Jump to content

Talk:U.S. Route 131/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Some stuff that I added.

This is just stuff I plan on adding in the near future. I just want to allow everybody a chance to contribute thier knowledge as well so its not just me doing it all. Although I could care less.--Mihsfbstadium 14:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Exit list

There isn't a CDH with the B-92 designation at all. Exit 142 needs to be corrected. Also, while MDOT might technically put the BR suffix on a route, the signs all use BUS US 131 normally. Ditto with BS I-196/BL 196, etc. Is there an easy way to alter the templates used to fix this order to the lay/sign usage, not the "technical" planning document usage that the average motorist would find slightly foreign?Imzadi1979 06:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, technically the signs don't say "US" or "I" either. As far as I can tell, BS/BL/BR is the most common abbreviation. Sorry about exit 142 - that should have read B-96. --NE2 06:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
No, but Interstate is spelled out yet on the shields, and US used to be listed on those shields as well. The most common lay abbreviation is BUS US 131 and BL I-196 (Also Sault Ste. Marie uses a street address name of I-75 Business Spur just to be unique.) I've only ever seen BR used on government documents/MDOT press releases. All references in local media I've ever seen, when not quoting/copying those press releases, were to BUS US ## or BL/BS I-##. Imzadi1979 06:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I can't find any newspaper articles (from Google's admittedly incomplete archive) using "BUS US 131", but AAA Michigan uses "US-131 BR". Can you please show me a local media reference to "BUS US 131"? Thank you. --NE2 06:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think US 131 is a freeway. Plus Michigan marks no access routes so a peach-orange background will be fine. For partly freeway partly non-freeway we can use both lists junction and exit list. I just think concur-light cyan or pale turquoise color shouldn't exist and should be abolished but it's widely used on 1000s of pages.--Freewayguy What's up? 21:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
US-131 is a freeway built to interstate standards for about 162 miles of its 268 mile length. I am unsure of what you mean by "Michigan marks no access routes…", could you clarify. -- KelleyCook (talk) 22:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Michigan may have a mile markage for no access routes like I-x crosses M-y just for an example but they have no interchage. Junction list and exit lists are a little bit different. For junction lists we don't list small anony routes, the routes cross without access still have mileage on non-freeway routes. We can list all the number routes including no-access and the peach-orange color should definitely exist so it do not look like an existing route. For concur, it's not too important so light cyan color should not exist at all period, not even on junction list.--Freewayguy What's up? 23:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean here. None of the lines in the tables for US 131 are no-access junctions. None of them. The only mention is in the color key, which is produced by a template. Also, I can speak from personal experience, US 131 is a freeway from just north of Manton near the Wexford–Grand Traverse county line south past Kalamazoo and farther. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Non-access route appears on other MI highway articles. Have you ever been to California? our highways may work different than yours. I never been to Michigan, so I have no idea how your highway works. I don't even know if the decomd route works like mine. Gray color will be valid for Michigan highways so it does not look like an existing route. With California, there is too many things to talk about. The SR 213 in around Torrance is getting even smaller so is the SR 107. They now only runs north slightly past SR 1. For Califonria routes we have onver 2/5s of routes Caltrans abolish. Cyan concur colors should not exist at all, not even at junction list.--Freewayguy What's up? 05:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Freeway extension

I have been looking forward to further freeway extentions of US-131. How come US-131 never got upgraded to full freeway standards (i.e. Interstate Highway standards) even though I-75 reached Mackinaw City with no gap of freeway in only a few decades? --SuperDude 20:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

To answer this question: Because of fundamental differences between the two types of highways. I-75 is part of what is called the "Interstate Highway System," which was a system conceived in the late-1950s to connect all major cities and border points in the U.S. It was funded primarily by the federal government and, as such, the entire system was laid out and plans were conceived for its completion. I-75 runs from Miami, Florida to Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan and, since the highway is part of the Interstate system, it was constructed along with the rest of the system. US-131, on the other hand, is not on the Interstate system and, as such, there is no mandate to build/convert every mile of US Highway to freeway standards as there is with the Interstates. It's much more of an "as-needed" basis or, in today's budgetary and bureaucratic (not necessarily a bad thing, but can be) environment, these routes are built on an "as-needed/when money and political support is available" basis. So, there is no justification for US-131 to be freeway all the way to I-75 based on traffic counts and there is certainly no money available for such a project at this time. Hope that answers the question... CBessert 15:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Revisions

I went through the US-131 article and many many corrections and revisions, though I wanted to explain some of them here in case anyone was curious:

  • US-131's length in Indiana (rounded) is 0.7 mile.
  • I added the section noting that US-131 has NEVER extended past its current terminus to US-20, US-31 or anywhere for that matter. (I noted that until 1959, it didn't even enter the State of Indiana at all!) There have been no official proposals or requests to do this either. Thus, this statement is false and should not be included.
  • Corrected the length of US-131 in Michigan to match official sources.
  • Noted that the freeway extension north of Manton has been officially shelved by MDOT; only spot improvements and upgrades to the corridor are planned by MDOT. This occurred several years ago and no northerly extension is imminent or even in the planning stages. Also added the recent back-and-forth regarding any proposed southerly extension toward Indiana, although this improvement may come in the future.
  • Corrected the "lane configurations" section. (US-131 is not on four-lane right-of-way south of Three Rivers or north of Manton for the most part.) Changed the format to the number of total lanes and whether or not the highway is divided as this is a more concise method.
  • Other minor corrections and grammatical improvements.

CBessert 14:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

As late as the mid-1960s, US 131 extended at least as far south as Middlebury, according to at least one map along what is now Indiana 13. It has been truncated at or near the Indiana Toll Road since 1967. That is not to say that the map is not in error.

... If the section between Schoolcraft and the Indiana Toll Road were to be upgraded to a freeway, it might sensibly be designated as part of the Interstate system, possibly as a spur route of Interstate 90. It would be a very long spur, and it would certainly not be a loop route. --66.231.41.57 04:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

First, US-131 has NEVER existed south of the Indiana East-West Toll Road. Ever. This is according to both the Indiana Department of Transportation and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) -- the two entities responsibile for signing and approving changes to highways such as this. AASHTO is responsible for any additions, changes and deletions from the system and InDOT actually petitions AASHTO for those types of changes within the state. Thus, that one map is, indeed, in error and is most definitely not an official source.
Second, as to US-131's impending addition to the Interstate system... Don't hold your breath... for MANY reasons. First, the current proposals for upgrading US-131 through St Joseph Co (Michigan) are NOT for an Interstate-grade freeway, but a two-lane limited-access "expressway" with crossroads and some interchanges, which cannot be designated as part of the Interstate system. Even if the Portage-Indiana route were built to full freeway standards, there are many parts of the rest of US-131 in Michigan which do not meet current Interstate standards. In addition, the Michigan Department of Transportation has historically (and to this day) not been overly interested in applying for Interstate designations for every stretch of freeway in the state. In fact, the portions of US-131 that ARE at Interstate grade have never been considered for inclusion as an Interstate. All of these reasons combined point to US-131 not becoming an Interstate, likely ever. CBessert 04:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I would be interested in hearing of such a deal. There has been nothing of the sort in any news media (newspapers, television, etc.) to that extent. In fact, a February 16, 2006 news article in the Kalamazoo Gazette noted that a decision may come on March 22nd... possibly. If there is any evidence that supports the fact that the Governor, MDOT or legislators have come to such an agreement, please share! CBessert 04:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following statement that "Nintendude" added to the article because it had no basis in fact (and, grammatically, it had problems as well): "There has been plans to redesignate U.S. 131 between Grand Rapids and where it will possibly connect to I-75 as Interstate 67 as much of U.S. 131 is up to Interstate highway standards." Indeed, this statement contracts other statements in the article which state MDOT is NOT persuing an Interstate designation for the corridor -- it never has and there is no indication it ever will. Please do not make up information that is not true. Thanks. CBessert 06:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Since somebody brought it up I personally would like to have the current US 31 in Indiana from I 80 to Indapolis built to interstate standards and then connect it to US 131 provided US 131 becomes a freeway from Manton to Petoskey. I would then label it Interstate 65. Then I would take the current Indiapolis to Gary I 65 and name it I 63 and have it ride shot gun on I 80 to its merger with the current US 31 and with the extensions currently planned have it go from South Bend to Ludingtion US 31 be consigned as I 63 with a possible shortening of US 31 with a merger to US 131 around Kalkaska and maybe extended further east to Grayling. The rest of US 31 north of Traverse City would be M 31. With the remaining distance of future I 65 be built to with a merger with I 75 going directly east of Petoskey. --Mihsfbstadium 14:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Since CBessert mentioned it above (and quite a while ago) I did find a news article that quotes the then-director (linked in the article) on the Google News archived that states unequivocally that the MSHD did apply for an Interstate Highway designation for US 131 in a late 1960s expansion of the system. No number was stated in the article, just that the state applied for some 600 miles of highways to be added to the IHS. That being said, this talk page is a forum for discussions on improvments to the article, not about the subject or roadgeek desires. Imzadi 1979 → 23:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit March 2011

Hi

During the copy edit a couple of points came to light which may need addressing:

Future
  • "home of one of the most dangerous in Southwest Michigan for auto crashes" - not too sure what this was, most dangerous: sections of road, road or highway?
  • "while other residents that work outside of in small community are looking forward to decreased commutes." - outside of what? Also "outside of the small community/outside of small communities"? - perhaps the outside of could also be replaced.
Memorial designations
  • "1959 after the opening of the Mackinac Bridge revitalized" - should this be Mackinaw or does it refer to some other name? Ah, just found it after reading the later part of the section (para1)
  • "The first was that the road already had a name," there does not appear to be a second (para4)
Notes
  • From what I have seen, short sentences are not recommended in FACs
  • "In (date), this happened..." or "During(date), this happened..." is not correct, the comma is not needed and should read "In (date) this happened..."
  • "something, and" is generally not good prose. Often the and should be dropped or the comma removed, if there are two ands in the sentence consider using another word to join the sentence together.

Any comments welcome, as usual. Good luck with the FAC. Chaosdruid (talk) 00:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Replies
  • As for the first two, fixed.
  • Yes, Michigan is goofy. We spell it both ways, Mackinac and Mackinaw, depending on context. The straits, the island, the state park, the county, the bridge, both forts and the roads in the Upper Peninsula use the French spelling with the c. The village, the ships and the roads in the Lower Peninsula use the English spelling with the w. Some words like the coat are from the British troops that were once stationed in the area, and they use the w as well.
  • I inserted a "The second issue was that" to make clear what the second issue was.
  • In American English, dates like that at the beginning of a sentence are typically set off by a comma. They've been reinserted where I found them missing.
  • As a comment, we don't use the definitive article with roads in the US much. "The M-6" just sounds wrong to Yankee ears. The highway would just be called "M-6", and the article would not be needed except when the name is an adjective, like "the M-6 interchange".

Thank you for the polish and the comments. Imzadi 1979 → 02:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Imzadi1979. The Chicago Manual of Style calls for commas the way that Chaosdruid edited them. Chicago section 6.45 gives the following examples:
  • The performance took place on February 2, 2006, at the State Theatre...(American system: place a comma after the year)
  • See his journal entries of 6 October 1999 and 4 January 2000. (British system: no comma)
  • In March 2008 she turned seventy-five. (where a month and year only are given [this is also what to do when only the year is given. For example, "In 1968 many bad things happened."])
  • On Thanksgiving Day 1998 they celebrated....(specific day such as a holiday, along with a year: omit the comma).
So Chaosdruid was correct about the commas, in my opinion. Good luck at your FA. --Diannaa (Talk) 03:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Which edition of the CMOS? I'll date myself a bit (I graduated from high school in 1997), but I was taught that such constructions require the commas, and I've had requests to add them to articles. If this is new CMOS guidance, you're going to have to untrain a generation of writers. Imzadi 1979 → 03:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm working off my copy of The Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual here, and it says: "A comma is used to separate an introductory clause or phrase from the main clause: When he had tired of the mad pace of New York, he moved to Dubuque. It also says: "When a conjunction such as and, but or for links two clauses that could stand alone as separate sentences, use a comma before the conjunction in most cases: She was glad she had looked, for a man was approaching the house." That's the guidance I'm relying on to reinsert the commas that were removed, which is why I've reinserted them. As for the other changes made to the article by myself, several were to remove definitive articles. Only Southern Californians preface a highway number with the, and "In the town" is an overly formal construction in my opinion. A few other changes were reverted because they distorted the historical events of the subject. They might be minor semantics, but still important to the timelines. A few other changes were inspired by the copy edit to improve what was left untouched by either of us previously. Imzadi 1979 → 03:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on U.S. Route 131. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on U.S. Route 131. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on U.S. Route 131. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Interchange types

There was a request for closure at ANRFC so hopefully I can summarize the discussion well enough that discussion can move forward. There was some confusion about the scope of this RfC and participants mainly discussed what, if any, interchanges should be included in this article (US Rte 131). There was a wider question with minor discussion on what information US Rte articles in general should include on interchanges. There's not sufficient participation or consensus here to interpret MOS:RJL, so I will focus the narrow question: what participants thought should be done about this specific article.

There is rough consensus against including every interchange on US Rte 131. Participants tend to agree that if an interchange is mentioned, there should be something interesting about it so that we do not wind up with long tables of trivial and uncurated information. With regard to hybrid interchanges which was specifically brought up in the RfC statement, there is no consensus to include that information. Outside participants generally did not understand the topic enough to evaluate whether those specific types of interchanges are worth including.

To give a WP:BOLD opinion on how discussion might continue productively, the local editors may want to discuss which particular interchanges are non-trivial and worth including. Discussion on the relevant MOS or WikiProject talk pages may also be beneficial to get opinions of editors who understand the content matter better. This last paragraph is just my opinion though so feel free to completely disregard it. Wug·a·po·des​ 00:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

@Chaswmsday, Imzadi1979, and TenPoundHammer: There has been some disagreement among you three about listing the types of interchanges, specifically hybrid interchanges. This is a Featured Article, so that needs to stop. We have to come to consensus, so the discussion starts here. Chaswmsday, you seem to want to list them, so you need to provide reasons for their inclusion. Imzadi1979 and TenPoundHammer, you both seem to not want to list them, so you both need to provide reasons against inclusion. I have added the RFC tag to this new discussion so we can get some input outside of the sphere of USRD. –Fredddie™ 04:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose inclusion—the type of an interchange is fairly esoteric. We write articles for a general audience, and this level of detail is too specific in most cases for our readership. These extra details have been absent from the article for years without comments requesting them. The appropriate MOS section does not mandate the inclusion. It offers it as option for a type of content that might appear, and no more. Imzadi 1979 → 04:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose inclusion per Imzadi1979. On every road and highway article I see, detailing the interchange only occurs if there is something specific about that interchange, such as incomplete/indirect access, being the first of a specific type, or to distinguish from an intersection on a highway that has both. No other featured or good article that I've seen that's highway related goes into detail on every interchange, and the reader gains nothing from a technical aspect. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment—The issues at hand are *not* specific to U.S. Route 131; rather they apply to any road with grade-separated junctions and which follow the MOS:RJL guidelines. Thus, *this* talk page is a much more appropriate venue for this discussion.
  • Comment—Imzadi1979 and TenPoundHammer have *not* made arguments specifically about "hybrid interchanges", as assumed by the RFC intro; instead they oppose *all* mentions of usual interchange types.
  • Comment—As discussed above, I find I unfortunately cannot assume good faith.
  • Support inclusion—Per my comments above. And to restate: the MOS:RJL guideline, while not, as acknowledged, stating "shall" or "should", also places *no restrictions* on which interchange types might be included. As I've stated above, a generalist reader could simply ignore the interchange types, while a reader with more specific intent might find the information useful and immediately at-hand. And the guideline *does* strongly encourage their inclusion, by specifically presenting Kwinana Freeway, a Featured article which *does* include everyday, "usual" interchange types in its RJL table, as an example to follow. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument.--Chaswmsday (talk) 07:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't make the assertion that one example out of seven implies that interchange types in the notes are "strongly encouraged", especially given the lack of text in the guideline supporting that position. (Technically there are two, as another example shows an interchange type.) LJ ↗ 13:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose I can go either way on the interchange types when there's something special about a particular interchange (e.g. a state's first DDI, etc.), but think that including them for every interchange that's not a "standard" interchange type tends to unnecessarily bloat the notes column. However, I'll note that I specifically oppose inclusion of "Hybrid interchange" for reasons stated above. If we are to include interchange types, this MOS page needs to be updated to provide better guidelines for what should or should not be included. LJ ↗ 13:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm really disappointed that Chaswmsday moved this discussion from Talk:U.S. Route 131. The discussion started on that article's talk page was supposed to only be about that article. I believe these discussions should be held on a case-by-case basis and not in one fell swoop like this. My initial comment about this being about labeling hybrid interchanges comes from this edit, which was reverted back and forth a couple times and led to Chaswmsday adding every interchange type here (over a few diffs). The inclusion was reverted on August 5 and then re-added on August 8 and then reverted by myself in order to initiate this discussion. –Fredddie™ 23:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - Personally, I would mention the details of specific interchange types in the route description and not the exit list, and would usually only mention it is an "Interchange" in the notes of the table (unless it is along a freeway segment for an article about a freeway, where it should be implied that all junctions are interchanges without a note). However, I have seen interchange types in the tables for junction lists in some states (such as Maryland) and it does not bother me. Dough4872 00:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Procedural points: (Summoned by bot) It truly was pretty inappropriate to have moved this discussion here without the assent of the author(s). Basically said editors availed themselves of the appropriate community process for deciding a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS issue on a particular article, and then that proposal was moved here (awakwardly and with with !votes already lodged), where the proposal has an entirely different scope and context than that which was intended in the initial instance. This is doubly problematic in this case, as we are talking about MoS advice: while the style guide has some precedential power, it absolutely can be overridden by local consensus, if the editors of a given article decide there is good reason to do so. That means not only has the move A) changed the character of the proposal, widening it to all articles and therefore changing the outcome of the eventual !vote, it would still not resolve the issue definitively for any given article, meaning the RfC could be restarted there and nothing would have been accomplished except a waste of time for numerous editors.
Instead, this move should be reversed, and the RfC can run out as originally intended on the local talk page. Then, in parallel to that discussion, Chaswmsday can, if they so choose, open the issue here on this page with a separate and general RfC--which is what they should have done from the start. Note that this does not constitute forum shopping because it's entirely possible for both discussions to reach different conclusions as to what the appropriate outcome is, and in that case the more particular localconsensus at the article talk page would control if there was significant consensus, while a new more general standard for most articles generally will also have been established. It's also possible that the discussion here will result in an !vote that any general rule represents unnecesary WP:CREEP and that this issue should generally be left to local consensus without any strong default advice here. Lastly, both discussions could agree as to the appropriate course of action, in which case there would obviously be a clear path forward at the Route 131 article. But the point is, it is disruption of the consensus building process to move an ongoing RfC from its place of origin without some degree of assent by those who opened it and those who have commented thus far already. More than that, the move here confuses two different scopes and two different community discussions that need to take place in different spaces, instead conflating and smashing them together here. This is just not how our process is meant to work. Snow let's rap 10:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose in general apart from the exceptions mentioned by Ljthefro. Most interchange designs are not noteworthy enough for inclusion in an article, and those few that are should be fairly obvious. Particularly, if an intersection/interchange received press coverage focused on its design specifically, or if it's the first use of a design type in a region (which often generates press coverage), it's generally worth noting that design. Otherwise, probably not. Notable designs should almost also warrant mention in the body of that article. -happy5214 02:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • PROCEDURAL CLOSE as malformed I was invited by an RFC bot and I have no slightest idea what this fuss is all about. The RFC originator speaks only to the ones who are involved to the disagreement: to include or not to include hybrid interchanges. There are no links to previous discussions, nor WPProject guidelines, nor Wikipedia guidelines. Heck, I don't even know what a hybrid interchange is! I am not going to dig thru article history nor talk page archives. I have my own work to do. If you want an independent opinion, please do the courtesy to your colleagues and supply some starting points. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • General conditional oppose per WP:TRIVIA: we do not include each and every piece of info into an article regardless whether it was found in reliable sources or not. Of course, each subject may be subdivided into articles to go into deeper detail. If we have an article US Route 131 between Apopka Hills and Boise then we can include even creek crossings. From what I understand, there is no local guideline about the level of detail, only common sense. Therefore as an independent RFC participant I simply have no information to make a qualified decision. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment We unfortunately are having two discussions in one thread, as described by Snow Rise. Are we trying to reach consensus for this article, or are we trying to establish a project-wide consensus on intersection types? -happy5214 21:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Include Like @Staszek Lem: I was invited by an RFC bot and I have no slightest idea what this fuss is all about. Nor is the topic of direct interest to me, so at least I can claim some pretense at impartiality. The fact that some readers might find some of the valid and correct topics in the article ininteresting, is irrelevant. OTOH the fact that some readers might value some such items is very relevant, and justifies inclusion. The fact that we are not mandated to include every such possible item, does not preclude inclusion of minor items as long as it is not a massive table of trivia, which this item is not. JonRichfield (talk) 10:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Procedural close (Summoned by bot) close for failure to observe WP:RFCBEFORE: "Editors should thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others." It's wasteful of other editors time]] to call for an Rfc without doing your due diligence first. See "Counterproposal: terminate the Rfc now", below. Mathglot (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Counterproposal: terminate this Rfc now

If you wish to vote on the "hybrid interchange" Rfc question, please do so in the section above. The section below is for offering your opinion on whether to terminate this Rfc now.

Per WP:RFCEND bullet 2: RfC participants can agree to end [an Rfc] at any time.

Accordingly, I offer the following counterproposal:

Are you in agreement that this Rfc should be terminated now for failure to do due diligence beforehand (see WP:RFCBEFORE), or for other reasons (please state your reason)?

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.

State column in junction list

Imzadi1979 has reverted my attempts to add in a state column to the junction list, despite the fact that the route travels through two states and thus should have one to avoid potential confusion. Their only argument is that the state column wasn't present when the article was promoted to featured status, but that alone cannot suffice as a valid argument. ToThAc (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

No, there's only one junction within Indiana. There are 59 junctions or other lines for Michigan. So you'd have huge cell spanning 59 rows of the table. Put another way, Michigan's length encompasses about 99.7% of the length of US 131.

The column wasn't present when the article went thorough FAC, and if there was ever going to be a time when there was scrutiny to root out confusion, it's during an FAC. Imzadi 1979 → 01:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979: The fact that it's not 100%, I believe, is enough for the column to stay. U.S. Route 400, for example, is designated for 96.7% of its route in Kansas, and yet its junction list has state columns. Also, I still don't understand what your argument about the FA process has to do with this. ToThAc (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request:
Hi! 3O here. I've reviewed your disagreement about whether to include a state column. MOS:RJL doesn't give a definitive answer one way or the other, just saying These columns may be omitted entirely if there is not consensus on what subdivisions to use. I don't believe that the article going through FAC precludes this sort of edit - if it had been brought up during FAC and dismissed as a concern, that would be one thing, but my understanding was that this wasn't discussed at all. If most articles in a similar situation (i.e. the overwhelming majority of a road is in one state) follow the pattern of listing the state, then I would suggest re-adding the state column. If the use of a state column is inconsistent or mostly not present, I'd instead suggest leaving the article as it was before and opening a wider discussion at WT:USRD. Even if most articles do list the state, I would suggest discussing this at USRD to form a consensus - that way, the style guide can be updated with specific guidelines for this scenario. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 18:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
@Creffpublic: I'm seeing consistency with U.S. Route 163, U.S. Route 166, and U.S. Route 400, so I think it can be re-added. ToThAc (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
@ToThAc: I counsel you to have some patience and let the discussion play out. Per WP:BRD, we're in the discussion phase, and then whatever is decided by consensus is implemented afterwards. One extra opinion is not the end of a discussion. If tomorrow others arrive who disagree, and then the day after still more arrive who agree with you, does the article bounce back and forth like a yo-yo? This is a Featured Article, so some measure of stability is preferred, not a constant back-and-forth of reversions. Please leave the article at the status quo ante until this discussion concludes. Imzadi 1979 → 01:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

If it isn't broken, don't fix it. I see this as similar to citation styles/date formats and all the other things people edit war over. If you're going to change from one format to another, there had better be a really good reason to do so, and this isn't it. --Rschen7754 01:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979 and Rschen7754: I've already brought up multiple precedents which both of you have yet to comment on, and I have yet to see a convincing argument that refutes my own. Also, your comments don't seem to suggest that you adequately read the third opinion comment, so it would be nice if said comment was actually read before making such an argument, rather than just making borderline WP:OWN arguments and assuming that a slew of other users will disagree with me. ToThAc (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
That's kind of rude. I've read it but I'm not convinced. --Rschen7754 19:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
@ToThAc: please read what I said carefully. I asked you to exercise caution in editing. Our standard best practices are exemplified at WP:BRD. You were Bold to make an edit, you were Reverted, and then we Discuss. Once the discussion is done, then we edit the article as appropriate based on the outcome of the discussion. That doesn't mean that for the moments your side has apparent numerical superiority that you restore your edit. (I also don't read creffett's comments as unequivocally supporting your viewpoint; rather it was an invitation to open a wider discussion at the project level.)

In any case, the discussion is not yet over, and I implore you to self-revert until the discussion is over. Imzadi 1979 → 23:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:U.S._Route_131/Archive_1&oldid=1137276423"