Jump to content

Talk:U.S. Route 40/Archive 1

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

Moved to U.S. Route 40

I have moved this to U.S. Route 40, as that is the name used by AASHTO, the Federal government, and many states. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Highways#Useful resource - AASHTO reports 1989-present. If there are no complaints about this or the other three I have moved in a day or so, I will move the rest. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

PA route 81 Redirects here

Is it just me or does this statement not belong at the top of the page. If this page was a U.S. 40 in PA article, it would be appropriate, but not for the national article, IMHO. Any objections to removing it? Davemeistermoab 06:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

February 17, 2007 unexplained year change

Please see today's edit that change the "as of year". Ronbo76 22:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Multiple tags permitted

Different projects are permitted to have tags on this article. In addition, ratings will vary but usually reflect each closely but might have some differences depending on the weight assigned by the project. Ronbo76 22:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This sentence is (currently) incorect.

"It crosses the Mississippi River on the Poplar Street Bridge in St. Louis and is multiplexed with Interstate 64 until its terminus between the Missouri River and Interstate 70. " This won't be true until the ongoing I-64 construction in St Charles County between I-70 and an interception near MO-94 completes in a few years. (There are two stop lights remaining to be bypassed and several miles of new ashplat that need added both in that area and in another area of the project.) The Feds might also hold off offically designating this until the old US-40 Eastbound bridge over the Missouri River is replaced which might push this back another year. In the mean time there is a dispute on where exactly I-64's western designation begins. Jon 18:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Rewritten for USRD Article Improvement Drive

This article has been extensively rewritten and referenced per the current USRD Article Improvement Drive. I am going to go ahead and nominate it as a Good Article Candidate. Hopefully it will pass! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

GA passage

I've passed this article because there are lots of reliable sources, the writing is great, and the overall coverage is broad. Might want to improve on the stableness of the article, and link to/create state detail articles. Keep it up! V60 干什么？ · 喝掉的酒 · 路 19:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

History notes

Obviously the detailed history should go in the state articles. Here are some general notes. Only 40N east of Limon is detailed here. --NE2 18:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Victory Highway, San Francisco, CA to Baltimore, MD?? (via US 40S; originally via 40N west of Halford, KS and 40S east of Oakley, KS, and via Jefferson City)
  • Union Pacific Highway, Denver, CO to Lawrence, KS (via 40S)
  • Midland Trail, Denver, CO to Lawrence, KS (via 40N)
  • National Old Trails Road, La Mine? to Frederick, MD (except that it went via Dayton; did it go via Wilmington?)
State highway numbers
  • CA: no signed numbers
  • NV: 1
  • UT: 4
  • CO: 2, 8; 4 (40N)
  • KS: no signed numbers
  • MO: 2
  • IL: 11
  • IN: 3
  • OH: 1
  • WV: 29
  • PA: 11
  • MD: no signed numbers
  • DE: no signed numbers
  • NJ: 18

Flow of text in the beginning of route description

Do we seriously need {{clr}} in the beginning of the route description, right near the two tables? As far as I know and in accordance with WP:USH, text must flow in between the two tables there, regardless of the placement of pictures. (→O - RLY?) 18:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the text has to flow between the two tables: could you give a more precise link for WP:USH? If there is such a guideline, it may need a rethink, because there are accessibility issues when the floats fill out more than about 300px around the text (some readers use larger fonts or less wide browser windows). Indeed the Manual of style recommends that text should not be sandwiched between left and right images. The same guideline states that image placement does matter: if you really want the text to go through the tables, then the first few images will have to be removed, which I think is a bit sad. Geometry guy 19:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
If there are too many images there, then they will have to be moved or removed, since USH and USRD standards require that multi-state routes have the lengths table. I'm not sure about the communities box, but it is pretty vital for a route this long. These guidelines do not conflict with the MOS, the only thing is with the amount of images in the article. (→O - RLY?) 19:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
That is fine: I have no problems with the tables, but where does it say that text must flow between them? You haven't pointed me to a reference for this. Geometry guy 19:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC) PS. In case it isn't obvious, I am trying to improve this article so it passes GA/R.
References to guidelines aren't necessary. See Interstate 70. (→O - RLY?) 19:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Eh? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Interstate 70 violates WP:MoS#Images (it has both stacked and facing images) and would have no chance to be a good article at the moment. The article here does have chance to retain its status. Don't you want it to? And why should we be deprived of images of Utah, just because it is listed first on these routes? Geometry guy 19:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, common sense says that huge blocks of white space isn't acceptable. If it means removing images, then so be it, since the lengths table and the communities box are too essential to not be there. (→O - RLY?) 19:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Then common sense says that all tables of contents must be deleted. Heh, I am trying to help here, why am I getting all this conflict over such a minor issue? Geometry guy 20:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I can understand what you're saying but like O said, it needs to follow WP:USH now until the guideline changes. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 20:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, but can you please point me to this guideline? I still can't find it. Geometry guy 20:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
We've already linked it a billion times. (→O - RLY?) 20:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
It's best for the article to have diagrams, It won't hurt it to remove some images, in fact, too many images can make the artice too big. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 20:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:USH says an article needs to have a lengths box and a major cities box. Common sense says that blocks of white space are undesirable. Therefore, common sense says text should flow between them. —Scott5114↗ 20:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not asking for anything complicated here. In O's edit summary, and above, he stated that "text must flow in between the two tables", citing WP:USH. He did not cite "common sense", he cited WP:USH. Until you provide a link to a subsection, paragraph or subpage of WP:USH which contains a sentence stating that text must flow between the two tables, I will assume that there is no such guideline. Common sense says nothing about whitespace: look at tables of contents, and also the tables at the end of WP:USH articles: lots of white space there. Geometry guy 20:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
there you go. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 21:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
And where's the sentence about text flow between the tables? In fact this seems to support the view that the mileage and the list of cities should come before the state subsections. Geometry guy 21:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Which they are. (→O - RLY?) 21:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
And where's the sentence about text flow between the tables? Geometry guy 21:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
That is the common sense part. The TOC is excepted from this because, well, it's a table of contents. Would readers like a bunch of white space in the place between the lengths table and communities box? (→O - RLY?) 21:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. I understand your position now. I have one positive suggestion: why not make the list of cities into a template, and then use a more flexible table in which the cities are not listed in a column, but in centered text, separated by bullets? Then the list of cities could have any width, and there would not be this problem. Note that visually impaired people use Wikipedia, and squeezing text between two tables is not helpful. Thanks for all your comments, and good luck with the project. Geometry guy 22:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: I've tooled around with the first few subsections of the route description, and changed the Colorado and Kansas picture placements. I've had to remove the Utah picture because it did not give much context to the article. (→O - RLY?) 22:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Aside: I'm impressed by the dedication to maintain high standards in WP:USRD articles, as shown by the enthusiasm among editors here for delisting substandard good articles. I thought I would point out that there is a procedure at Good article review for delisting an article without going through the GA/R process: a single person can delist, as long as it done properly. I also had a look at some of the other WP:USRD GAs, and think that New Jersey Route 33, California State Route 37, and Interstate 295 (Delaware-New Jersey) are a bit weak as well. Geometry guy 21:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Good article review

I'm taking this to good article review, mainly since many of the sources are not reliable. --NE2 08:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This article has been delisted from WP:GA per the Good article review process. The discussion, now in archive, can be found here. Once the article meets all the standards listed at WP:WIAGA, the article may be renominated at WP:GAC. Regards, Lara♥Love 19:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The wrong map image file is linked.

The current image file (US_70_map.png) is wrong. It should be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_40_map.png. Autryld (talk) 14:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if a change was made without logging history, but the map is correct now. This is weird. Before adding this section, I confirmed that it was the incorrect map. Autryld (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

40th Parallel

I grew up near US40 west of Springfield, Ohio. In fact, the address of the high school I attended is described as “9830 West National Road.” When I was taught in middle school about road numbers (even numbers are east-west, odd are north-south, three number is a by-pass, etc.) it was mentioned that US 40 was named “forty” because it ran along the 40th Parallel in the eastern part of the country. Seems like that should be mentioned somewhere in the article. I can work on getting a cite. Eric Cable  |  Talk  13:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The article United States Numbered Highways has a pretty detailed discussion of the AASHO meetings where the numbering of highways was discussed. I've never heard of any effort by the planners of the system to align the numbering grid such that the 40 designation would fit a desired alignment (unlike there was with US 60 and US 30, both of which are documented in the above linked article). As such, I'd need a pretty reliable source to convince me the alignment of US 40 with 40 deg N latitude was a deliberate decision and not just a co-incidence. Dave (talk) 16:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC) PS, With that said, I'll grant you that even if it is a co-incidence, it's an interesting one.

Why does the article discuss the route backwards?

Why does this article begin with US 40 in the west, when the oldest part of the route is in the East?

In the United States, the Federal hghway numbering system, not Interstates, begin their route numbers in the east for east-west routes, and in the north for north-south routes. The interstate system begins its numbering system in the west and south, the opposite of the highway system.

Even in the article, there is the statement that the route is a east-west route, yet the article runs contrary to this statement by starting with the Utah section and ending in New Jersey.

The content of the article should start with its origins in New Jersey, and should progress through to the Utah section. Sjkoblentz (talk) 10:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Because by US Department of Transportation convention roads begin in the west and end in the east, roads begin in the south and end in the north. Check any article that lists the mileposts, U.S. Route 40 (New Jersey), for example, and check the milepost log. Dave (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

How many miles for US 40 in California, Nevada and part of Utah?

How many miles was US 40 in California? How many miles was US 40 in Nevada? How many miles was US 40 in Utah of the full way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.5.150 (talk) 13:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a difficult question to answer. Using the mileage of Interstate 80 in those states will give you an approximate figure, but to get an exact figure you would have to make an assumptions about the year and routing for parts where the alignment of US-40 at the time is not viable today. Dave (talk) 05:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Numerous crossings with I-70 in the major intersections section

The Major intersections section lists numerous crossings with I-70. Are these really major intersections? My gut feel is they are helpful to local traffic only, and make this section more confusing. Any objection to replacing all of these with single mentions in the Colorado and Maryland subsections that the two highways loosely parallel each other between these states and have numerous crossings? Dave (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on U.S. Route 40. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

B Class

This should go to B class. Let's review this article before it (might do) does. Kevon kevono (talk) 03:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC) (What the hell is UTC?) 20:43 (PT)

Informally, the only difference between a B-Class article and a Good Article should be that a B-Class article has not gone through GAN. That being said, there is an entire section (not the junction list) that is unsourced. That needs to be rectified before we can even think about B-Class. –Fredddie™ 05:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Basically, a B-Class article for USRD will have all 3 of the basic sections (RD, history, RJL), each will be substantially complete, and basic references will be in place. So there's a bit of a space between B and GA, but not much.
That said, Kevon kevono, I would suggest that you avoid dealing with assessments for a while until you have some quality editing time under your belt. That way you'll get a better feel for where the assessments fall before you start applying them. Imzadi 1979 → 11:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

This section, which I added just this morning, was blanked on the grounds that the book cited, by a bastion of American literature, isn't "noteworthy". Some thoughts: 1. Anything by a noted author is noteworthy, by virtue of authorship. (Did reverter even click on the Beagle link?) 2. The work in question was an early work from a prominent American culture-driver, therefore: obviously noteworthy. The fact that no-one has yet written an entry on it is meaningless. Things exist before WP acknowledges them. 4. Article as-is contains not a single pop culture reference for this subject, which is however a very important one to American history and culture. 5. Consider that discovery of information is one of the main functions of an encyclopedia. Yeah, I know there are Wikipedians who like to play noteworthiness-hockey. Maybe consider whether you're actually improving the article before you make your mark? I did. Laodah 21:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

You could add some references you know. Cards84664 (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Popular culture sections, as a whole, are a deprecated topic for inclusion. It's like the "notable people" sections in geographic or university articles: if the subject of the addition doesn't have a Wikipedia article, they're generally not viewed to be notable for inclusion. Maybe if you can create an article on the book first, you can show us it's worthy of inclusion here. Imzadi 1979 → 23:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on U.S. Route 40. 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) 12:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on U.S. Route 40. 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) 11:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I 80 or I 70

It seems that it should say I70 rather than I80 in terms of which interstate replaced it. I70 goes through all the cities referenced in the sentence below it. THe last sentence of the first paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.170.167.144 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

"Important Junctions"

Not counting the concurrency with I-76 along the Pennsylvania Turnpike, just one more junction with a major highway would include Interstate 71 in Columbus, Ohio, which recognizes one of the larger cities on I-70 and a non-trivial Interstate. Pbrower2a (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:U.S._Route_40/Archive_1&oldid=1137276846"