The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I have removed most of the tags you have placed on the List of Puerto Rico highways article. Many of the tags you have placed seem to be on facts that are common knowledge in Puerto Rico. I have been to Puerto Rico many times and I can confirm that Puerto Rico's Interstate highways are unsigned. ANDROS133704:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I think we can improve the article considerably if we included more citations and eliminated information that is neither common knowledge nor substantiable. For example, that PRI-1 thru 3 are unsigned is common knowledge - I have never seen an Interstate sign on a road in PR and neither have you - but that they (PRI-1 thru 3) "run along various combinations of Puerto Rico routes" is NOT common knowledge. This bit of fact would need to be cited.
I don't mean to be inflexible here. So if this cannot be subtantiated with a citation, possibly we could clarify it by discussing WHY "interstate" roads run along various combinations of Puerto Rico routes? Maybe it is a temporary measure due to lack of govt funding, maybe it was designed to be (permanently) this way for environmental reasons, maybe they will all be eventually consolidated into a single route once construction of the corresponding "interstate" freeway is completed. Just making the claim the "interstate" roads in Puerto Rico run along various combinations of PR routes without any citation or reasonable explanation is not encyclopedic.
When I pick "run along various combinations of Puerto Rico routes", I am choosing just one example for illustration purposes; there are others which I won't list now because I am assuming you too are a reasonable editor.
Pending on your response, I did not tag the newly added, good-faith edit "Some segments of Puerto Rico's interstates are not built to Interstate standards". But, like the example "run along various combinations of Puerto Rico routes" above, this bit of factual information is also not common knowledge. I am not arguing the point that these two bits of information are not believable. In fact, I would say they are quite believable. What I am arguing is that they are not common knowledge and thus should be cited - or removed.
Frankly, I am not in favor of removing information that is known to be factual by a limited number of people, but for which no citation can be located. It is for these cases that I suggest we provide a reasonable explanation - such as the three explanations hypothezised above. But I stress that there is difference between information that is common knowledge and information that is believable (For example "the sky is blue" is common knowledge, but "the sky reflects the blue color of the oceans" is believable,,,but it is not the factual reason why the sky looks blue). Believable information may or may not be speculation, and this is where a citation, a clarification, an explanation, or further discussion can make the difference between info that can stay and info that has to be removed.
I also see you removed the tags on
"PR-1 was once part of Interstate PRI-1"
"the PRI-1 designation has since been reassigned to those [PR-52 and PR-18] expressways"
"Parts of PR-2 and PR-3 that are not paralleled by expressways remain part of PRI-2 and PRI-3, respectively, today"
Where did that above information come from? Are we really to believe that the average Joe in Puerto Rico (let alone the rest of the planet, as WP is supposed to be a global encyclopedia), even if it is the average Juan that sits at home (or on a bench in the Plaza de Recreo!) every morning reading El Nuevo Dia for 1/2hr and listening to WAPA every evening, will know the above three "facts"? It is from this perspective I disagree that these are "facts that are common knowledge in Puerto Rico" as you have labeled them.
From my little bit of work on various PR road articles, you can probably guess I too have been to PR more than once. Maybe if we join forces we could make this (and other?) PR road articles more accurate. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 12:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Reverting good faith changes by 67.224.241.20 to last version by 66.50.81.195.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I have reverted the good faith changes by 67.224.241.20 to last version by 66.50.81.195.
The reason is the changes introduced shields for tertiary and secondary roads (and, to a much lesser extent, primary roads) that are not consistent with the network to which they belong.
For example, PR-100 (a secondary road as given HERE) was edited in the version shown by this DIFF to show the shield of a tertiary (not a secondary) network PR-100 road (PR-100).
Such shield additions can cause confusion.
Until such time as the US Roads Project can be notified that this problem needs addressing and is addressed and resolved, it is probably best to leave the shields out of the tables entirely. The only exception to this that I can see, is in the case of roads whose entire length belongs to only one network (Example PR-52).
Mercy, there's a great new service called the Highway Route Marker Bot. Make a request with a template and a list, and the bot will make the needed graphics. The request page is at commons:User:Highway Route Marker Bot/Requests. Let us give you a hand in making the request. Fredddie should have the templates we need. I think if we need any special typefaces for the 4-digit numbers, we should have them in the bot now. Once done, you could have all of the various graphics created. I requested the missing Forest Route markers and we had 99 of them uploaded in an afternoon. It's been the greatest thing and saving a bunch of time with large groups of markers. Imzadi1979→04:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out how we can do this best. For instance, are most primary and urban primary routes within a range, say 1-99? Are secondary routes between 101 and 199? Are tertiary routes over 200? This would make our bot request infinitely easier. –Fredddie™04:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Hummmmm, I am not sure if there is anything that is wanted from me to help solve this problem... Do I just sit tight now and until something happens? What is supposed to happen next??? Mercy11 (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
All we really need now is a list of primary and urban primary routes, unless it would be smarter to just create them all and sort out how to use them all. –Fredddie™01:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
REGRET to break the sequence here. Just wanted to point out that any solution needs to take into account that, in PR, roads are numbered 1-99 if in the primary network, 100-299 if in the secondary net, and 300-9999 if in the tertiary net. Of course you both know that already, so why am I repeating this?
I am because this takes on a new meaning when taken together with the fact that in PR (¿¿¿¿¿and only in PR?????!!!) highways may change between networks and retain their same numbers. Aha! the significance of this then is that roads numbered 1-99 may use, and many times do use [as in the case of PR-1], but do not always use [as in the case of PR-52] shields of all four PR highway networks. So, this matter is truly resolved, imo, only when there are PR-1 to PR-99 shields that represent all 4 networks (primary, urban primary, secondary, and tertiary), and PR-100 to PR-299 shields that represent the 2 possible networks (secondary and tertiary). That's a total of approx 400+400 = 800 shields. Of course, tertiary shields (county-type, if you will) would still be needed for, at least, the remaining tertiary roads -- that is, everything in the range 300-999. Shields in the 1000-9999 range could, imo, could be made by special request, as needed and warranted since many XXXX routes branch off their corresponding XXX tertiary route [example PR-5506 branches off PR-506]). Hope this helps. Mercy11 (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, PR isn't the only jurisdiction that changes sign types while retaining numbers, but it's probably unique in how it does. What I would do is make all of the missing shields in each of the types, even if it means we have a tertiary shield for a number that doesn't exist as a tertiary highway at this time. HRMB can make all of them easily if we supply it with a template and a list of numbers. Then you can use {{jct}} to set up whatever shield type is needed for a specific junction. Of course people could use the wrong type, but I trust the good editors in PR to correct them as needed. Imzadi1979→03:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
OK guys I went to the HW Route Marker BOT Requests page and it looks awesome. The only thing is I didn't go ahead and make a request since I read above that you guys (Fredddie and Imzadi) wanted to be in the loop ("give me a hand" in making the request as you put it). So what now? Am I still supposed to do something or just wait??? I mean, tell me what my part is and I will try cover it, but so far I just don't know.
OK, we are going to make a request with a template, right? OK, so here are the templates:
Template A: Use this template to develop shields for all routes numbered 1-99 (Used for Primary network routes) [These look like PR-52 shield]:
PR-1 thru PR-99 Primary Marker template
Template B: Use this template to develop shields for all routes numbered 1-99 (Used for Urban Primary network routes) [These look like the PR-1(urban) shield]:
PR-1 thru PR-99 Urban Primary Marker template
Template C: Use this template to develop shields for all routes numbered 1-299 (Used for Secondary network routes) [These look like US county roads]:
PR-1 thru PR-299 Secondary Marker template
NOTE: The checkered marks behind the PR-149 shield should not be there. I don't know how to get rid of them.
Template D: Use this template to develop shields for all routes numbered 1-999 (Used for Tertiary networks) [These look like US state route (in NJ, for example)]:
PR-1 thru PR-999 Tertiary Marker template
Also, we are going to make a request with a list, so here is the list also:
The circles are all created 1-999. We don't need to do a thing with that except make sure that {{jct}} is using the right graphics. As for the request, those aren't the "templates" HRMB needs. (The templates are a version of the marker with the number set, but not converted to a path.) Any numbers in your list that have graphics already should be removed. Imzadi1979→04:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Hum,,, if all the circles (all the tertiaries, I take this to mean) are created, then why does an article such as PR-503 which is tertiary, still shows the incorrect (i.e., a secondary) type of shield in its infobox?? BTW, the pic in the article is further evidence that this is a tertiary road (or to be more exact, that at least the pictured stretch of the road is tertiary.) Why? Mercy11 (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Interstate Abbreviation Clarification
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Can you clarify the correct abbreviation of Puerto Rico's Interstate highways? Are they "PR" or "PRI" -1, -2, and -3? I've seen both in reference to them (and I may have seen both in reference to the Puerto Rico Highways similarly abbreviated). I have also seen Interstate highway shields (either here and/or Commons) with both abbreviation. I think the correct abbreviation should be populated across the entire WikiMedia "universe". Thanks! Allen (talk) 03:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The standard >>>> I <<<< have been using for PR road SIGNING in all PR highway articles I have edited is "PR-XXXX", where XXXX is a number between 1 and 9999 with no leading zeroes, such as PR-9, PR-10, PR-506, and PR-5506. I have only used the PRI-X designation (where X is a number from 1 to 3) to refer to the three PR-XXXX highways for which the Govt of Puerto Rico receives FEDERAL FUNDING under the Interstate (thus the "I" in "PRI") Highway program. In my case, I have been treating Puerto Rico highways funded under the Interstate Highway program as, what it is, a FUNDING and highway CONSTRUCTION SPECS matter only, and NOT as a highway SIGNING matter since the signing has the standard PR-XXXX format. To be more specific, Puerto Rico does not have Interstate SIGNED (meaning marked with such signs on the roadways themselves) highways. So when you ask about the correct abbreviation of Puerto Rico's Interstate highways, the complete question back is "on what, on the roadways, or on the articles?" As far I am am concerned, no article should have a PRI-X designation at all and, specifically, no article should display PRI-X shields (especially in the infoboxes!). In my opinion, PRI-X designations - and shields - should be restricted to discussions about PR road funding and PR road engineering specs, and not infobox and map raodmap signings. This is what I do but, busy with other projects, so far have not entertained populating this standard throughout the Wikipedia "universe". Hope this helps! My name is Mercy11 (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.
I wanted to know what to put on any page on Wikipedia. As I said, I've seen both the "PR" and "PRI" designations applied to the Puerto Rico Interstate highways. Even on the user-made Interstate shields, I've seen both designations on them, as well. Thanks for trying to clear up this issue. Allen (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on List of highways in Puerto Rico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I converted the primary highway table over to use {{routelist top}} / {{routelist row}} / {{routelist bottom}} for compliance with WP:USRD/STDS/L, the standards page for such lists. Several of our Featured Lists use this format, and by using the templates, we can update table formatting very simply by changing the templates in response to any MOS or FL criteria changes. I did only the the one table as an example, but ideally the secondary and tertiary tables should be switched as well.
That said, the tables hold a lot more information than what was here, so there's a lot of blanks that need to be filled in. I also did not link the locations in the second terminus column if they were already linked in the first, per WP:OVERLINK. Also, if any need to have their types switched from primary ( |type=PR ) to urban primary ( |type=Urban ), please update them as necessary.
The termini should link to the intersecting highway. For example, PR-3 intersects PR-1 at its southern terminus in Salinas, so that cell of the table should be: "PR-1 in Salinas". If the same highway were listed in the second terminus, that should not be linked a second time, as per WP:OVERLINK. Lengths should be added as well as years and any concise and appropriate notes. Imzadi 1979→04:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of highways in Puerto Rico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Please note: this is not a forum to discuss the subject itself, but to discuss improvements to the article. IAE, this is a new belt highway road; there was no "original route" as such. Mercy11 (talk) 19:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Puerto Rico Road signing: Secondary shields on Tertiary roads
@Fredddie: Hi Imzadi. There is something I wanted to make you aware of while at the same time get your thoughts on it (or those of any Roads Project editor who may you in their Watchlist), and see if something can be done to improve a bit more yet the signs produced by the commons:User:Highway Route Marker Bot/Requests BOT.
During January 4-11, 2011, you participated in a conversation regarding road shield in Puerto Rico HERE. In my recollection, I believe the outcome of those conversations was the road shields were created for all possible road route signs in Puerto Rico (i.e., between 1 and 9999).
As a way of brief review, I stated back then that roads in PR are divided in 4 networks:
Primary (1-99)
Primary Urban (1-99)
Secondary (100-299)
Tertiary (300-999)
(As a special category, there are also roads numbered between 1000 and 9999, which are nothing but spurs of Tertiary roads, and they are signed with the same last 3 digits of the corresponding Tertiary road numbers.)
That said, there appears to exists a deficiency in the shields created by the commons:User:Highway Route Marker Bot/Requests BOT, whereby you can, apparently, assign a Secondary sign to a Tertiary road.
I learned of this deficiency when an editor assigned a Secondary shield (THIS ONE) to a tertiary road (THIS ONE). It shouldn't be possible to generate a Secondary Road sign for PR Tertiary roads (i.e., for anything above 300, like road number 503 above).
This has lead, for example, to THIS GOOD FAITH EDIT which does not represent the reality of the road signing on that road as seen by the photo in the article Puerto Rico Highway 503, namely THIS PHOTO, which shows the PR-503 shield on the actual road as one that is white circular and not the dark blue pentagonal one in the article infobox now.
Can this BOT bug be corrected so that editors cannot assign Secondary Road signs to PR Tertiary roads? Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 23:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
@Mercy11: I am not sure how this relates to the bot. The bot only creates and uploads the graphics that it is told to do at the names that it is told to do so. --Rschen775400:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I had my own doubts whether it did or not. I am not part of the Roads project and, if anything my admission of ignorance shows a problem does exist but perhaps I was barking at the wrong (Roads project) tree. In that case, maybe someone with better Roads project knowledge can help me identify the true cause of the problem, and which tree we should really be barking at! Mercy11 (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Having looked at the discussion from 2011, it's obvious to me that we never went through with using the bot to make the shields. That user has been creating those shields individually because I've been getting a notification each time a new one is uploaded with my username in the description. –Fredddie™00:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, so I think what I hear is that the BOT has nothing to do with this AND that we have a way (or several) to create shields. That understood, it then seems to me that what's needed avoid this problem moving forward is: (1) to make a practice to honor shield creation requests for PR roads only when such creation would be compatible with the government-designed road numbering system (per the article refs and the summary bullets above) and (2) to remove from Commons all of those PR shields that have been created but which are inconsistent with government designations (i.e., a Secondary road shield shouldn't exists for PR-503 (that is, THIS ONE), or for any road numbered in the 300-999 range because all Puerto Rico roads in the 300-999 range are Tertiary roads by PR government definition). That said, if my understanding so far is correct, does anyone know how these 2 goals can be achieved? Thanks! Mercy11 (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
We can't control the deletion process on Commons, unfortunately. If you file a deletion request on Commons stating the facts, you have a good chance at getting it deleted, but it is definitely not a guarantee. We also can't stop people from uploading whatever they want to Commons. --Rschen775404:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. It turns out that, fortunately, I was already familiar with the Commons deletion process, so I can work on that part myself. And I am also aware the Roads Project Group can't stop people from uploading whatever they want to Commons. The question is, can the Road Group stop people from creating (and, consequentially, uploading) invalid Puerto Rico road shields via the bot which is currently creating and uploading them just by the asking? Any ideas anyone? Or, am I the only one here who sees this as a problem? Mercy11 (talk) 03:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I am the current bot operator and I have never uploaded anything Puerto Rico. The bot is not fully automated. Once someone makes a request, I have to manually set up the request on my end and do it (which is why sometimes it can take months to get a request fulfilled). At best, it is not more automated than WP:AWB. --Rschen775403:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the information; I have also contacted the editor to see where this leads.
BTW, I have given additional thought to the Commons deletions plan, and I don't think it will work at all. Since, unlike this shield,
none of the shields in question have the words "Puerto Rico" in them, those "invalid" shields uploaded to Commons could actually be valid shields in other jurisdictions worldwide. So that's pretty much the end of that route. At this point, perhaps contributing editor education might be the only real good solution. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Greetings to all of you! This discussion has originated because I was signaling the roads by their level of importance in certain segments (remember that a road can belong to more than one network, according to the information provided in the article of the roads of Puerto Rico), contrary to the criterion used by Mercy11, which consists of assigning a shield to the highway based on its number (the whole route would belong to a single network, which seems a bit contradictory in some cases, although I recognize that it has the logic to simplify the work). My mistake was to add the shields without providing the references that support my contributions.
In relation to Fredddie, I have been adding a series of shields to the categories of road shields of Puerto Rico because they are still incomplete. The reason why I mention him in each shield that I upload to Wikimedia Commons is because I use the templates of him and I like to give credit to him even though he has based on the PDF documents provided by DTOP.
Greetings to all of you! I would like to know if you all consider that the article should be semi-protected temporarily from inappropriate changes by unregistered users, since during the past few days it has increased a disruptive editing pattern in the list, where some users add road shields that are not official (and that have never existed in Puerto Rico). Here I show the first shield that someone put and here is the second one. That second shield is a poor imitation of the shield that was used in Puerto Rico until 1999. I recognize that I have made many changes and errors that have caused discord among users who have been here longer than me and I also recognize that anyone should make their contributions in good faith, but when they begin to be done deliberately and without providing references to prove that such contributions are valid (in this case, those shields), we must be more aware of it.
Some IP addresses have already been temporarily blocked from WP, but bad editions are still being made in the article, so I want to know if you all agree or disagree with my suggestion.
PS: It is not the same to discuss things in good faith between registered users than with people who do things from the outside, often without a talk page to discuss cordially with them. Yamil Rivera (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
@Yarfpr: Hopefully we will get more editors to chime in but, as for me, my experience is that article protection due to disruptive editing must first show both deliberate (as opposed to, for example, mere unintentional or uninformed) disruptive editing and a history of such disruptions (history in terms of # of disruptions, not in terms of the length of time of the disruptions). That said, anyone can make a request for protection but, imo, it won't be granted because it may not yet be considered serious enough to be granted. For example, I see some back-and-forth with the Cuatro de Honor shield, but as it currently stands, it hasn't been restored again.
Also, disruptions (as I remember from previous participation in a few such cases in the past) from unregistered users aren't treated by the admins any different than disruptions from registered users. That is, anonymous IPs aren't looked down upon or frown upon just because they are anonymous IPs; many well-intended editors have edited for years from anonymous IPs. I understand it can be frustrating if you want to establish a dialog because they may not have a Talk Page (or may have a shared talk page), but that's the way WP treats them. The good news is that an anonymous IP engages in either disruptive editing or edit war they, too, can be blocked.
If this helps, I think part of the problem is that the infobox of this article (which, as in most articles, it tends to attract most of the attention by both editors and readers) has gotten too crowded with the addition of shields that aren't as common on the physical roads as the primary, secondary, and tertiary road shields. IMO, this article could be served better if the old shield for PR roads: and the Bosque Nacional El Yunque road shield: were moved out of the infobox and placed in a new section of the article named something like "Miscellaneous shields", "Other shields", etc. So I have taken the liberty of doing just that. BTW, I am 100% behind you in terms of additions that are made without citations, and so is Wikipedia because it's made very clear in this WP policy HERE that the burden of proof is on the editor who makes the addition of information (in this case, the addition of the questionable "PR-102 Cuatro de Honor" shield). This also provides a route for an editor who is serious about the "Cuatro de Honor" shield to add it into the article and include the required citation.
Also, I am, myself, trying to understand why the name of Fredddie who, as I remember, is a member of the US roads Wiki project is shown on this page HERE (the one on the "PR-102 Cuatro de Honor"), yet Freddie doesn't seem to have been the uploader, creator of, or a contributor to that image page.
The situation became clearer to me and I thank you for explaining all the details and personal experiences. Your idea of placing the old and the forest shields in a separate section I like more because the page looks cleaner. If you want, you can add any of the old shields of the toll roads that I made in a new category that I created for those purposes of organizing the shields on Wikimedia Commons. I also took the liberty of creating the logo of the Autopistas de Puerto Rico (which I already put next to the shield of PR-22, PR-52, PR-53 and PR-66 toll roads). Yamil Rivera (talk) 03:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
And? it's not disruptive to upload files to Commons. And they aren't newly added to this article either. The files are questionable, so they won't be permitted in any article until an editor, uploader or not, can provide cites. That's how it works. I am not sure if you still have concerns, or what they could be. WP generally can't penalize editors for past (old) disruptions. If an editor or an anonymous IP violates the rules, that's when action is taken. I hope this helps. Mercy11 (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I only said that both shields did not correspond to Fredddie. I am aware that anyone can upload files freely on Wikimedia Commons. What I am questioning is why someone would want to add those shields to the list if there is no evidence that they actually exist. That was the reason why I suggested a temporary semi-protection of this article. In the history you can see several users putting and removing those shields, including me. Fortunately, such behavior has not happened again, so it is no longer necessary to return to this topic. Yamil Rivera (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks! I've been working heavily on another project, but I'll try keep an eye on this article in case some obnoxious editing takes place again. take care, Mercy11 (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
test
Test...trying to figure out why this talk page isn't generating a TOC.
Delete this test entry after 2 weeks from today or after another new section is added, whichever comes first. Thx! Mercy11 (talk) 03:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
@Mercy11: a table of contents is only added automatically if there are four sections on a page, per Help:TOC. A TOC can be forced regardless of the number of headings as well. Imzadi 1979→04:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Any ideas on whether this tidbit might by encyclopedia-worthy...
The situation in 1898 or 1899 was- "As for roads, there are of all kinds. The State has built 285 miles of roads, well made and in good condition. Of these is the one from San Juan to Ponce with a branch from Cayey to Guayama. The most other roads in Puerto Rico are impassable except for horses."
I think this bit of information is interesting. Should it be added to some article?
It's from https://archive.org/details/informesobreelc00joangoog/page/n21 --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
When the Americans invaded Puerto Rico in 1898, they found a road that, by their own admission, was the best in the Americas. They called Puerto Rico's Carretera Central "the finest road in the Western Hemisphere." (See "La Carretera Central." In, Harper's Weekly (New York: Harper and Brothers.) Vol LXII, Issue 2188, 26 November 1898, p. 1163.) Never mind Harper's Weekly was by far the premier political magazine in the United States and that, it was published in affluent New York City. It was an admission that neither the NYC-Boston road or the NYC-Washington road were as good as the San Juan-Ponce Carretera Central road. There were many things the Americans did well, but building roads wasn't yet one of them. Even famed 1920s U.S. Route 66 (built 20 years after Carretera Central) avoided both the Rockies and the Appalachian Mountains entirely. The Americans didn't build their first real highways over mountains until 80 years later, when I-80 and I-90 were built. Even PR-52 over Cordillera Central was already built by the 1970s.
We need to remember also, that when the article says "most other roads in Puerto Rico are impassable except for horses", they weren't saying cars couldn't travel over them; there were no cars in 1898. They were implying that you could only travel them on horseback, as opposed to wagons/carriages.
The tidbit seems interesting. A new section (named, for example, "History") could be added where the tidbit, PR-52's and Carretera Central's highlights are included. Here are some links to PR road history if you are interested: Castillo, Pumarada, Mari Mut. Hope it helps! Mercy11 (talk) 04:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for all the resources and the info. I'll be visiting an Hacienda this weekend and some other places. Will try to take more pics of roads and highways and stuff. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@Mercy11: Aw! that was nice. I just saw this. But now I'm here and you're there and now I envy you.
Split
I was looking at the Outline of Puerto Rico and wondered if this article should be split into two:
List of highways in Puerto Rico
Roads in Puerto Rico (new article)
Only because this here article looks more like an article with a list, not a list and we're missing a Roads in Puerto Rico article, one that gives an overall view of the topic. Any opinions? The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
As you noted, Puerto Rico is missing an overview article on the island's highway system, and that article should be created at some point. A good list article though, like List of Interstate Highways in Michigan is going to have some text to introduce general topics about the items listed in the tables; it isn't going to be just a bunch of tables and a reference list. Imzadi 1979→17:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi. That makes sense. I'll review the Michigan page and others and see. If I drafted an article, it'd be a lot of copying from the List article and adding a bit of history from books.google. I'd need more input from other people. Maybe it's the right time. Thanks.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
There are probably a lot of cool sources out there that should be mined for information, online or off. Something like that one could be transcribed on the Spanish Wikisource by someone in the future. We've started transcribing various documents to the English Wikisource and using them as links in citations here.
One question: is there a law or something that gives a name and a definition for PR's highways as a system? Here in Michigan, we have the "State Trunk Line Highway Act" from 1913 that created what is now called the "State Trunkline Highway System", and if you add the state name, it's Michigan State Trunkline Highway System. If there's an official name someplace, and an official definition, I'd suggest that the new article be written in that direction. In any case, system articles are Top-importance for USRD, the system lists are usually High-importance, and then individual highway articles are Mid-importance (or Low-importance for secondary/tertiary highways). Imzadi 1979→03:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
@Imzadi1979: You know, I really don't know the law # or, even if there is a law for the National Highway System of Puerto Rico but I hadn't thought about it or looked. So I created a Top Importance article? That's probably my first one. Now we're working on a "highway renumbering series article" -: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yarfpr/sandbox#List_of_highways_in_Puerto_Rico_(pre-1953) that time they went and renumbered all their highways. However, I did notice the template doesn't list P.R. It happens often that PR is not listed under country, then neither is it listed under state. Shouldn't PR be added to the template? (I wouldn't want to touch it - because the template also doesn't list other "insular areas" of the U.S.) Good night.The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 03:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
PR-100).
PR-1 thru PR-99 Primary Marker template
PR-1 thru PR-99 Urban Primary Marker template
PR-1 thru PR-299 Secondary Marker template
PR-1 thru PR-999 Tertiary Marker template
Moved from User talk:Imzadi1979
.png)
