of those discussions. Second, the objections here seem to not grasp the concept of the argument, and assume that this will lead to page moves. Let me reiterate the arguments that I and jasper have made.

1. Standardized Article Names are 100% fully acceptable and are perfect in their present status. No page moves are even being considered.
2. If they can be sourced, the common names can, should, and will be what the sources say. Government sources are not absolute authority on common names, as... like the term suggests, the names are common amungst the local population. If sources show the local population call it by Jim Bob Parkway, then it can, should, and will be called Jim Bob Parkway in the text of the article, and in any prevalent locations elsewhere.

Do we fully understand the argument now, or is your statement on your userpage clouding your judgment. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 17:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what you're saying, but it makes more sense (and is less confusing) to refer to the route as the same name in the article every time. Plus it's hard to properly source common names. In some of the Illinois Route X articles, I would say that it's called "Main Street" in city X, Y and Z, Illinois X in another place, and Route X somewhere else... but that would be in the Route Description section. Looking at the route from a statewide perspective, it's easier to call it Illinois X (for short) or Illinois Route X (long version) as a general statement.

On a slightly related note, far more people know Interstate 290 (Illinois) as the Eisenhower Expressway than as I-290. But that common name is an attribute of the main highway, I-290. —Rob (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

If you can provide a government soure for the official name (which, I imagine, exists for Eisenhower Expressway), then you can link to it as that. However, if you put Illinois Highway 23, that is factually incorrect and not acceptable. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we fully understand what you are saying. We are saying that this [[State Route 99 (California)|California Highway 99]] is not acceptable. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

<==== outdent with focus change
How should we discuss I-515 in the Las Vegas area? No one uses that name they only use US 95 even though it is also cosigned as US 93. Locally the road is described on all of the news reports as being an east west road, but that's another local usage issue. Vegaswikian 19:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

In this case you can use U.S. Route 95 since this road is, in fact, U.S. Route 95 (this is in most uses, however, as U.S. Route 95 and I-515 are not the same road for the entire route). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

(double ec) Depends on the emphasis, IMO Rschen (see below)

I think we're on two different subjects here, and I just want clarify.

1. Using different terms for routes. State route, highway, and route as opposed to the "common name" and
2. Using actual names of the routes (like "New Jersey Turnpike" in place of "Interstate 295" or "Capital Beltway" instead of "Interstate 495").

I'll say it again:

For 1) as long as it's consistent within the article, I don't care and I don't think it should matter. If southern Californians want to call State Route 94 "Highway 94", then fine. If northern Californians want to call State Route 89 "Route 89", that's fine too. As long as it's consistent in the article. For long routes, like State Route 1, then perhaps "State Route" should be used.

For 2), If you say "The Tri-State Tollway intersects the Eisenhower Expressway (I-290) before reaching O'hare International Airport", that's fine too. Conversely, the Tri-State Tollway is made up of three routes (I-80, I-294, and I-94), so which would you use? I think it depends on context and what you want to emphasize. Do you want to emphasize the Tollway or the Interstate? As long as I know that it's both (using parenthese, like above), then I don't see a big deal. This would be good though for something like "The Expressway intersects the Tri-State Tollway (I-294) just after intersecting the eastern terminus of Interstate 88." But those are my 2¢. It really shouldn't matter, as long as it's consistent and clear with the appropriate wikilinks. That's all I really have to say; this is giving me a headache, to be honest. --MPD ^{T / C} 19:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree on #2, as long as you can source it with something official. i.e. U.S. 50 should not be referred to as The Loneliest Road.

On #1- that is factually incorrect. His name is George W. Bush, not Dubya. Do people call him Dubya? Yes. But this is an encyclopedia and needs to be written formally. California Highway 99 is factually inaccurate. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Think about the National point of view (Nothing to do with WP:POINT ;) -- master_son^{Talk - Edits} 20:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Rschen7754,

Are you deliberately misquoting me? I said Highway 99, not California Highway 99. Please note:

I specifically linked to the existing article title (California State Route 99), which I believe is entirely appropriate. Whereas, your misquote does not link to the existing article title.

I wrote the common name as Highway 99, per local, verifiable usage. Whereas your misquote is California Highway 99.

-- Jasper 20:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It's still unacceptable no matter what. It doesn't matter if you link it to the right name, but what it comes out as must be what the government uses. In the case of California, what the link looks like must come out to be State Route 99. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路)} 22:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Caltrans uses both Highway 99 and State Route 99, including in press releases and planning documents. "State Route 99" is more commonly used by Caltrans, but they certainly use "Highway 99" a good deal. I don't think there's any problem with using "Highway 99", at least in non-highway articles. --NE2 22:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Some more comments:

Rschen7754: USSH states State Route 99
Rschen7754: non-highway articles, i could care less
Rschen7754: there i do agree with NE2
Rschen7754: however, Highway 99 should absolutely not be used
vishwin60: reason?
Rschen7754: i'd sure like to see a document that he cites

Yes, please bring an official document to the table, please. At this time, Rschen cannot access web pages right now, so I'm filling in for him. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路)} 22:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[2]: "Beginning Tuesday, March 6th at 9:00 p.m., traffic traveling on State Route 43 (Highland Avenue) will be able to access northbound Highway 99 using the Floral Avenue on-ramp."

[3]: "A $62 million project is converting Highway 99 from four-lanes to six-lanes between Kingsburg and Selma in southern Fresno County. This project will enhance goods movement and ease traffic congestion for commuters in Fresno, Kings and Tulare counties."

[4]: "Highway 99 Briggsmore Expressway Develop approximately 1.3 miles..."

[5]: "Highway 99 is the transportation backbone of the San Joaquin Valley."

And many more. --NE2 23:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[6] California Highway Patrol calls them all "Highways" (look at the addresses)

[7] PDF thing about business partnerships from the Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency (ca.gov website)

[8] Thing from UC-Davis, but look at the corridor map.

[9] That doesn't say "Highway 99", but rather through that whole CalTrans report, it says "Route 99".

Like NE2 said, "and many more". --MPD ^{T / C} 00:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

So state departments nickname state routes "highways". That doesn't mean they should be named California Highway 99 for example. --JA10 ^{T · C} 00:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Where did anyone mention "California Highway 99"? --NE2 01:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break

Creating a section break, folks. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 01:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No JA10. This proves there is evidence of Caltrans calling their roads "Highways" as NE2, Jasper, MPD, et al have been saying all along. -- master_son^{Talk - Edits} 01:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Heh, I was about to create a section break myself.

Unfortunately I had an extremely busy weekend off-wiki, so I've missed the entire discussion since I gave my first response. Hopefully you'll forgive me, so I'll give my $0.02 here. I've read the above discussion, but it's impossible for me to respond to any specific point directly.

The phrase "common name" in WP:USSH is a total misnomer. If you look at the voting in SRNC, SPUI frequently made comments such as "That's not a common name," and was ignored and/or overruled. Which is fine by me, given the context. Rather than the current headings, they should probably read "Official name" and "Disambiguated name". I think the most common name for pretty much all state highways outside of the northeast is "Highway X", just because it's shorter and easier to say than State Route X, or whatever the official name might be. However, I also feel strongly that while it may be a common name, it's not encyclopedic, and in articles on highways, the name used should be either of the two given in that chart.

That being said, I'm in agreement with NE2 and the IRC discussion that in other articles, using common names or colloquial usage is A-OK. An article on Bruce Springsteen or Born to Run should probably link to Highway 9, not U.S. Route 9. -- NORTH ^talk 01:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

And the use of forms not expressly listed in the cases where a highway has an actual name outside of State Route X, such as Hohokam Expressway for Arizona State Route 143. Or, more importanly, the Arizona Loop Highways where the Segment Name is used to provide clarification (eg instead of Loop 101, it's Loop 101 Agua Fria Freeway, etc.) CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 01:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Those were never meant to be prohibited, IMHO, provided that they are valid names, i.e., not something made up in school one day. (For example, citations can be found for I-295 in New Jersey being the Camden Freeway, but not the South Jersey Expressway.) -- NORTH ^talk 01:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then someone needs to tell Rschen7754 that WP:USSH is not gospel, and there will be major exceptions. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 01:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think USSH is gospel in the sense that in U.S. road articles, the form should always be State Route X instead of some other similar form like California Highway X (or even just Highway X). However, it is not gospel in the sense that it must be poorly written if people are interpreting it to mean that names of roads are banned, as that was surely never its intention.

In other words, if you're using the highway's number in an article on itself or another highway, you must follow WP:USSH. But names of highways are also 110% acceptable. -- NORTH ^talk 01:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

See, your comments not only make sense, but are clear you actually read what was being said. I do agree that if you're going to just do Highway 99, you can do State Route 99 or whatever the styleguide says. And if someone does it, it can be changed. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 01:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't stroke my ego too much now. :-P (In other words, thanks for the kind words.) -- NORTH ^talk 01:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "disambiguated" is the proper term; to me disambiguated would refer to the "article title" column. --NE2 02:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I was about to post similar here, and have already reverted. "Alabama State Route X" is the disambiguated name. "State Route X" is ambiguous. -- NORTH ^talk 02:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

My bad. Didn't really catch that. Yeah, it should be ambiguous name. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路)} 02:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

From IRC discussions and from discussion here, it appears that most of us have come to the following:

1. Sourced nicknames are okay, such as Golden State Freeway, etc.
2. If you use a number designation, you must conform to WP:USSH standards.
3. The California issue needs to be dealt with separately, since it is at least adhering to the principle behind USSH.
4. We have more urgent things to do than fight over this with two users who won't go along with the consensus. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any need whatsoever to treat California separately. Even if Caltrans itself is guilty of colloquial usage, it's still clear to me that the official name is State Route X – although I don't remember why we came to that conclusion, nor do I have a source to prove it. That being said, I'm not an active editor in California, and if the active editors want to take this over to WT:CASH to re-debate what the official name is, that's fine by me.

Otherwise, Rschen's summary is A-OK. -- NORTH ^talk 18:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Southern California may need to be discussed more, however NorCal doesn't use freeway names as more then memorial designators. They're not used in common usage or official paperwork. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Rschen's comment about California was meant to refer to Highway vs. State Route, not the freeway names. Freeway names are not banned, nor were they ever meant to be, nor were they ever meant to be a part of this conversation. -- NORTH ^talk 18:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Correct, since this was at least attempting to adhere o tthe USSH principle. Let's get this part settled first. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well in that case I think we can go with Route over Highway. Route is the more common usage among official documentation from what I've seen. Granted in some cases like Highway 1 or Highway 17 the term Highway is more prevailant in common usage, it's not the official name of the route. And it's unlikely to cause any confusion in this case to use the official name. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This depends, though. Route in California is the legislative definition, however Caltrans's official name for State Routes is State Route x. In fact, Route in California can be any type of route; Routes can be State Routes, but State Routes cannot be routes. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路)} 00:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I do have a problem with the wording of number four. Please stop speaking like all this fighting is inevitable. If you welcomed conversation instead of shutting people down by telling them that they have to read the insanely long SRNC, you probably could have reached a conclusion much quicker without the ugly parts of this conversation. The phrase "two users who won't go along with the consensus" not only ignores consensus can change, but also puts the blame solely on one side, when if there's any blame for the ugliness of argument, it probably belongs on the other side. -- NORTH ^talk 18:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Bot to keep track of cleanup-tagged articles?

I just got an idea: why not have a bot (maybe VshBot?) keep a log of all USRD articles that have a cleanup tag? Something like this:

Name	WikiProject	Importance	Class	Reason needing cleanup
Colorado State Highway 121	none	Mid	Stub	No lead
Everett Turnpike	WP:NHSH	High	Start	Exit list not compliant with WP:IH/ELG.
Indiana State Road 205	WP:INSR	Mid	Start	Needs more sources and expansion.

...and so on. WikiProject, importance, and class could probably be parsed easily from the talk page. Also, this would make it easier to pick out high-importance articles needing cleanup or those of a higher class that just need some polishing. You could also see all the cleanup reasons at once, so you can pick out things you're interesting in working on. Would this help anyone, or would it just be a lot of effort spent for no real gain? —Scott5114↗ 15:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we need this or not for cleanup. However, it might be justified simply as a way to compare the various articles in different ways. That's not something you can easily do with categories. So with a list, you could look at all stubs that are high importance and pick a few to work on. Vegaswikian 19:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes, part two

At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 5#Infoboxes for U.S. route bannered routes, I attempted to gain consensus on whether or not to use a dedicated infobox on articles regarding bannered U.S. routes. From the comments that were left, I sense that there was some misunderstanding regarding what I was trying to say. For clarity, here's exactly what I'm proposing:

On U.S. Route 62 Business (Niagara Falls, New York), the infobox is Infobox U.S. Route with "type=Business" passed. On U.S. Route 7 Alternate (Burlington, Vermont), the infobox is Infobox road with "state=VT" and "type=US Business" passed. Only one infobox should be used, and that infobox should be Infobox U.S. Route. Why the need for a single method, and why should Infobox U.S. Route be used? Note that different links appear at the bottom of the infobox depending on which is used. On Infobox U.S. Route, five links pertinent to U.S. routes are displayed. On Infobox road in the example above, one link to the Vermont state highway page is shown. Needless to say, the five U.S. route links are more relevant to the route than the single Vermont link.

Additionally, as I stated in the original proposal, since the browse row in the infobox is a non-issue, as these articles are not to be included in any browses per WP:USRD/INNA, the state that the route is in is a non-issue is well, making {{Infobox U.S. Route}} suitable for this purpose.

There is also the issue of Interstate loops and spurs, but we'll tackle that once this issue is settled. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 16:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• As a matter of style, one would think you would want all of the US Routes to use the same infobox. What are the objections to doing this? Vegaswikian 06:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pages like U.S. Route 1 in Virginia use a Virginia-parametered infobox road. This allows Virginia-specific links to be underneath. --NE2 07:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I am not talking about state-detail pages - I am talking about bannered U.S. routes, hence my two links in my original post. It doesn't matter what template is used on state detail pages, as a workaround has been developed that will display both sets of links for "type=US" (see U.S. Route 6 in Colorado). What does matter is that we decide which infobox is proper for bannered routes. Again, we are not discussing state-detail pages, we are discussing the bannered routes. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 14:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    • That's how they are used. Is that information really needed at the US route level? If it is, then it would make sense to adjust the template to allow some form of state information. Vegaswikian 07:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
      • All depends on the scope Vegaswikian. An article such as U.S. Route 1 in Virginia is focused on the route within Virginia. Essentially you would want to focus more on that so the VA paramed Infobox Road would be fine in this case. Infobox U.S. Route is meant more for a national scope. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Master son (talk • contribs) 11:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
        • But we're discussing bannered routes. I'd be in favor of using the U.S. infobox, considering "U.S. [blah] Business" is a U.S. route. State infoboxes for "U.S. Route [blah] in [blah]", since those are focusing specifically on the route inside the state. —Scott5114↗ 05:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/19th century turnpikes in Massachusetts --NE2 15:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Multistate Highway Projects

After seeing some state WikiProjects heading to the trash bin (aka get "demoted"), I wonder if it is possible to create a multistate project (e.g. California and Nevada State Highways WikiProject). Sorry if this is a perennial proposal. For people who don't recognize me, I used to be called "Physicq210," from the State Highway Naming War of 2006. —Kyриx 03:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Not at this point, as we are trying to get the current projects up to par before creating any more :) In the future, it might be, if there is something that small (maybe some of the outlying states and territories like Alaska, Puerto Rico.,..) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Uhh, no...the scope would be too broad per Wikipedia:WikiProject. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路)} 03:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Uhh, how would it be too broad when WP:USRD exists? There's nothing wrong if a WP assimilates a dead state WikiProject; this has essentially already happened in Canada and USRD. --myselfalso 04:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It makes it easier to split later if the projects stay separate, even if only in name. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean by creating new ones (I know it is impractical). I meant combining several states' projects and/or "task forces." —Kyриx 03:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

My concern is that it will be too hard to separate them again... but I've been thinking about project adoption... one project being temporarily adopted by another... this, in fact, is happening in Canada de facto. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Splits will naturally occur when the subproject gets too big, would it not? However, the "Canada highway solution" seems quite useful. —Kyриx 03:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This is also happening with states that don't have a project yet—Delaware will be controlled by PASH and NJSCR. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路)} 04:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Will be, or already are? —Kyриx 04:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Already are. I would've also put MDRD in there as well, but that project is so bad it's not even funny. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路)} 04:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

But in my example above, would it be feasible for the California project to "adopt" the Nevada one? Or should I bring this up at WP:CASH? —Kyриx 04:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... not sure how to go about this as I just came up with the idea :) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the proposal will essentially make it a two-state subproject... —Kyриx 04:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather that the projects stayed separate, but CA editors could help with NV. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

state specific US Route shields in state infoboxes

For states with their own US Route shields, is it possible to fix up the state highway infobox so that if the next route is a US Route, then it will show the state-specific shield? I suppose it could also be useful in a "U.S. Route X in Y" article as well. I have noticed Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa have their own shields, but they use the default national shield in infoboxes. Perhaps there are other states as well. DandyDan2007 00:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It is definitely possible, as California uses their own US shields in the infobox. I'll make the necessary changes so that WI, MN and IA are set up the same way. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 00:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That was something I had been thinking about for quite a bit of time - but thought it would be difficult to do - until I remembered about California ;) -- master_son^{Talk - Edits} 16:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how are the shields different in WI, MN and IA? JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 20:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

WI's 3di shields use the 2di width, but with Series C font. IA is the same with WI, but the font is Series B. MN also uses 2di width, but has smaller numbers and the Series D font. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路)} 20:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Is that on all shields or just some of them? I don't know if it would be worth it if it's not a state mandated thing like California's or Florida used to have with the colored shields. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 21:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

For these states, it's mandated that the 3di shields look the way they are. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路)} 01:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) - Iowa goes further to have all of its 2d sheilds be type-C font, but those haven't been created yet. -- master_son^{Talk - Edits} 03:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Headline of the netherlands motorways are all wrong

Because there is no portal for roads but only for US roads, I want to ask here: I would be thankful, if the road specialists could have a look here: Portal talk:Transport#Headline of the netherlands motorways are all wrong Thank you -- 84.132.101.93 10:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

A couple of page moves

Discussion at WT:USRD/INNA V60 ^{干什么？ · 喝掉的酒 · 路} 14:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

{{jctint}}

Could someone modify jctint to make location optional? Some highways have a lot of junctions in the middle of nowhere. —Scott5114↗ 04:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

See Indiana State Road 3 for intersections in the middle of nowhere. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路)} 04:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That works, but I think it'd be a lot cleaner to simply leave the cell blank, like we do with freeway exit lists. I have been doing this through the non-breaking space character, which works, but does leave a tiny phantom  , Oklahoma link. —Scott5114↗ 17:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You can probably just use the "location_special" parameter with a blank value if you want a blank cell. --Polaron | Talk 17:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no easy way to make it purely optional, as forcing a blank cell to appear on rows where neither "location" or "location_special" are specified will mess up the formatting of rows that are part of a spanned location. The only real workaround is what Polaron described above, sadly.

On a completely different note, the comments left on the SR 1002 (Lehigh County, PA) talk page inspired me to make some modifications to the junction table template. For now, it's contained in my sandbox, but can be implemented site-wide if desired. Notable changes include the ditching of the table/cell alignment and cell formatting as well as the removal of boldface for road links (making the junction list more ELG-friendly). Also note that the legend has been removed and replaced with an HTML title parameter in the applicable rows. For example, hovering over I-490 in my sandbox should, depending on your browser, display a tooltip stating "Crossing, no access". Another fix present in the revamped version is the elimination of "false hovering", where the tooltip would also display in the town if the shading began in that row. Comments welcome. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 23:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the small typeface; that being said, if the consensus is found to prefer the new table, I'm for that as well. --myselfalso 23:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

TMF, How does one know to hover over the row to find a legend? • master_son^{Talk - Edits} 23:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

TBH, it wasn't my decision to remove the legend. One editor added the hover a while back, and Vishwin60 removed the legend very recently. I have no personal preference over its presence, but I think we're probably at the point now where if we removed the colors and went with a ELG-type system, where oddities (concurrencies and such) are explained in the notes, no one would really complain. Now, if this was six months ago, after Routeboxny was just phased out, it'd be a different story... --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 23:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You could just use table syntax. --NE2 06:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Colours would be completely messed up if we did that. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路)} 12:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Not if we get rid of colors. --NE2 13:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

And there's absolutely no consensus to get rid of the colours. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路)} 14:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's true consensus when you really don't know. I'm not in favor of using colors. --myselfalso 13:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there consensus to force use of them? --NE2 15:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

When routeboxny was deprecated, this was when the current table was born. In light of that, yes.

Also, I like the new table contained in TMF's sandbox. Can we agree to that with a compromise between the folks who think every junction and exit list should be ELG-based and the people who would like them to be separate? V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路)} 20:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It might just make things a wee bit simpler IMHO. I have no bones about it as long as we have a concrete setup. • master_son^{Talk - Edits} 20:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Progress

I am making the appropriate changes to the templates, according to TMF's sandbox. Just be forewarned that when I come back at around 3:30 PM, articles using {{Jctint}} and associated templates will be broken for a short time as I make the appropriate changes. V60 ^{干什么？ · 喝掉的酒 · 路} 17:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Does this article need to exist?

County Route 1309 (Westchester County, New York): looks like it would be better pruned and merged into Yorktown, New York. --NE2 01:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I see no need to delete it. --myselfalso 01:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I see no need to keep it; much of it is original research and the rest better belongs in the article about the town whose main street it is. This is the kind of "non-notable" county route that I thought we agreed shouldn't have an article. --NE2 01:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Put up U.S. Route 6 in Nebraska as a DYK article

Specifically, I wrote:

• ...that when the U.S. Highway network was created in 1926, most of U.S. Route 6 in Nebraska was U.S. Route 38?

Would love to see it on there. DandyDan2007 06:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of a couple obsolete infoboxes

Template:TxRouteBox and Template:TxFMBox 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. — Holderca1 19:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yellowstone Trail

I ran across this article that I think you should add to this WikiProject. It's about the first trail across the northern U.S. Royalbroil 02:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You can simply add {{USRD}} to the talk page to add a page to the project. One of the editors whose "job" it is to assign importance and quality will then fill in the missing fields. --NE2 10:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Missouri decommissioned highways

There is a category and many articles dedicated to decommissioned highways in Missouri. Are any of them notable? None of them strike me as being worthy of being here. DandyDan2007 20:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This should probably be brought up at WT:N/HWY and referenced at WT:MOSH. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If they are decommissioned primary highways, then yes, they are just as notable as current state primary highways as we cannot be bias to present day. Wikipedia is timeless. --Holderca1 22:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Some brief research into the articles reveals some of them to be decommissioned in favor of current US Highways. Would it be better to just redirect to whatever the current highway is? DandyDan2007 22:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Another idea I have would be to just place it all in a list article. DandyDan2007 22:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

When I wrote about former primary state highways in Virginia, I redirected to the current designation wherever possible - sometimes a primary route, sometimes a secondary one. Those that I could not redirect are in Category:Historic Virginia state highways. If you compare that to the rightmost column of List of primary state highways in Virginia, you can see how many do redirect. --NE2 05:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

So what you're saying is:

1. Keep the articles. 2. redo the list in such a way as to show what the current routes used to be. DandyDan2007 10:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not what I'm saying. I think they should be redirected wherever possible, which is what I did in Virginia. --NE2 14:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur with NE2. (→zelzany - new age roads) 15:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Just use your judgement. If their is not enough info to create anything but a stub, redirect it to what the highway is currently designated and add that information under the history section. If there is plenty of info to create a separate article, than by all means keep it separate. --Holderca1 15:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Promotion of Kentucky

The Kentucky task force is being considered for repromotion here. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 06:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion nomination

County Road 702 (Palm Beach County, Florida) --NE2 22:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Now to deletion review Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 13#County Road 702 (Palm Beach County, Florida) (→zelzany - new age roads) 16:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Overturned, I am in the process of cleaning up all the Florida county roads. --Holderca1 16:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Made another attempt at a DYK article

My latest Nebraska article, Nebraska Highway 14, has this as a potential Did you know ...? item:

• ...that Nebraska Highway 14 became a cross-Nebraska highway with the completion of the Chief Standing Bear bridge over the Missouri River in 1998?

This time, I hope I have my references down, and I put the shield up, so hopefully, it makes it to the main page. I don't know what other highways I could do offhand. DandyDan2007 19:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I was successful at getting Interstate 10 in Texas featured on DYK and the key is to have a good punchline more than anything else. I don't really see the above getting selected. You have to ask yourself, would the average person reading it be interested enough to read the article based just on that one line? Link to DYK when it was featured: [10]. --Holderca1 20:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Holderca1. There's U.S. Route 322 in New Jersey that's up for DYK at T:TDYK#Articles created on June 14. (→zelzany - new age roads) 01:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Road backlog

Category:Road backlog has been created. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are we to put in there, in theory we could put the entire project in that category. --Holderca1 01:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Ya... basically stuff that is super backlogged... such as the unassessed category when it fills up... or if maps task force is backed up... that sort of thing. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kew Gardens Interchange --NE2 23:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Tennessee State Route 383

Can somebody offer a third opinion on whether this should be a separate article or a redirect? Thank you. --NE2 00:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for redirecting it to US 58 as it won't gain anymore information about itself than what the US route will hold already. besides - I'm sure if you ask a local if it exists, they would say "huh?" master son^{T - C} 01:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Research on the talk page—there could be evidence that it existed on its own like New Jersey Route 165. (→zelzany - new age roads) 01:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It didn't exist on its own. The road was specifically built as a new alignment of US 58 around Cumberland Gap. --NE2 04:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say redirect to the US 58 article, but mention it in a US 58 in Tennessee article if one ever exists. —Scott5114↗ 05:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, obviously if US 58 in Tennessee is created, it should redirect there. Is it really a good idea to make that article though? By the way, would it be a good idea to add the Tennessee State Route 383 redirect to the state highway category, as recommended by Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects (which looks to have general support on the talk page)? --NE2 05:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it would be pointless to create a "U.S. Route 58 in Tennessee" article as it would be as small as the one above in question. Is there any reason not to link it to U.S. Route 58 itself? master son^{T - C} 13:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Discussion U.S. Route 155

Historically nonexistent highway and article a word-for-word copy of U.S. Route 55. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_June_16#U.S._Route_155 DandyDan2007 10:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Idea for a useful bot

I'm not too good at programming, so I would not be able to do this, but someone else might. It would be useful to have a bot that creates the redirects in the completion lists, and maintains an on-wiki list of which ones are not redirects (and thus need disambiguation). It might also be possible to have it maintain the "list of highways numbered" disambiguation pages by adding any with articles. --NE2 03:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion nomination

Florida State Road 5023 --NE2 22:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Source for some historic maps

[11]: unlike most collections, it has a number of maps from after route numbers were assigned. I found it by chance when looking for an old Baltimore County map that shows the toll gates on the Falls Turnpike (which I still haven't found; if someone knows of any that would be great). --NE2 08:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you know?

If anyone would like to nominate Key Highway for did you know, please do so; I can't think of a good interesting tidbit. --NE2 15:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind; I got one. --NE2 22:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Florida County Road Task Force

A new task force has been created to improve the Florida county road articles. See WP:FLCR --Holderca1 21:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible collaboration idea

I think it would be a good idea to do collaborations on mid-importance primary state highways, for instance NY 52 or MD 25. It's somewhat less daunting than a major U.S. Highway or Interstate. Possibly our goal could be to improve at least one such article per state to a featured article or at least "A class", where we can all agree that it's worthy of that status. --NE2 13:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Template for state-specific roads

I've made a template {{U.S. Routes and Interstate Highways in Illinois}} (admittedly verbose), demoed on U.S. Route 6 in Illinois, to try to tie together all of the US X in Y and Interstate X in Y pages. (Haven't decided one way or the other regarding intrastate 3dis, or pushing scope to beyond US X in Y / Interstate X in Y pages). Feedback welcome! —Rob (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems redundant to both browsing and the state list page to me. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 18:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Just neglected to reply. (→zelzany - fish) 18:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I would probably keep it around for completion, and as a handy listm then. Some of the articles (in spite of their blue state) don't actually exist yet. —Rob (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually like it. While I believe that it is redundant, I do think that the template can coexist with the article, much like templates and categories can coexist. However, I believe using it in article space will crowd the page. Take for example, Interstate 90. If we had this template for the lower 48 states, I believe that for I-90, we'd have template after template taking way too much space at the bottom of the page. Be that as it may, I think a template like this would be more useful on state WP pages. --myselfalso 00:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Now that (use on state WP pages) I can agree with. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 07:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but it would go on Interstate 90 in Washington, Interstate 90 in Oregon... and not Interstate 90 in my world. Those links are already in the article. —Rob (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)