Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Map update

Could someone act on the request at WP:USRD/MTF/R#M-6 (Michigan highway) in an expedited manner? M-6 will be the TFA this coming Sunday, November 20. Imzadi 1979 → 23:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Future

Future???? I had a newbie tell me that this was the standard here. We are now promoting WP:CRYSTAL? We need consistency throughout the encyclopedia. Encouraging statement of the future like it was something that was really going to happen and not something that human beings were planning depending on budget considerations really needs a more objective subtitle. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing subjective about the term "future"—the "future" comprises everything from this exact moment forward—unless you're The Doctor or something. The "Future" section simply contains information about the planned future state of the highway—anything, short or long range, that we have reliable sources for. It does not include fantasy or speculation.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Every highway has a future. Whether that future means that a bulldozer comes and destroys it, or whether it stays just as is, it depends. But unless the world ends right now, the highway has a future. --Rschen7754 20:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the larger point, we do have some US Highway articles that need to have their future sections pruned, as they are little more than roadgeek fantasy (examples of articles with speculative but unsourced construction include Interstate 7, Interstate 11) and I think that the more mature members of the project have made an effort to prune them. However, in the case of roads, which are planned out years in advance, and take years to build, a future section, if done right, is not just a crystal ball. Take Interstate 580 (Nevada), been planned since the 1950's and is slowly being built, with two sections under construction as we speak. Nothing crystal ballish about that. Interstate 3 is another example, it has congressional approval, so it will most likely exist, but the exact route is uncertain. This article is currently in good shape about the potential routing, but has has problems with speculation being inserted in the past. Dave (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Dave's point and endorse it. Take M-28 (Michigan highway), which has a simmering proposal in Marquette County to reroute it to take over County Road 480. I need to get some updated information from the county and MDOT, but at last check, these plans are still active, even if they aren't a priority. The proposal was covered in the local press, so it's not a fantasy or speculation, but rather it's a cold hard fact. That's what we should be including in our articles' future sections. Imzadi 1979 → 00:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Future class

Resolved

 – Future Class has been implemented. –Fredddie™ 21:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on adding Future class to our assessment scheme? One benefit will be the ability to reassess proposed roads which have articles, Cape Fear Skyway for instance, and allow editors to gather information during planning and construction. Once the road is open to traffic, then we can reassess the article according to the standard scheme. –Fredddie™ 06:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I like this idea. We would need to clarify the situations this assessment option should be used as it relates to proposed highways, under construction highways, and proposed highways that have been cancelled or postponed indefinitely.  VC  16:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, I think it'd be a good option. I don't think it should be used for existing roads with extensions, but under construction highways and proposed ones should be classified as such. For proposed highways that were canceled, I personally don't think they should have an article in most cases. If it was merely proposed and nothing came of it, and there was little history, then how is it notable enough for an article? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I also like this idea, so let's clarify appropriate uses. In a case like M-231 (Michigan highway), I'd say that Future-Class would apply until MDOT opens the road. For Maryland Route 200, part of the road is open, so it wouldn't apply. The Pennsylvania Turnpike/Interstate 95 Interchange Project, which deals with a single interchange, would also be Future-Class until they start opening it to traffic. As for highways that have been cancelled or postponed indefinitely, once we know that it won't be built, or won't at any reasonable point, then they should be assessed on the normal scales, but so long as the proposal is active, I say that we use Future-Class for proposed and under construction highways. Imzadi 1979 → 21:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems like those who chimed in are basically in agreement with how Future-Class would be implemented. The only thing I see that needs to be ironed out is at what point do we try to shush away a planned road that was cancelled before construction started. 10 years? 25 years? –Fredddie™ 05:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd say never. If there are reliable sources, then the project was significant enough. There are plenty of urban expressways that were to be built in the 60s and 70s that are worthy of very detailed articles - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 05:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could give an example of such a canceled route that should have an article due to having enough information. Wouldn't a canceled highway in New York be better suited at an article such as List of canceled freeways in New York, whereby all similarly canceled freeways are listed together? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, if a project were truly significant, it would have been built. Right? –Fredddie™ 12:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

True most of the time, but not a blanket statement. The best example I can find up here is the Spadina Expressway, which was partially built before being cancelled, and now serves little of its original intended purpose as Allen Road. The years of debate, protesting, NIMBYism, urban reform and political ping pong are what make those roads notable, especially if expropriation takes place and neighbourhoods are displaced. It doesn't make sense for us to arbitrarily dictate a term after which a potentially great article would be subject to deletion (ie a highway that was to be built in the 80s vs one cancelled five years ago) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and I think Interstate 170 (Maryland) would be another good example of what should be kept. It was a proposed route that did have some importance with it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to recap what you've all said:

 Future-Class

Proposed highways

Highways under construction

 Not Future-Class

Partially opened highways

Highway extensions

Indefinitely postponed proposed highways before X time

 Why do we have an article?

Cancelled highways (never built)

Indefinitely postponed proposed highways after X time

Assistance on NY, NJ, PA, DE highways

Is there anyone willing to help on the following pages that could potentially become good articles, if not featured? NY 17, New York State Thruway, New Jersey Turnpike (about halfway there; still needs add'l sources), Garden State Parkway (working on it), Delaware Turnpike, Bear Mountain Bridge, Palisades Interstate Parkway, Delaware Route 1, Pennsylvania Turnpike. Thanks. Tinton5 (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The PATP article is part of our little "unofficial wikiproject project" to get a Featured Topic on I-70 put together here. The key to any of those is getting the sources in place with the basic information so that you can remove any self-published sources from the references. The various roadgeek websites are fine for external links, but they shouldn't be used for source material. The bridge article is outside of our scope, so I'd ask over at WT:WikiProject Bridges for help there. Just work on making sure the prose is good and up to standards, and follow through on the sources, and I'm sure people will help out with comments and suggestions if/when any of them are nominated at WP:GAN, or sent to WP:HWY/ACR (for an A-Class Review). I would not recommend taking an article to WP:FAC without a stop at ACR because ACR requires a more in-depth review by more editors. It's not a guarantee that an article will pass at FAC, but it will shake out most of the bugs first. Imzadi 1979 → 00:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

If I get the time, I will be willing to help improve some of these articles, specifically the New Jersey roads, Pennsylvania Turnpike, and Delaware Route 1. Delaware Turnpike could be merged into Interstate 95 in Delaware, but not all the road is I-95 even though the vast majority is. By the way, New Jersey Turnpike still needs work and may not pass its second GAN. Dough4872 03:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Correction: Probably won't pass its second GAN. We want to write quality articles here so that we're building a better encyclopedia, rather than trying to get fancy GA and FA icons on our articles. --Rschen7754 03:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest withdrawing the New Jersey Turnpike GAN and improving it to meet the GA criteria before renominating it again. Dough4872 03:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Inflation adjusted numbers

Since we use capital expenditures, this announcement will be of interest to the project. In short, changes are coming so we can properly inflate our historical costs to contemporary prices. Imzadi 1979 → 04:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:USR2TX

Template:USR2TX has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Amazing image resource

I would suggest that members look at dougtone's flickr page, which is filled with thousands of images of US roads. They are all licensed CC-BY-SA and commons-ready. It's a rather impressive collection.--GrapedApe (talk) 05:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I am well aware of the site and have used their images in articles. Dough4872 03:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

RFC on coordinates in highway articles

There is currently a discussion taking place at WT:HWY regarding the potential use of coordinates in highway articles. Your input is welcomed. --Rschen7754 01:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

3 state rule

On WP:USRD/NT, it says:

A highway should have sizable and notable spans in at least 3 jurisdictions before creating sub articles. There are a few instances where highways that only cross two jurisdictions may merit sub articles; however, these should be discussed on a case-by-case basis.

I think this needs some clarification. We have articles (U.S. Route 340 is what I'm thinking of now) where one state is significantly longer than the other two states, yet there are more than one state-detail articles. There are a few sides to this issue. One, one of the state-detail articles may be of a higher class than the others, so merging would bring down the overall quality. Also, the states which don't have a junction list don't have a good place to have one.

Here are some questions that should be discussed.

• What exactly constitutes a notable span?
• Do all of the spans have to be notable before state-detail should be created?
• Should we add a minimum length for the whole route (say, 500 miles) in addition to the 3 states?
• If we amend this guideline, should the last sentence be amended as well?

I realize this isn't a black and white issue, but I think it will only benefit the project if we clarify. –Fredddie™ 04:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• I will start by answering Fredddie's questions:
  • What exactly constitutes a notable span?
    • A certain length, perhaps a lower limit of 15 to 25 miles; a certain number of intermediate major intersections, perhaps a lower limit of 3 to 5; freeway segments or access to a big city or lots of landmarks that make that stretch of highway notable beyond being a part of the larger highway; and/or extensive history, including but not limited to major unbuilt segments. All of these factors should be taken into account, although we may end up only creating a definition with one or two of them.
  • Do all of the spans have to be notable before state-detail should be created?
    • As the quoted passage says, there should be notable spans in at least 3 jurisdictions. Whether that is the case depends on the consensus answer to the first question.
  • Should we add a minimum length for the whole route (say, 500 miles) in addition to the 3 states?
    • I am hesitant to do so because there could be some worthy state-detail articles precluded due to the length of the whole route "missing the cut."
  • If we amend this guideline, should the last sentence be amended as well?
    • I did a survey and found two U.S. Highways that run through two states, have at least one state-detail article, and the length of the shorter state segment is greater than 240 miles: U.S. Route 190 and U.S. Route 377. This is the opposite extreme, so to speak, we should also clear up.
• One of my concerns is article balance. For most of the borderline candidates, or almost all multi-state articles, really, some state details will be more developed than others. For instance, for US 340, Maryland has a state-detail article with three fully-developed sections, Virginia has a state-detail article with Route description and Junction list, and all West Virginia has is a Route description summary in the main article. The history of the Maryland section will be 98% of the History if the state-detail articles are merged into the main article. There is typically a correlation between quality and class; however, I think article class (one article is a stub, another start, another B) is and should be treated as a minor issue.
• My other concern is keeping details. Correct me if I am wrong, but if we intend to not have state-detail articles for a particular route, summary style does not apply. All details need to be kept in the singular article. Once state-detail articles are created, summary style is necessary so the main article does not repeat the details of the state-detail articles.  VC  00:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree this section of the notability guideline needs some work. However, I'm not sure of the best way to fix it. These guidelines are often intentionally vague. However I would at a minimum remove the last sentence (about a highway that passes by 2 states may justify guidelines but should be discussed on a case-by-case basis) and the corresponding 2nd example in the list of examples. It goes without saying that every wikirule has a wikiexception. I would keep the US-491 example, as I think that is a good example. My concerns are that we are using this guideline to justify some rather illogical page merges. Your above example of U.S. Route 340 is one, where we have a state called "Virginia and West Virgina" in the route description. Another is where British Columbia Highway 395 redirects to U.S. Route 395 (Washington). I understand why the merge was done, but not sure I agree with it. It would be nice to have this guideline be clarified to give some guidance on how to handle these situations.Dave (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Another factor to remember is the relative lengths through the states. U.S. Route 8 is 280 miles long, and 250 of them are in Wisconsin while just over 2 are in Michigan. The previous Minnesota s-d article has been merged into the parent and called a day. In some respects, s-d articles were envisioned so that the full table-style junction lists wouldn't be overly long and could appear only on the s-d articles. The problem is that in some cases, the parent article is devoid of content and some needs to be added back from the s-d articles using summary style. Imzadi 1979 → 23:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we could add something about if the length in one state is significantly longer than the other states combined, a S-D should be avoided. –Fredddie™ 23:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I like this idea; we would just need an objective standard or set of standards. However, what about routes with two states that have lengthy segments and the rest have short segments?  VC  04:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

What about for interstate highways? I notice Interstate 39 has two sub-articles despite only being in two states at only 300 miles. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

We merged the state-detail articles for Interstate 8 together for the same reason. To paraphrase the ninth governor of Alaska, "merge baby, merge!" Imzadi 1979 → 19:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Interstate 30 has a Texas state-detail article. Interstate 72 has Missouri and Illinois state-detail articles. To paraphrase a Navy admiral, "you may merge when ready, Gridley!"

Interstate 78 is a borderline case: three states over 143 miles, each state having a state-detail article. New York's segment is half a mile but has a lot of history. It might be a comparable case to Interstate 93, which does not have state-detail articles.  VC  20:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Route	Total mileage	State 1	Mileage 1	State 2	Mileage 2	State 3	Mileage 3	State 4	Mileage 4
Three states, one state dominates
US 224	289	IN	38	OH	238	PA	10
US 340	156	VA	123	WV	16	MD	17
US 275	266	MO	16	IA	59	NE	191
US 21	391	SC	231	NC	125	VA	35
US 159	85	KS	53	NE	16	MO	16
Three states, two states dominate
US 270	643	KS	3	OK	478	AR	162
US 271	299	TX	135	OK	161	AR	3
I-78	143	PA	76	NJ	67	NY	<1
Four states, two states dominate
US 522	308	VA	160	WV	19	MD	2	PA	127
US 72	337	TN west	24	MS	89	AL	170	TN east	35

Based on this table, we can get an idea of how much lengths of a highway in particular states dominate the other states the highway travels through.  VC  22:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I know it would probably be a pain in the rear to complete, but I'd like to see this table expanded out for all USHs and IHs. –Fredddie™ 23:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

This type of table already exists for the Interstates at the FHWA website: FHWA Route Log and Finder List: Table 1. The list is as of 2002, so it lacks changes since such as the extension of I-26 into Tennessee.  VC  04:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Two states

In the Sub-articles passage from USRD/NT quoted at the start of this overall discussion, I propose to change "There are a few instances where highways that only cross two jurisdictions may merit sub articles; however, these should be discussed on a case-by-case basis." to "No highway that crosses fewer than three jurisdictions should have sub articles." If there are any counterexamples or opposition to this proposed guideline, please discuss here.  VC  02:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I can't think of any examples of two-state interstate highways (Interstate or US) that warrant state-detail articles, and if any did, that's what WP:IAR is for. Imzadi 1979 → 02:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

What about Interstate 30? That has a Texas one. Should that one stay? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I'd merge that too. Imzadi 1979 → 02:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The Texas sub article for I-30 has been merged into the main article.  VC  17:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I also merged the I-39 one last night. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I counted 57 U.S. Highways that enter exactly two states. The following eight articles have sub articles:

• U.S. Route 209: U.S. Route 209 in Pennsylvania, U.S. Route 209 in New York
• U.S. Route 16: U.S. Route 16 in Michigan (former section; route presently runs through Wyoming and South Dakota)
• U.S. Route 331: U.S. Route 331 in Alabama (Alabama S-D redirected away from SR-9 –Fredddie™ 03:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC))
• U.S. Route 43: U.S. Route 43 in Tennessee redirects to Tennessee State Route 6
• U.S. Route 48: U.S. Route 48 in West Virginia, U.S. Route 48 in Virginia redirects to Virginia State Route 55
• U.S. Route 377: U.S. Route 377 in Texas; U.S. Route 377 in Oklahoma redirects to Oklahoma State Highway 99 (because AASHTO does not recognize US 377 in Oklahoma)
• U.S. Route 280: U.S. Route 280 in Alabama
• U.S. Route 190: U.S. Route 190 in Texas

These sub articles would not be particularly difficult to merge into their parent article to follow the proposed rule, but before we merge away lets have some discussion about particular ones that might be contentious.  VC  18:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, in the case of US 377, the reason for the merge is because all of US 377 in Oklahoma is concurrent with SH 99. A US 377 in OK article would be entirely redundant with the SH 99 article, and SH 99 is the longer route. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't merge US 16 in MI into the parent article; the MI segment was 210 miles with quite a bit of its own history, and M-16 (its predecessor) is merged to it. In fact, since U.S. Route 16 in Wisconsin redirects to Wisconsin Highway 16, there is opportunity to expand the parent to encompass its former state segments a bit. Imzadi 1979 → 23:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Do we want to consider former sections of routes when we do our calculations? US 16 is a good example, but I was really thinking of US 66, which should be our flagship article. It has state detail articles despite no longer existing. –Fredddie™ 23:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

US 66 is both fully decommissioned and passed through eight states. I have no problem with US 66 having state-detail articles, given how important the highway is. I think the more relevant question is how we should treat extant highways that have notable former sections. US 16 is one example that has remaining sections in two states; US 21 is an example with extant sections in three states. My preference would be to treat these former sections as other routes. In most cases, the old highway has taken on a new title. For instance, as Imzadi1979 noted, the old section of US 16 in Wisconsin is now WIS 16. The history of the road can be fully detailed in the WIS 16 article, with a summary and a main template link from the History section of US 16. I think this would work even if the old alignment now has several designations, as is the case with US 21 in Ohio, which is Ohio State Route 21, Ohio State Route 821, and a bunch of non-notable county highways. Even if the article title is U.S. Route 16 in Michigan, due to much of the old alignment being a county highway, we can still treat the article like it is a separate route.  VC  16:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, state detail article can be used if a road passes through at least two states and enough detail can be written about each state, as is the case with U.S. Route 209. However, if the information from the two states can be easily covered in one article, then only one article needs to exist, as is the case with U.S. Route 113. Dough4872 02:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not think it is true that US 209's two state sections cannot be easily covered in one article. Conversely, US 113 passes through two states and I am quite sure I could write very detailed U.S. Route 113 in Maryland and U.S. Route 113 in Delaware articles. To be blunt, this is not a convincing argument in favor of state-detail articles for two-state highways, and it gets us no closer to clearer and more objective criteria for determining when state-detail articles are appropriate.  VC  16:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with VC here. US 209 should be one article. –Fredddie™ 18:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be losing steam, so I would like to see if there are any other comments before we decide on the following resolutions. After all, this is only the first step; once we figure out the two-state issue, we will move onto the more complicated three- and four-state issues. There appears to be consensus that two-state highways should not have sub articles except in extraordinary circumstances when it may be proper to invoke IAR. I propose these resolutions:

1. In the Sub-articles passage from USRD/NT quoted at the start of this overall discussion, change "There are a few instances where highways that only cross two jurisdictions may merit sub articles; however, these should be discussed on a case-by-case basis." to "No highway that crosses fewer than three jurisdictions should have sub articles."
   • Alternate wording "Highways that cross fewer than three jurisdictions should not have subarticles." –Fredddie™
2. Add after the new sentence: "For highways with existing and former sections, the former sections shall not be a factor in whether or not the existing highway merits sub articles."  VC  01:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
   • Add, per Imzadi1979's suggestion: "However, sub articles may be created for states with former sections of a highway if that section is notable."  VC  01:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
3. The two revisions/additions will be made following the completion of the entire "Three-state rule" discussion.
4. All remaining two-state highways with sub articles will have those sub articles merged into the main article as soon as possible before or after the implementation of the revised guidelines.

Feel free to discuss.  VC  19:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't like the tone of the first sentence, so I have proposed an alternate wording. –Fredddie™ 06:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Fredddie's suggested sentence wording. As for former/existing, that pretty much works for me, but I would make it clear that we could create articles like US 16 in MI, and link them from the parent. Imzadi 1979 → 19:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Fredddie's rewording and I added a line for the US 16 in MI situation.  VC  01:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Related tangent

I was looking over the project watchlist tonight when I saw where an Iowa editor updating the Iowa section on US 61. There is no state-detail article for US 61 in Iowa, but there could easily be, since it fits the criteria. Anyway, it got me thinking; would it dissuade people who care/know about their state's wikiwork from creating state-detail articles if we included the national articles in each state's wikiwork regardless if there are state-detail articles or not? Would be inclined to "let the main article rot" while splitting off to improve your state's wikiwork? I don't think it's wrong to create state-detail articles for this purpose - I'm certainly guilty of doing so. But, I think I would think twice about creating an article if I knew I still had to do my part to fix the main article. –Fredddie™ 06:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the state WW numbers are supposed to be reflective of the state's highway article content in terms of quality. It's not really fair nor accurate to start affecting one state's numbers over deficiencies or even enhancements in the other states' content in in a parent article. In many cases, the best way to rebuild the parent article is to get the state-details articles up to snuff (where they should logically exist) and then summarize the content into the parent; in other words a bottom up approach, rather than a top down one. In other words though, where there are s-d articles, we need to remember to summarize them back into the parent so that the other article is improved. Imzadi 1979 → 19:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that editors would be reluctant to create a state-detail article on a national route if the main article is included among a particular state's articles for wikiwork purposes. My inclination would be to create a state-detail article for a state I know about and let the main article rot rather than improve the main article. Usually, that is because I do not want to take the time to familiarize myself with a new state. So I think it would have an effect. However, I also think editors without strong confidence would be reluctant to create the state-detail article for fear of being shot down, so there are multiple variable. On the practical side, for this suggestion to be implemented, the number of states allowed in the USRD banner would need to be expanded to the maximum number of states a national route passes through plus one, so 16 (I-95 passes through 15 states).  VC  01:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The banner already supports 20 states, at last check. It was set high enough to accommodate I-95. Imzadi 1979 → 02:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Three- and four-state discussion

Now that we are settled on our plan for two-state Interstates and U.S. Highways, we will move on to the more complicated three- and four-state problem. Below are tables of Interstates and U.S. Highways that pass through three or four states, ordered by increasing length. The U.S. Highways list is missing a few highways longer than 800 miles, but we would probably not consider those highways as not needing sub articles. Below the tables in the Discussion section, please chime in on how you would determine whether an article should or should not have sub articles, preferably based on objective criteria. Feel free to use examples or make arguments for particular highways in these lists.

Due to the Thanksgiving holiday, we will not declare consensus or try to reach consensus on particular resolutions until December 1st at the earliest.  VC  22:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Interstate Highways

Route	Total mileage	State 1	Mileage 1	State 2	Mileage 2	State 3	Mileage 3	State 4	Mileage 4
78	143.56	PA	75.23	NJ	67.83	NY	0.5
93	189.95	MA	47.07	NH	131.78	VT	11.1
84 east	232.39	PA	54.55	NY	71.79	CT	97.9	MA	8.15
91	290.37	CT	58	MA	54.99	VT	177.38
24	316.36	IL	38.73	KY	93.37	TN	180.16	GA	4.1
26	347	SC	220.95	NC	71	TN	55
74 ex NC	416.71	IA	5.36	IL	220.34	IN	171.54	OH	19.47
76 east	434.36	OH	81.65	PA	349.67	NJ	3.04
59	445.23	LA	11.48	MS	171.72	AL	241.36	GA	20.67
44	633.79	TX	14.77	OK	328.53	MO	290.49
29	755.51	MO	130.72	IA	154.75	SD	252.5	ND	217.54
84 west	769.62	OR	375.17	ID	275.74	UT	118.71
65	887.3	AL	367	TN	121.71	KY	137.32	IN	261.27
25	1062.77	NM	462.12	CO	299.7	WY	300.95
5	1381.29	CA	796.53	OR	308.14	WA	276.62

U.S. Highways

Route	Total mileage	State 1	Mileage 1	State 2	Mileage 2	State 3	Mileage 3	State 4	Mileage 4
159	85	KS	53	NE	16	MO	16
340	156	VA	123	WV	16	MD	17
302	171	VT	36	NH	81	ME	54
44	236.7	NY	65.98	CT	106.03	RI	26.3	MA	38.4
4	249.84	NY	79.75	VT	66.04	NH	106.83
275	266	MO	16	IA	59	NE	191
8	280	MN	22.13	WI	255.55	MI	2.32
224	289	IN	38	OH	238	PA	10
271	299	TX	135	OK	161	AR	3
5	300.34	CT	54.59	MA	53.43	VT	192.32
522	308	VA	159.65	WV	19	MD	2.35	PA	127.5
7	308.36	CT	78.29	MA	53.78	VT	176.29
72	337	TN west	24	MS	89	AL	170	TN east	35
21	391	SC	231	NC	125	VA	35
35	412	WV	44	OH	174	IN	206
501	430	SC	74	NC	211	VA	145
322	494	OH	62	PA	370	NJ	62
250	514	OH	161	WV	186	VA	166.74
9	522.27	DE	30.92	NJ	166.34	NY	325.01
321	526	SC	213	NC	95	TN	195
431	556	AL	352.96	TN	129	KY	87
10	565	ND	8	MN	270	WI	294.01	MI	144.05
150	571	IL	268	IN	175	KY	125
129	582	FL	88	GA	376	NC	65	TN	53
119	585	KY	141	WV	286	PA	139
56	640	NM	95	OK	71	KS	471	MO	3
270	643	KS	3	OK	478	AR	162
22	647.45	OH	243.35	WV	5.97	PA	337.6	NJ	60.53
460	655	KY	213	WV	27	VA	415
97	663	CA	55	OR	292	WA	322
33	709	IN	94.72	OH	223	WV	228	VA	135.6
127	758	TN	135	KY	209	OH	194	MI	214
285	835	TX	170	NM	402	CO	263

Discussion

I-5 for sure can handle three separate state-detail articles - I think they're all at C-class or better. --Rschen7754 21:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Many of the routes in the tables are no-brainers that they should have sub articles. I included them as a point of comparison for those routes that could fall into either category.  VC  14:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I like the rule that roads that pass through three states or more are eligible for state-detail articles. Dough4872 04:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I tried to do some statistical analysis on the Interstate Highway System last night. Try is the key word here. I found that if every Interstate had a state-detail article fleshed out, the average article length would be around 150 miles, give or take a few miles. So, I'd like to propose a rule of thumb:

• State-detail articles should be avoided if the total route length divided by the number of states through which it passes is less than 150 miles.

Curiously, I-95 fails this rule of thumb, but by definition, rules of thumb have a concept similar to WP:IAR built into them. If we were to follow it strictly, I-78, I-84, I-93, I-24, I-91, I-74 (excluding NC), I-59, I-77, I-85, and I-76 would all be subject to merger. –Fredddie™ 06:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree and think that most of these articles are eligible for state-detail pages as many of them span long distances in the states they run through. Dough4872 00:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I-91 is split 58-55-177. I don't really think 58 miles is all that long of a distance, even if it is Connecticut. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with you about Connecticut; there is more notable in 58 miles in Connecticut than in 58 miles in Kansas. Obviously, we would consider context when determining when to WP:IAR for individual articles, but I think in general we need to figure in context when coming up with guidelines, which for me suggests the need for multiple criteria. For instance, if ratio of longest state segment to sum of all other segments is the only criterion, then I-5 (1.36) would be judged to be less deserving of sub articles compared to I-78 (1.10).  VC  04:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

If you wanted, you could always use very specific formulas regarding the population density of the surrounding area, area of the state, etc. — PCB 04:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I have been mulling over this for the last few days, especially what VC said. "For instance, if ratio of longest state segment to sum of all other segments is the only criterion, then I-5 (1.36) would be judged to be less deserving of sub articles compared to I-78 (1.10)." I decided to run with that. I asked myself, "why not figure out each state's ratio, and not just the longest state?" So I started entering that data into a table. I entered those numbers in green (arbitrary color choice). That data really didn't say anything, so I decided to see what would happen if I added them together, that's the green total. That's when the lightbulb went off.

I started noticing a pattern, and I decided to test a hypothesis: Articles less deserving of state-detail articles will have a higher green total. I plotted the green totals on a graph and compared them to the average state-detail article length (total route length ÷ number of states). The result is this chart. I believe any articles which fall below the green line should not have state-detail articles. That's I-84 (east), I-74 (with or without NC, didn't matter), I-24, I-59, I-78, I-91, I-93, and I-76 (east). –Fredddie™ 08:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I calculated values for I-26 based on the mileages in the table above, since the extension to Tennessee is not included in the FHWA data source. The average sub article mileage is 2.31 and the "green total" is 2.2. If plotted on Fredddie's graph, the red square for I-26 would be below the green line.

One thing I noticed about the graph is the ratio of the left y-axis to the right y-axis is 50. Fredddie, was that ratio one you chose or was that what the graph machine produced by default? Changing the ratio could change which routes are not deserving of sub articles and which are. For instance, if the ratio is 100, then I-44's red square falls below the green line. If the ratio is 25, only the red squares of I-78, I-93, and I-76 east are below the green line.  VC  16:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I chose 50 for the left y-axis because Excel wanted to use 60 or 100 (I can't recall); either number didn't make any sense to me. The other y-axis is logarithmic otherwise it would be much lower on graph. –Fredddie™ 19:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of a length based criteria. I prefer to say something like, "A highway article should only have sub-articles for states and local jurisdiction spans if at least 3 of those spans are notable with enough quality information to support quality articles. If a span does not have enough sourced information to support a B class article, no not create a sub-article for that span." I would use I-15 an an example, admitting that this isn't the best example as it would merit sub-articles by most any definition. However, I'm choosing it for Interstate 15 in Arizona. It's only 29 miles long when all the other I-15 spans are hundreds of miles long. However, that 29 mile span is notable enough to support an FA class article that has been featured on the front page, and is usually listed as one of the "must drive to call yourself a true roadgeek" drives in the western US. I don't want some clueless rule obsessed n00b to try to use this guideline to delete that article or justify merging it with I-15 in Nevada. I think the existing example of US-491 not having sub-articles because the UT isn't notable is a good example, and may itself drive the point home. I'd prefer the guideline focus on how to handle non-notable spans for highways that have both notable and non-notable spans, as currently we are inconstant in that front. Usually we redirect to the main article, sometimes we redirect to a neighboring state, which IMO is not usually the best answer. In this case, we have the obvious, such as Interstate 76 (Nebraska), to the IMO poorly handled, such as British Columbia Highway 395. Dave (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think having length-based criteria is important because they are likely to be the most objective methods of figuring out whether a route should have sub articles. However, I do not think length-based criteria should be the only ones we use. Dave also points out that we need to ultimately answer the question of "What makes the subject of a potential sub article notable?" Some questions to ponder:

• Does the highway pass through multiple cities, towns, villages, hamlets, etc. (in decreasing order of notability)? Or does the highway pass through no municipalities?
• Does the highway have several major junctions, especially ones with Interstates or U.S. Highways? Or does the highway intersect only minor roads, if any?
• Does the highway pass by one or more notable historic, cultural, recreational, or scenic sites? Or does the highway merely pass through unremarkable farmland, forest, or desert scrub?
• Does the highway cross any geographic barriers like a major river or a high mountain pass? Or does the highway have a flat course, cross only minor streams, or pass around unremarkable hills?
• Is the highway have the same cross-section along its whole course, whether it be a two-lane road or a six-lane freeway? Or is there variation in the highway's cross-section, with it having two-lane sections, divided highway sections, and freeway sections?
• Is the highway unique or have only minor overlap in terms of article space? Or is the highway fully or mostly redundant with an existing article?

Dave was on the right track with the suggestion that an article must have the potential to be B-class, but I think we have to be stricter than that with sub articles. After all, we have a decent number of B-class articles and even Good Articles on unremarkable, very short state or county highways; however, summary style would not apply to those articles. I think article size, using the Page Size gadget, should be one of the criteria. Perhaps if an article has a size of less than 5K in prose, the sub article should not exist unless the other criteria overwhelm that rationale. If the proposed article is that small, it can inhabit the main article until more information is added to achieve a critical mass.  VC  22:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I think using length for whether a road should have a state detail page is a bad idea due to the fact there are some short routes that have a lot to say about them. Dough4872 21:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Dough4872, what criteria would you use to determine whether a short section of a route deserves a sub article for a particular state?  VC  21:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

There is really no set criteria, it depends on how much information in terms of describing the route and the history one can dig up for a section of route in a given state. Dough4872 01:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'd use a two-prong test for whether or not a highway gets sub articles. The first is length-based as discussed above. The second is content-based. Understanding that the amount of detail covered in a combined RD can be scaled up or down by either adding in more minutiae or glossing over details, I would look at the other two of the Big Three for a content test. RDs can be summarized or expanded without sacrificing the quality and consistency of the content.

The amount of historical data can't be scaled losslessly. We can only gloss over so many minor changes before we'd be at risk of erasing actual data. I mean, we already don't include regular maintenance items like repaving or sign replacement. But once we're to a point that to keep overall article size in check per WP:SIZE that we'd risk removing specifics about reroutings, extensions, or capacity expansions, we need to investigate splitting the article up. The parent can then gloss over the details because those details are in the subarticles.

Ditto the RJL size. State-detail articles were partially developed to keep junction/exit list size in check without splitting the table to its own article, where the context is lost. Let's say that a table just lists intersections with other state highways, interchanges, state-line crossings and major bridges/tunnels, you can't cut anything else out of the table really. Things like non-GSJ entries with county roads are really optional, but the others really should be listed. If the table size combined with the appropriate history makes an article unwieldy in size, it should be split up. This even means that some articles might be best split into sub-state-detail articles for content reasons. Imzadi 1979 → 00:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Imzadi1979 makes a very good point about size of Route descriptions. Not only is there wide variance in the details that can be placed in an RD, but also different editors have different writing styles, some very concise and some verbose. So my first thought was to examine junction lists to try to figure out criteria. The junction list thought process addresses some of the questions I raised above, either directly or indirectly. I will start direct. A highway segment is more likely to be deemed notable if it has a sufficient number of junctions. This number can also include major political boundaries (state lines) and major geographic barriers, such as rivers and mountain passes, which are crossed by notable bridges, tunnels, or interesting ascents/descents. The indirect factors are municipalities, which typically feature a junction or cluster of junctions; sites like national parks that, if they lack junctions, are arguably deserving of having their access road mentioned in the junction list; cross-section, which is usually already addressed by a freeway having many interchanges with non-notable highways; and article overlap, which we could use to justify not including a range of junctions for whatever criteria we come up with.

This is not a formal proposal, but I want to throw this out there based on some informal measurements I did of the Interstates Fredddie mentioned above as not deserving sub articles due to length ratio. I found the number of total junctions (but not included state lines or termini) of those borderline-case highways hovered around 100, with about a range of 25 each way. So perhaps 100 non-termini junctions can be one of our criteria for determining whether a three- or four-state highway should have sub articles. Being even less scientific, I came up with 10 as a number of non-termini junctions in a state that might make that state's segment notable. The numbers can be changed to whatever we agree on, but the concept is the same. Even better, the junction criteria can be used not only to determine whether a three- or four-state highway should have sub articles, but also whether a highway running through three or more states should have sub articles for particular states, which partially addresses Dave's comments.

Imzadi1979 also mentioned History is not very scalable, and that articles of a certain size might need to be split out. We could use article size criteria for History as one of our factors. More importantly, we can use the size of a (potential) sub article's History section as justification for splitting out the sub article, which addresses situations like U.S. Route 16 in Michigan. I am thinking of a History prose size requirement of 5 KB prose using the Page Size gadget.  VC  18:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposal A

I am throwing out a proposal to jump-start this conversation.

• A state section of an Interstate or U.S. Highway is considered a notable section if one of the following attributes applies:
  • The state section of the highway has a length of at least 50 miles.
  • There are at minimum 10 non-terminal major junctions within that state. Major geographic barriers like major rivers or mountain passes that require extraordinary construction to cross may count as junctions.
    • Major junctions are defined as all interchanges and all intersections with Interstates, U.S. Highways, and primary state highways.
  • There is at least 5 KB prose within a reliably sourced History section.
• An Interstate or U.S. Highway may have state-detail sub-articles if all of the following are true:
  • The highway passes through at least three states.
  • There are at least two notable state sections.
  • The highway contains at minimum a total of 100 non-terminal junctions, not including state-line crossings.

Feel free to offer other proposals or comment on all of or parts of this one.  VC  05:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Can we invent a term to replace "notable" in this context? I fear someone attempting to circumvent this by attempting to use the broader WP:N definition of "notable" instead of this definition. ("But I have all these reliable sources saying I-95 in DC exists! That makes it notable, see?") —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Would "significant" work for "notable"? –Fredddie™ 05:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Of the two proposals offered, I like this one better as it is closest to what we have now. Dough4872 22:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposal B

• Generally speaking, an Interstate or U.S. Highway may have state-detail sub-articles if one of the following sub-points are true:
  • The route passes though five or more states (automatic)
  • The length of the average state-detail article (total length ÷ number of states) must be at least 150 miles.

• WP:IAR may be invoked at any time by anybody. However, any articles split out must be at least B-class-or-above within 12 months or they may be merged back into the main article.

This proposal relies heavily on the length test as a general rule. I decided to insert a fix-it-or-lose-it clause for those people who want to work on a state-detail article that would not normally be allowed. It gives them a deadline to improve the article to at least B-Class or risk it being merged back to the main article. –Fredddie™ 06:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• I am comfortable neither with length-heavy criteria nor with universal allowance of WP:IAR. I think our guidelines need to be tighter than that and account for some exceptions to length issues.  VC  22:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • As I understand what you're saying, you would codify the rules and the exceptions to the rules. Please correct me if I'm wrong. It sounds like micromanaging, which I do not like. I would rather have flexible rules that can account for anything odd. –Fredddie™ 23:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Micromanaging is creating a table with every IH and USH and saying whether the route gets state-detail articles or not. Unless you consider trying to fit a curve to data to be micromanaging.  VC  03:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Touché. For what it's worth, as long as there have been people using data to reinforce their position, there has been data manipulation to make sure their point wins. –Fredddie™ 05:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• What about Interstate 8, for example? That would be allowed to have S-D articles... but the general consensus is that it shouldn't have them. --Rschen7754 07:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • We agreed in the two-state discussion that no two-state route should have state-detail articles. We will work that stipulation into the final proposal.  VC  22:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Another concern that I have is that we can get just about any article to GA, even if it's not notable enough for its own article. For example, Interstate 8 in Arizona did make it to GA; there's worse examples, I'm sure. --Rschen7754 23:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to offer a grace period of 6 months here for articles that do need to be worked on a bit to have the 5K of history stuff and such. Mitch32^{(Never support those who think in the box)} 23:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying it should be cut back from 12 months to 6 months? –Fredddie™ 23:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

6 months for the already existing ones. Mitch32^{(Never support those who think in the box)} 02:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

3-state route that may be able to be covered in one article

An example of a 3-state route that might be able to be covered in one article efficiently is U.S. Route 224. The majority of the route's 289 mile length (238 miles) is located in one state (Ohio). The route also has a 38 mile segment in Indiana and a 10 mile segment in Pennsylvania. Indiana currently has a state-detail page at U.S. Route 224 in Indiana while the Pennsylvania information is covered in the main US 224 article, with the Ohio details not yet covered. The Indiana state detail page is relatively short and can easily be covered in the main US 224 article. If that article is merged, the Ohio information just needs to be added to make a complete article. Dough4872 02:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

NARA on-wiki ExtravaSCANza participation

Hey everyone. Please take a look at User:The ed17/NARA to brainstorm ideas and a structure on how we can help the National Archives ExtravaSCANza. My hope is that the success of this event will ensure that others will be organized in the future, even without Dominic as a Wikipedian-in-Residence, so we all benefit from the high-quality, formerly non-digitized media uploaded to the Commons. Thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

2012 goal ideas

We're starting to come to the end of both 2011 and the 2011 stub reduction drive. I don't mean to divert any attention away from those efforts, but I would like to take a moment to start a discussion on what we'd like to do, as a project, for 2012. Please post your ideas below as third-level headings (=== ... ===) so that they can be discussed, thanks. Imzadi 1979 → 21:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Interstate and US Highway cleanup drive

Destub and generally improve all Interstate and US Highway articles, including the parent/national-level articles. The goal would be to get any last stubs improved to at least Start-, if not C-Class by the end of the year. Imzadi 1979 → 21:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Support. However, I think we should focus more on the national articles than the state-detail articles at first. –Fredddie™ 22:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Support. Hopefully by the end of the year, we will have cleared up what should and should not have state-detail articles, so we can jump in with good direction.  VC  03:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Support this is downright embarrassing: WP:USRD/PP. --Rschen7754 20:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Amen! I'm not a fan of contests and have avoided this discussion intentionally. However, whatever contest that is designed needs to encourage us to work on pages that people actually read and quit focusing on the "low hanging fruit" of a 2 mile long county route that, frankly, nobody but roadgeeks even knows exist. Dave (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

So should we only focus on the articles on the PP page? –Fredddie™ 22:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

IMO, popular articles should be given extra weight. Certainly the transcontinental highway articles should be given weight too, regardless of if they appear in the list of popular pages. I-80 may not be a popular article, but it sure is one of our most important articles. I think Rschen's point, which I wholeheartedly agree with, is that our most popular article is C class, while on this list you have to reach to number 53 to find the first FA class article. BTW, Kudos to User:Ljthefro for getting a GA into the top 10 =-). Dave (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You know this reminds me of the dustup at WT:FAC lately. TCO (talk · contribs) created a flawed report on our FAs in general and bashed people for working on obscure topics instead of the "vital" articles, or even stuff with high page view counts. While it's nice to get high page view stuff up in quality, they aren't always the more important articles. I'd argue that the most important articles we have are Interstate Highway System and United States Numbered Highway System (the latter is a GA) along with various articles on the state systems like Michigan State Trunkline Highway System (also a GA). For Michigan, M-102 (Michigan highway) used to have 5-digit page views most months, but that's because of 8 Mile Road and Eminem's movie. After the systems, we get specific highways, but don't rely on any one month of USRD/PP for guidance. The November numbers should show M-6 at 42K views, around third place in the USRD numbers because it was a TFA. Imzadi 1979 → 23:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Support, although admittedly I probably won't be much help in this as my national knowledge and interest is somewhat limited. [BTW: Thanks for the kudos, Dave.] -- LJ ↗ 06:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you can look through the various s-d articles for a highway and summarize the content back into the parent, that would still improve the parent article without needing intimate knowledge of the states. Imzadi 1979 → 23:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Support - I can take care more of state-detail pages and maybe organizing bannered route lists. Dough4872 20:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Junction list template conversion drive

We've been developing the {{jctint}} series of templates to such a degree during 2011, that we could focus efforts in a secondary drive to convert articles to using them. The benefit is that our formatting would be consistent and in full compliance with MOS:RJL. Any such drive would need to be done in two phases though, although both can be done at the same time initially. A second benefit is that once Phase I is done, all templated articles* would have both measurement systems for the benefit of our foreign readers, and encourage foreign editors to include mileages for our benefit. *California, because of its postmile system, won't be set up with dual columns, but it would otherwise be consistent with the remainder of the project in terms of formatting.

• Phase I would be to update how the mileages are entered in the articles already using templates in anticipation of the update to using miles and kilometers. Any non-numeric characters need to be removed before the templates are switched to generate the dual columns.
• Phase II would be to convert articles not using templates to use them where possible. (There may be a few articles with special needs that haven't been anticipated yet.)

As a goal, I would set the bar at 50% deployment to articles with jct/exit lists overall, with the FA/A/GA articles being 100% converted. Depending on progress, 100% deployment may be possible during the course of the year. Imzadi 1979 → 21:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Support. –Fredddie™ 22:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, It's an important project for us to do, and should be important, but I feel like it would be easier to handle as an unofficial 2012 drive. Just me however. Mitch32^{(Never support those who think in the box)} 23:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It does say "secondary drive" in the first sentence. –Fredddie™ 23:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Support with reservation: The only "official" part of this drive I support is converting all FAs, A-Class, and GAs to templates. For a secondary drive, checking and converting up to 500 junction lists is a good goal.  VC  03:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I should clarify that I support both Phase I and Phase II for GA and higher articles, not just Phase II. However, before we do this, we should address how this conflicts with MOS:RJL, as Rschen7754 pointed out.  VC  21:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Support with reservation: how do we determine when we've reached 50% of all exit lists? Also, this would conflict with MOS:RJL as currently written. --Rschen7754 20:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it conflicts with MOS:RJL though. That page says that "the default practice is to use one column with one measurement system, but some situations may require both columns." Later on it says that the" conversion key is required on all tables unless both miles and kilometers are listed on the table," allowing again for the usage of both columns. At worst, before the templates are updated, the first item needs a minor change, but that only impacts updating the templates to generate dual columns, but the Phase I still needs to be done to fix the inconsistent dash usage or the incorrect hyphens in distances regardless if the second column is activated. Imzadi 1979 → 21:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that to avoid any confusion, that we should address this. We don't have to "force" the rest of the world to use two columns at this time, but we need to change it so that using 2 columns isn't discouraged. --Rschen7754 08:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Support. I see merit in this and have started in Nevada. I still have reservations about Phase I, but that's probably for another forum... -- LJ ↗ 06:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Just another footnote, this definitely should be a secondary drive. Junction lists don't have as much romantic appeal as writing prose does. Unless you're certain editors. --Rschen7754 06:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Support - This sounds like something that needs to be done. Dough4872 20:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Weak oppose. If we are going to make something a year-long project-wide drive, I would prefer that it be something that has a more meaningful impact on our readers. That is, something that visibly improves the content, not just makes the back-end more consistent. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 15:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, if we're going to be serious about this, we should make the templates something we check for at ACR. (Note: I realize this is a bit hypocritical since CA 57 is not on templates; most of CA isn't, I'm getting there, and I hope to convert CA 57 sooner than the rest.) --Rschen7754 10:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Portal links drive

Another secondary drive we could do is to make sure that every article has a "See also" section with links to the appropriate state and roads portals. An AWB run wouldn't be as effective because there are two ways to link, using either {{portal box}} or {{portal-inline}} depending on if the article already has a proper See also section or not. Imzadi 1979 → 00:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Support. Recent discussion about portal namespace makes this something we should be thinking about. Perhaps we can also add a portal link to the talk page banner? -- LJ ↗ 06:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Support - I've already added portal links to DE and NJ, sometime soon I will do MD and PA. Dough4872 20:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Another stub drive

Title tells all. — PCB 02:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

What reduction goal? Imzadi 1979 → 02:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can throw out a number. — PCB 02:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, the last two years have been stub drives, I think we've driven it into each other's brains to not do it or to fix them. I'm going to oppose this as an official goal for 2012. –Fredddie™ 02:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I have to oppose this as well for burnout reasons. Let's focus on something else for a while. Imzadi 1979 → 03:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose because we will already have a stub drive going specifically for Interstate and U.S. Highways.  VC  03:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose a very hard sell to those who aren't promoting the initiative. --Rschen7754 20:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. I think the project members would benefit from a new initiative before coming back to a big stub push. -- LJ ↗ 06:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - We've dropped stubs enough over the past two years. Dough4872 20:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Assessment audit

We may well need to do this anyway, so perhaps instead of this being a primary goal it could be something done in conjunction with another goal to be selected. The oldest audits will be coming up on 2 years ago starting this spring. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: this is incompatible with another project-wide stub drive, as the number of stubs may change (as happened when we tried to do this in 2010...) --Rschen7754 20:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I know we talked about putting together what amounted to be a B-class calculator (if you remember, it would have been a 6-point scale across the big three where you would need all 6 points to get a B), but it kind of fizzled out. I don't know if it was mentioned before, but if any of the big three were rated a zero, it could be placed into an attention category. This also answers how we'd know how many articles were RJL-compliant and so forth. I think if we decide to do the junction list conversion, we should do this first. However, I will not stonewall if consensus is against doing the B-class calculator. –Fredddie™ 21:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

An assessment audit, as well as the 'B-Class Calculator' (if there is still interest) might work well as part of a "article standardization" drive. This could be an effort to spread uniformity in appearance and standards to the project articles, and would be something any editor could easily participate in regardless of primary editing focus. Such an effort could include the sub-projects of junction list conversions and portal link additions. -- LJ ↗ 07:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd honestly only support the B-Class calculator until after The Big 3 rule is tossed, because there seems to be clear problems in having those three headers that its automatically one-class better than it should be.Mitch32^{(Never support those who think in the box)} 15:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Ideally using that point system (and if I remember correctly, this was brought up), you could adjust C class to be a certain threshold of points, so that articles with a very detailed and sourced history and route description could still be a C without a junction list. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Support - It's always a good idea to take a look at our articles periodically. Dough4872 20:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

GA drive

Try to get a certain amount of Good Articles throughout the year. Dough4872 21:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support since we have several pages of importance and we should try to increase readability and clarity. 2012 it is. Tinton5 (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• Neutral Oppose. I like the idea of improving articles to do get Good Articles, but I don't like the idea of a GA drive. However, if, say, five of us pledge to get one GA per month in 2012, that would be 60 GAs; I would support that more. –Fredddie™ 23:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• Neutral as well. I agree with this being more of a personal pledge/goal than a project goal. Imzadi 1979 → 23:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. We've got more pressing issues to deal with. We already have a lot of GAs. 2012 GAs is ridiculous; that is more than three times the number we have right now. --Rschen7754 23:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think anyone was suggesting we get 2012 GAs in 2012. I read Tinton5's comment as 2012 would be the year to do it, it being a drive to send some important articles to GA. Seriously, I think the Good Article project, and reviewers in general, would be very unhappy if we even came close to nominating 2012 articles in a year. Imzadi 1979 → 00:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
    • If we were to do a GA drive, I would aim for a lower amount like 100 or the idea that certain editors pledge to get a certain amount of GAs in a month. Dough4872 01:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
      • That's still at least 2 articles at GAN every week for an entire year. This should not be our project's official goal. –Fredddie™ 02:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Maybe we should go with the idea that editors go for one GA a month. Dough4872 02:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
        • I'm sure we're well above the Wikipedia average in terms of the percentage of our articles that are GAs. --Rschen7754 02:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
          • We have about 11.9 times the overall average for GAs and above. I don't think we have to worry even in an unofficial capacity about our GA stats. Why don't we focus on getting things up to standards, like the junction lists, and leave the GAs for later. Imzadi 1979 → 03:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I am fine if people want to pledge to get x number of GAs this year, but I oppose a formal project goal of it. For one, GAN is a process that is not fully under our control. If it was, which means each of us reviews each other's articles in a consistent pattern, it might give the appearance of collusion. Anyone pointing the finger is unlikely to care how legit the reviews are. That kind of reputation is not one I wish on our project; we have enough battles to fight.  VC  03:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Anti-stub drive

We've shot down the idea of another stub drive, but I don't want to see a lot of regression. Maybe setting a goal of not gaining any stubs from where we end on December 31? --Rschen7754 22:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Support—this would be a good idea. Article creators would be on notice: create a stub and you should destub something else. Imzadi 1979 → 22:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Support - We can set an initiative to encourage people writing new articles to write them of at least start-quality or have editors on the lookout to combat new stubs. Dough4872 01:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Support. To continue our tradition of humorous graphics, I have an idea for this. I just need to find the right picture of the 41st President. –Fredddie™ 04:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

You clinch it, you improve it

This should be taken as a personal goal for 2012 instead of a project-wide goal, but a number of us use the Clinched Highway Mapping website. Why not make an effort to improve any article for a route you have "clinched"? –Fredddie™ 23:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm just going to start turning off the route a quarter mile before the terminus then. :P —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

By how much do you mean "improved"? Start-class? GA? FA? Dough4872 03:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It's open ended. You do what you feel is right. Even if that last quarter mile of the route description is terrible. –Fredddie™ 03:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Sounds like a good personal goal. I like writing about roads I've traveled on anyway. Dough4872 03:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

WikiWork threshold for all projects

We could have a goal of having all states improve to a minimum threshold of some arbitrary Ω, perhaps something like 4.500, which is not too much better than the current USRD average. This would have the advantage of getting editors out of the states that are in the sub-4.000 range where we don't really need so much coverage and get them working on the awful states like Missouri, Maine, West Virginia, etc. This would have the disadvantage of forcing someone to have to learn a new state's sources and highway system. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support - This sounds like a good idea. However, I seem a little unwilling to leave my comfort zone. Dough4872 03:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

B drive

Somewhat the opposite of a stub drive...perhaps an goal to get a certain number or percentage of USRD articles to B-Class over the course of the year. This would allow people to build on the foundation of the two stub drives and use the freshly minted base of destubbed articles as a platform to expand them to B-Class. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose without prejudice. "A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H are our goals! Let's tell everyone to do A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H!" is very hard to promote. It's a really good idea though. --Rschen7754 07:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I like the idea of destarting articles as many of the articles in the areas I work on have already been destubbed. Dough4872 22:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

So...

So we've had several options put out there; some have support and some don't. What are we going with? --Rschen7754 07:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

We are going with:

• Interstate and US Highway cleanup drive
• Junction list template conversion drive for GA and above articles
• Anti-stub drive (more like anti-stub vigilance)

Those are my preferences and those appear to have no major opposition.  VC  13:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

And I think that in the course of the year, we'll be implementing the B-Class calculator, which will naturally prompt an assessment audit for anything under GA-Class to fully put in place. Imzadi 1979 → 21:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think we can go with what VC suggested. Personally, however, I may go for getting some GAs or going along with the "You clinch it, you improve it" goal. Dough4872 03:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I also agree with these goals getting the primary emphasis. -- LJ ↗ 03:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree this should be the party line. I also suggest creating a list of the "personal goals". Frame them in such a way that someone stumbling upon the project for the first time would see it and get an idea on where to jump in. –Fredddie™ 06:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

On IRC, there was some discussion of a having a "project planning department". Some ideas thrown out were a place to announce goals and mini drives (such as a 3-month-long 500 stub drive) and future ACR/FAC intentions. I brought up the name Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Bulletin board. Some of the unused ideas from this page could go there. –Fredddie™ 00:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Not really a fan of the "bulletin board" name since it might cause confusion with people thinking it's supposed to be some kind of noticeboard of the type strewn about Wikipedia. I prefer just calling it Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Project planning. It could serve as a place to track our larger goals and if anyone wants to dust off one of these goals for a scaled down mini-drive or find potential ACR/FAC/FT collaborators this would be the place. Basically any ongoing collaboration on a particular aim would be organized through here. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• WP:USRD/PLAN is now live. –Fredddie™ 01:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Part III tracking

I'm suggesting adding some sort of tracking category to the project tag so that we can tell what's been converted and what has not been. Any thoughts? --Rschen7754 04:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

|jctint=yes? Make yes, no, and NA the options. –Fredddie™ 04:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

We would need the default to be "no" though. --Rschen7754 05:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

That depends. Do we want to track what has been converted or what has not been converted? I think it would be easier to count down; which would indeed require the default to be "no". –Fredddie™ 05:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Status of Auto Trails projects

It seems that not much has been done in regards to auto trail article on Wikipedia in the last several years. The WikiProject on auto trails page hasn't really had any discussion since the project's creation. I'd like to help with this, but would need others to work with me on the project. In particular, since most of the auto trail associations were active before 1927, it's kind of difficult to find secondary source material to use on Wikipedia. I have tons of Rand McNally auto trail maps, auto club strip maps, guides and maps for particular trails, etc., but I really consider these to be primary sources, and simply using them to compile information on the highways would likely be considered original research. I've been compiling a more exhaustive list of auto trails with signs or pole markers, and my web site has resources that may be helpful. Here are some pages that may be of interest to this project group:

• auto trail links
• modern auto trail associations
• periodical and newspaper articles on auto trails
• pages on some particular auto trails
• books, city maps, databases on California and Washington automobile club strip maps, etc.
• discussion forum

— ★Parsa ☞ talk 06:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Parsa, no offense, but I just looked at your discussion forum, and you lost major credibility in my book by calling them "federal routes". Your comments on using maps to research old highways aren't correct; such sources aren't primary sources per se, and using them isn't original research. Look at U.S. Route 2 in Michigan's history section, you'll see that it relies on maps for most of its sourcing, and it was just promoted to Featured Article status less than a week ago. We can't use your site as a source for Wikipedia articles, however we can use the maps and articles you've collected as sources and a starting point to expand articles. Imzadi 1979 → 07:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Not trying to gain credibility from anyone. The "federal" term was used in a minor sub-header description on the forum. I know the "U.S. numbered highways" are state highways, but there are national standards, mostly from AASHTO. The funding, however, is largely federal, being distributed to and used by the various state departments of transportation. I just wanted to imply that I was not referring to modern interstate freeways. It's semantics. Sorry I didn't realize that I needed a set of academic letters after my name to qualify as an editor for a US roads project. I was just trying to be helpful, and get the ball rolling in regards to auto trails. — ★Parsa ☞ talk 19:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

No, you don't need "a set of academic letters", but these little details impact credibility. Now, you still have the issue that you're mistaken on how old maps can be used as a source of material to research the history of a highway. I'm all for people working on these road articles. One that a few of us really want to get cleaned up and expanded is the Theodore Roosevelt International Highway. I'm primarily a Michigan-based editor, so that one, plus the Dixie Highway is pretty much it for my interest. Imzadi 1979 → 20:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
AASHTO isn't part of the federal government, and nowadays, the US Numbered Highways are no more or less funded than any other state highway on the federal level. We did use "... that no matter how much you wish they did, United States Federal Routes don't exist?" as a DYK hook on P:USRD for April Fool's Day 2008. As for trying to keep the differentiation, remember that capitalization works too. "Interstates" are part of the Interstate Highway System, "interstates" cross state lines, and a "US highway" is any highway in the country while "US Highways" are part of the specific system.

There's also nothing on the U.S. Roads Portal on U.S. auto trails. — ★Parsa ☞ talk 21:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

There is also no one suggesting DYKs or photos on auto trails there. Selected articles need to be GAs now, so a first step to getting an auto trail article to SA would be to get an article up to GA status first. Imzadi 1979 → 21:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec) At least from my perspective, auto trail articles are important. However, the expertise and level of interest needed to work on these articles is something that most U.S. road editors don't have, which is why the task force went dormant. Thus, we need some editors that care about these articles! --Rschen7754 21:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

This is rather harsh and tactless treatment against someone who wants to contribute to a subset of the WikiProject that has received little attention in recent years. It is one thing to explain to someone that use of the term "federal" for highways not maintained by the federal government is incorrect or that we consider maps to be secondary sources; it is quite another to attack their credibility for it. All of us were once new here at Wikipedia and made mistakes or offended sensibilities of veteran editors. We were helped by veteran editors who assumed good faith and pointed us in the right direction so we could gain credibility as a good contributor, not have our credibility ripped or be dismissed as a pest.  VC  21:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I regret if I came across wrong, but there is a certain expectation that if you come here promoting a personal website to have a level of credibility about it as well. When we don't have a past editor relationship to build a reputation, I have to go off what's being touted as "credentials" in the original posting, for better or for worse. Imzadi 1979 → 21:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't posting the links as credentials, but rather offering help with auto trail articles. I offered the links as possible resources on auto trails that current editors may not have been aware of. BTW, I've been writing and editing WP articles for five years now. — ★Parsa ☞ talk 22:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well some of us read it that way because of your stewardship of the website. Let me rephrase and restate for clarity then. Your collection of links and resources will be useful to some interested parties, but some of the content can't be used as a source. The old articles, maps, etc that you're republishing can be used as sources, but the other stuff can't per WP:SPS. Citing to maps for historical changes is a well-accepted practice, so don't worry about WP:OR claims if you do it. One friendly suggestion though, don't be the one to add links to your website's summary pages into Wikipedia articles. Let someone else do it so that no one accuses you of a conflict of interest. I'm not saying that a link to Bankhead Highways at AmericanRoads.us can't be added to Bankhead Highway, just that someone might holler if you did and couldn't if I did it. If you know this stuff already, I'm sorry for stating the obvious, but we've had issues with others who have their own roads-related websites in the past. Imzadi 1979 → 23:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Neat, welcome to USRD! I think I came across your site when I was getting US 30 ready for FAC a year ago. It didn't really help me at the time, but it's nice to know you're a contributor here as well. If I may, you should consider joining the US 66 task force. It's pretty stagnant right now, but that's because we really don't know where to start. –Fredddie™ 23:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Fredddie, I'll do that. By the way, is there some place where the task forces are listed, because in the portal and in the project's main page the only descendant pages seem to be State subprojects? I only found the auto trails task force through the link in the project template. The task forces might get more membership if there was some system of navigation to them from someplace. I looked at most of the links in the project template. — ★Parsa ☞ talk 01:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

My mind is a bit shot at the moment, but everything USRD related should be linked via the navbox on most USRD pages. –Fredddie™ 01:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Nope, couldn't even find it on the generic subprojects page. I did find the 66 task force via the template on the talk page for Route 66, the same way I got to the auto trails task force. — ★Parsa ☞ talk 01:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I added it to the subproject page. –Fredddie™ 01:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

While I agree that this project hasn't dedicated as much time to the Auto trails as we should (they are not low hanging fruit, as the historical research is much more difficult than modern highways, but yet they are the humble origins of most highways today) the project isn't completely dead. Here are a few accomplishments we as a project have done to improve coverage of Auto Trails:

• Saginaw Trail - GA
• U.S. Route 30 in Iowa - FA (a section of the Lincoln Highway)
• U.S. Route 50 in Nevada - FA (Lincoln Highway)
• U.S. Route 40 Alternate (Keysers Ridge – Cumberland, Maryland) - FA (National Road and Victory Highway)
• Interstate 80 Business (West Wendover, Nevada – Wendover, Utah) -FA (Victory Highway)
• Interstate 80 in Nevada - GA (Victory Highway)
• Interstate 70 in Colorado -FA (Victory Highway, Midland Trail) (partial)
• California State Route 14 - GA (Midland Trail)
• Utah State Route 128 - FA (Midland Trail)
• Interstate 15 in Arizona - FA Arrowhead Trail (auto trail) (partial)

I'm sure their are others. However, what is clear is we have not given ourselves credit. There is only one article categorized at Category:FA-Class U.S. auto trail articles even though I've found 4 or 5 in my research above. Dave (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, Fredddie and I have got those marked, but surely there is a lot more out there. Dave (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Old PNG graphs

Resolved

 – Baleeted. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• File:USRDstatgraph.png
• File:USRDstatgraph area.png
• File:USRDstatgraphhigh.png
• File:USRoadQual.PNG

Any objections before I delete these as CSD/housekeeping? They're all the PNG versions of our quality graphs before we perfected the SVG versions. Speak within 24h or forever hold your peace... —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Fine with me. --Rschen7754 18:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of that, I really need to teach other people how to do those graphs :P –Fredddie™ 23:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks non-controversial enough that I've deleted them. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I am in the process of writing a tutorial for how to update the SVG graphs. I created a calculator which does all the number crunching for us. It's essentially a live version of the spreadsheet I had been using. –Fredddie™ 19:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SOPA initiative

In the event that the English Wikipedia is locked from editing on Wednesday, project discussions (such as the Washington and Massachusetts project demotions, for example, that would ordinarily last 7 days) will be extended by the time the site is locked.

This is also a good time to pitch the #wikipedia-en-roads channel, in the event that editors are locked out on Wednesday and need something to do. See WP:HWY/IRC for details. --Rschen7754 09:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed demotion of MA and WA projects

Resolved

 – Consensus was for both projects to be demoted to task forces.  VC  01:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

We're proposing the demotion of the Massachusetts and Washington projects to task forces due to inactivity. You can comment at WT:USRD/SUB. --Rschen7754 04:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: this discussion is still taking place, in the event the proposals below fail. --Rschen7754 21:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed restructuring of USRD

Back in 2005 when I started USRD, the primary forces and places of collaboration were the state highway WikiProjects. However, that is no longer the case in 2012: USRD is the primary force and place of collaboration, due to factors such as IRC, ACR, common standards, MTF, newsletters, shields, and forms of dispute resolution that have necessitated U.S. road editors to come together to resolve issues.

However, many of the state highway WikiProjects and task forces remain from this era. Many of them are poorly maintained and confusing to the average editor. This seems like an extra layer that is not necessary.

Therefore, I propose the following:

• Demotion of all the remaining state highway WikiProjects to task forces. (The two demotions proposed above are still in effect just in case this proposal fails).
• Combination of all the participants lists into one list, combined with a roll call. (It has been suggested to use templates to allow for sorting by state).
• Removing all standards from all task forces that are duplicated by USRD. State-specific standards can remain.
• Cleaning up all task force pages and removing extra items.
• We should consider throwing out extra pages such as state-specific barnstars and userboxes, or merging them somewhere.
• Creating task forces for the remainder of the 50 states and using those pages as a "dump space" for state-specific resources and issues.
• Redirecting all talk pages of task forces to WT:USRD to ensure that all questions and issues are answered in a timely manner. We would need to do something with the archives, of course.
• Marking WP:USRD/SUB as historical since it would no longer be needed.
• Note: topical task forces such as shields and MTF, and auto trails and US 66 would not be changed.

The articles would not be affected; this primarily simplifies our structure so that collaboration can take place more effectively. Please comment below and indicate your thoughts as to this proposal. --Rschen7754 04:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea we can go with. However, we do have WP:USRD/RES which lists state resources. Dough4872 05:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

This probably won't come as a surprise to anyone, but I have to oppose point 1 as it's currently presented. The NY project has its own, comprehensive collection of resources, departments, and editing tools that few, if any, other state projects have. We were the first state project to launch a portal so as not to overwhelm the national portal with our high quality articles. Although our standards are similar to the national standards, we have several variations that make our standards unique from the national standards (most of which was originally lifted from NY in the first place). And, finally, NY has no need for the national map and shield task forces: our members are capable of making our own. Since the remainder of the points run on the premise that point 1 is accepted, it doesn't make sense to comment on them at this time. For the editors of WP:NYSR, TMF 05:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Besides you and Mitchazenia, how many NY editors remain active though? --Rschen7754 05:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

There's at least three more who are active (User:Ngs61, User:DanTD, User:Daniel Case) and two more who are semi-active (User:Triskele Jim, User:Juliancolton). Collectively, Mitchazenia, myself, and those five editors have made New York one of the most productive states in the nation, whether you go by raw article production or by the average article quality. That, plus the reasons I outlined above, is enough justification in my book to leave the NY project as it currently is. – TMF 05:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand there has been a "checkered past" between WP:USRD and WP:NYSR, but for all the reasons TMF lists to keep NYSR separate, all I can muster is a sarcastic "Oh, that's nice." The thing that I see with New York's resources is that there is not one thing on the page TMF listed that would decrease in utility if it were under a WP:USRD prefix instead of WP:NYSR. Not one! That being said, I absolutely support the first point (and the other points, but with far less fervor); probably more strongly than is healthy. It's the reason I was willing to speedily demote WP:IASH 2 years ago. –Fredddie™ 06:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's my take. Consolidation can be a good thing, since our readership, and the editors outside of our project, lump all of us together anyway. We are USRD now, those "roads editors", not just "those New York roads editors" or that "Michigan highway guy". The stub drive has promoted the idea that editors need to edit in all sorts of states, and not just one or two each. We should be promoting consistency and quality across our collective pool of articles. Except for Alaska, Hawaii and the territories, our road systems are all interconnected. We're all USRD members here, not just members of state projects or task forces. Trying to fence one state off from the rest isn't going to work anymore. That said, each state should have a listing of resources and items specific to that state, but they don't need to duplicate core national standards for articles. The page TMF linked, is roughly what I'd have each state have as their main page, with the state specific supplements to WP:USRD/STDS added in. So yes, I support the core concept. Imzadi 1979 → 06:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I think a good analogy of this is the MUTCD; some states follow it to the letter, some issue supplements. I actually think it's a great idea to have state supplements to the base standards page. –Fredddie™ 08:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking exactly of the MUTCD and the various state supplements. Right now, WP:MISH states that the project follows WP:USRD/STDS except that since we don't have any toll roads, that section is inapplicable. Then it specifies that the state is using the MOS:RJL color codings, and the page has a table that gives the exact names of the categories that are in use for the state. If we had more special cases, we could include more, but that's all that's needed. Imzadi 1979 → 10:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

And when these projects are essentially wiped off the map (or converted into "dump spaces" as Rschen so eloquently calls them in his original post), where does USRD's interference end? "Oh, this state does something slightly different than the other 49 states - we must make them conform to the others at all cost!" I can see the gamesmanship starting from here at ACR: "this might be how special routes are supposed to be handled in that state, but I think the way specified by the national standards is better. I can't support this until it's changed." The whole interconnected thing is bullshit; I (and I know Mitchazenia as well) don't give two damns what USRD does on any day. I've operated NY independently of USRD for years, standards included. The only reason there is any similarity between the New York standard and the national standards is that USRD adopted New York's when the former was just emerging from its shell. If USRD ceased to exist tomorrow, NY's articles would not be any worse off. Our members are fully capable of doing things on our own without having our hands held by "national" editors.

I can see the replies now, "oh, now, no one's calling for the standards to be standarized. They'll still be kept on a pretty page with a couple of bullets and some links!" But what happens when the mother ship decides that state standards need to go? When several out-of-state editors think something that you think is superior to the national standards is absolute shit, then run roughshod over the state wiping it out? With the mindset that's been running rampant around here over the last two years, it's not a question of if that will happen, it's a question of when. – TMF 07:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Fredddie's points (though not necessarily the bluntness), and have some more of my own. If this was 2008-2009 when NY was at the top of the leaderboard, then I might see leaving NY untouched. But NY has fallen from 3rd place to 5th place over the last year and isn't improving at the rate USRD is. USRD's relative WW dropped by .288 over the last year, compared to NY dropping by .095 (and much of that was the anti-stub drive and non-NY editors deciding to get rid of easy-to-get-rid-of NY stubs; I daresay that NY would have the same number of stubs that it would have had in 2010 if USRD editors hadn't stepped in). I also look at WT:NYSR. The last posts that I see that weren't spammed to every other SH WP are from 2010. It just really doesn't seem that NY is more active than any other SH WP. I look at some of the editors you mention, and I see lots of USRD edits, or lots of NY edits, or lots of admin-related edits... but not many NYSR edits.

I'd say California's more active than NY is currently, and I'm not standing in the way of California's demotion (and CASH is even older than NYSR!) Furthermore, many of the events of the second half of 2011 have caused the U.S. road editors to operate as a closer unit regardless of state. Gone are the days when CA was on its own since nobody cared about other states' articles. Michigan is well above all the other states by far; while granted, it's because Imzadi1979 has all that time, Maryland has surpassed New York as well, and other states are catching up fast.

It does pain me to demote projects like CA and NY to task forces. I have a lot of respect for NYSR. But it's a different USRD and a different Wikipedia nowadays, and I believe it's the best solution to have a more efficient organizational structure for the years ahead, rather than the antiquated one I and others started in 2005. We already operate as a nationwide team (plus Floydian in Ontario) in reality; this just changes the project pages to reflect actual practice.

As far as state standards... here's the deal. I've jettisoned many of the state-specific standards from California because they just didn't make sense anymore. CA used to have all these fancy templates for state law, for example. But then other editors pointed out to me that they looked ugly. I realized they looked ugly. So they went. CA's always going to have the postmile thing, because it has to; also, I'm going to have to tighten down on the junction list woes. But USRD's standards are, de facto, setting the requirements for a highway article at FAC and GAN (even foreign artices!) So no matter what you do here, you may have to change certain standards if you can't point to a difference in NY's highway system that mandates those changes. --Rschen7754 07:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Before we really start the pissing contests, can we at least hash out what constitutes an active project? For instance, if you based it solely on talk page participation, you could argue that Minnesota is more active than NYSR. –Fredddie™ 08:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, the proposal would make this question moot. --Rschen7754 08:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I realize that. But, I forsee some people opposing this with the vague assertion that their project is "active" and nothing more. –Fredddie™ 08:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

So yeah, you pretty much just confirmed everything I posted above. Thanks for reminding me why I left eight months ago, and have fun running roughshod over everyone and everything. – TMF 08:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:HWY now hosts ACR, not USRD. And by that change, HWY will by nature have to deal with differing standards. --Rschen7754 09:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see this as "running roughshod". It's a proposal, it's being discussed. The problem is that a long time ago, the ship set sail on centralization and standardization. We still have a great deal of variation (NY forbids intermodal icons, and MI uses them on about 4 articles; NY doesn't use the full range of colors in RJLs, and MI always had used them except for the period when USRD pushed to have them banned.) Imzadi 1979 → 10:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I consider an active project to have at least some of the following characteristics:

• Talk page activity.
• Standards that are kept up to date with the standards developments of those WP:USRD or that link to USRD, and that comply with all Wikipedia standards and will allow an article to succeed at GAN and FAC. (What I mean by that is, when USRD standards change, the state project adopts the change, or invokes the leeway given with certain parts of the standard. Nothing is out of date.)
• At least one active editor, actively working on that state's articles.
• Reduction in relative WikiWork and absolute WikiWork, not performed by a general USRD editor acting outside his state of interest.
• Poor quality edits to that state's articles are reverted / corrected.

New York has had maybe one of these over the last year. Most truly active projects have more. --Rschen7754 08:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Point to keep in mind

User:Pigsonthewing and I disagree on several things. But I'm going to steal his quote, because it says what needs to be said the best: [1] We're building one encyclopedia here. The organizational structure should serve the encyclopedia, not the other way around. --Rschen7754 10:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it is good we are having this discussion because it is pushing someone's buttons. While most of us feel it is time to consolidate under one umbrella, perhaps we should look at this issue from the state project point of view. What does a state project have to gain by being directly governed versus maintaining a significant degree of autonomy? Some states may welcome such an opportunity because consolidation improves their lot or at the least does not make their situation worse. Conversely, some states may see consolidation as an existential threat. It does not matter how good the intentions and arguments of the superimposing group are; there is going to be push-back against an existential threat.

I do not think any of us did a bad thing or had bad intentions by proposing and supporting the idea of fully consolidating USRD. However, it would be a mistake to try to marginalize or crush the resistance to this proposal. Trying to drag people kicking and screaming only breeds resentment, which causes blowback. Instead of solely discussing at the top level whether to consolidate all subordinate units, we should be having discussions at the subordinate level about being consolidated with the top level. It seems quite clear to me from this discussion that some states would choose to consolidate while other states would choose to remain autonomous. But we need to have that discussion in every state level project instead of just stripping projects' autonomy because USRD has consensus that consolidation is the best way forward.  VC  14:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think all subprojects can easily function as task forces of USRD as most collaboration takes place at the national level. However, I'm not opposed to us voting on this on a state-by-state basis. This way, we can see if individual subprojects want to be consolidated with USRD. If a subproject is truly inactive and has no one voting on whether it should be kept, it should automatically be demoted. Dough4872 17:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

If a subproject doesn't object to being demoted, by default it should be demoted. That being said though, TwinsMetsFan claims to speak for all of NYSR. I'd like to hear from the other editors he claims are active in the project. --Rschen7754 20:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Very well said, VC, and I completely agree with the entirety of your post. I can definitely say I've developed a resentment of the USRD establishment over the last 18 hours, and it's only going to get worse as the tyranny exhibited here continues. It's a shame that your words have largely fallen on deaf ears, but I thank you for being one of the few to see the bigger picture. – TMF 01:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Something else I was thinking about, and it may require outside input; but do other projects consider us American roads editors as one USRD or a main project with a handful of subprojects? –Fredddie™ 19:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

IMO it makes sense to consolidate the projects. In the years I've been active, I've seen a fairly consistent pattern: project sit dormant, get some fresh blood, that spurs a couple of semi-retired editors back into activity, and for a few months a project is active again, then over time go dormant again. While I'll grant that New York is one of the more consistently active projects; I've seen the same basic pattern there too. However, at the national level, there's always a half dozen or so active editors. Any spats about "we don't do it that way in California (or New York, whatever) we're going to do it our way, and not go along with this oppressive USRD oligarchy", usually last a few months. After the fires die down, somebody comes up with an "oh-duh" moment of an idea that was better than both rival ideas being fought over; lo and behold everybody is friends again. It's just a microcosm of what is going on with world wide (take the exit list formatting for example). At the end of the day all of the projects under the USRD umbrella have the same recommendations on article structure, sourcing, etc. The main differences from state to state seem to be based one what information a given state's DOT makes pubic-ally available verses what information is not readily available. (milepost logs, etc.). That can and will change as departments evolve and get more information digitized. Dave (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think it's distasteful and unnecessary to have several varying standards among the states. Consistency is key here, folks. And if consolidation will help to make this a reality, then I'm all for it. If it will bring extra eyes to projects that are undergoing a period of dormancy (as UTSH lamentably is), then I'm all for it. CL (T · C) — 23:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Under the plan proposed in the section above, there won't be any other projects. Just dump spaces. – TMF 01:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

That is definitely not what I proposed above. The new task forces created for states like Arizona which have no task force would be dump spaces. They would have the opportunity to add on standards later, if they so wanted. State standards would be respected under my proposal; please also read above: "The articles would not be affected; this primarily simplifies our structure so that collaboration can take place more effectively." I don't see how state standards can be removed without the articles being affected. --Rschen7754 03:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

From Imzadi in the above section: "The [directory] page TMF linked, is roughly what I'd have each state have as their main page, with the state specific supplements to WP:USRD/STDS added in." From the proposal: "Removing all standards from all task forces that are duplicated by USRD." "Cleaning up all task force pages and removing extra items." "Combination of all the participants lists into one list." "... throwing out extra pages such as state-specific barnstars and userboxes ..." "Redirecting all talk pages of task forces to WT:USRD ..." So how would they not be dump spaces? A couple of state standard bullet points and a list of links does not make a project - it just makes, well, a dump space or a glorified resource page. – TMF 04:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

And my opinion isn't the proposal, but one idea of what could be done for the states that currently don't have pages. Imzadi 1979 → 04:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) "The [directory] page TMF linked, is roughly what I'd have each state have as their main page, with the state specific supplements to WP:USRD/STDS added in." - I don't endorse that. "Removing all standards from all task forces that are duplicated by USRD." - because we don't need 50 copies of instructions on Infobox road; also, content forking, when we change IBR we have to update all 50 pages. "Cleaning up all task force pages and removing extra items." - a few quotes from WP:LASH - "INSERT ROUTEBOX EXAMPLE HERE" and "PLEASE SET UP AS PER WP:IH/ELG". Enough said. "Combination of all the participants lists into one list." - because the transclusion system is a huge mess and confusing to new editors, and half the users on there have left. "... throwing out extra pages such as state-specific barnstars and userboxes ..." because 50% of them were never used, also, not everyone behind this proposal endorses this. "Redirecting all talk pages of task forces to WT:USRD ..." - because people otherwise post on those talk pages and nobody sees the comments for a few months. --Rschen7754 05:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I think Rschen's reasoning is good for the subprojects that want to be demoted or are demoted for lack of activity. I also think that creating a resource page for states without one is a good idea. However, before any action is taken, I think a straw poll listing all the subprojects with the options to keep or demote to be voted on only by members of the specific project should be opened. Dough4872 05:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

But that would be a waste for most states. I've crossposted to the affected project talk pages; if the project's active enough, they can opine. --Rschen7754 05:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Justify it all you want, at the end of the day you're still left with a skeleton for a "project". – TMF 05:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

But here's the thing. Is that any different from the status quo? No matter what we do here, the state highway WPs practically operate that way. --Rschen7754 05:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

And I obviously disagree. Keep telling yourself that all you want, but you've heard my opinion to this proposal, you've heard Mitchazenia's opinion to the proposal off-wiki, and as VC put it, you will have to drag NY "kicking and screaming" to make it accept this proposal. – TMF 05:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

See below. --Rschen7754 05:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Revised proposal

This is definitely a second choice option. However, I'm pretty sure we cannot force NYSR to be demoted, and I don't want to force them to accept the proposal anyway.

Therefore, I propose the following:

• Demotion of all the remaining state highway WikiProjects to task forces. (The two demotions proposed above are still in effect just in case this proposal fails). New York would not be demoted, though it of course could choose to at a later date.
• Combination of all the participants lists into one list, combined with a roll call. (It has been suggested to use templates to allow for sorting by state), excepting New York.
• Removing all standards from all task forces that are duplicated by USRD. State-specific standards can remain. (New York is welcome to participate in this cleaning, but it wouldn't be required).
• Cleaning up all task force pages and removing extra items. (New York is welcome to participate in this cleaning, but it wouldn't be required).
• We should consider throwing out extra pages such as state-specific barnstars and userboxes, or merging them somewhere. (New York would be exempted).
• Creating task forces for the remainder of the 50 states and using those pages as a "dump space" for state-specific resources and issues.
• Redirecting all talk pages of task forces to WT:USRD to ensure that all questions and issues are answered in a timely manner. We would need to do something with the archives, of course. New York would be an exception.
• Marking WP:USRD/SUB as historical since it would no longer be needed. WT:USRD can handle any further related issues.
• Note: topical task forces such as shields and MTF, and auto trails and US 66 would not be changed. However, shields and MTF and similar task forces would be renamed to departments to avoid confusion with task forces for states.

Other projects might be included if there's any objections, but would be demoted by default. --Rschen7754 05:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Added text in italics to proposal; I don't think this will be controversial. --Rschen7754 20:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Support - I think this proposal will work, since all the other states seem willing to consolidate under one USRD. This is starting to remind me of 2008 when NYSR split from USRD. Dough4872 05:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support, but we would need to make a boilerplate so the "dump space" doesn't look, you know, dumpy. –Fredddie™ 05:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose on procedural grounds. While I agree with almost all of the points listed, I disagree with the process. I want there to be a greater effort to contact the affected state projects. I do not think simply putting a notice on state project talk pages is sufficient. Every listed member of a state project who has been active since the beginning of 2011 should be messaged with an invitation to discuss a proposal to change (not demote; demote sounds negative) that particular state's project to a task force of USRD. Each discussion will occur on each state project's talk page, not the USRD talk page. This will serve to insulate the discussion from what may be perceived as pressure from the national project to confirm. If nothing but crickets show up to a particular state project's discussion on whether the project should stay a project or become a task force, then we have good evidence to support changing to a task force. We want to capture the opinions of people who may be hesitant to participate in a national project discussion.  VC  05:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Speaking from a California standpoint, the discussion would be pointless. There's only three active CA editors, and I know PCB's opinion regarding state highway WikiProjects. The other one proposed a demotion to WP:CA a few months ago. --Rschen7754 05:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • As for Michigan, you could move the project page to WP:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Michigan and they'd never notice. I think the same can be said for just about all of the rest. Imzadi 1979 → 06:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Jeff02 has started one for Maryland due to the obvious division in opinion in editors from that state. --Rschen7754 20:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support, also might suggest adding that the recognized content lists get saved from pages in the ones that have them, and possibly maybe automating them for the other 49 states? Mitch32^{(Never support those who think in the box)} 05:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. – TMF 06:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support—Imzadi 1979 → 06:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support — This is basically how USRD already operates. Makes perfect sense. Brandonrush Woo pig sooie! 06:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support - The change will increase effectiveness of the project as a whole in my opinion. InTheAM 14:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support — Really, I don't quite understand why subprojects were created in the first place. Other users consider roads in the United States to be narrow enough of a topic without narrowing it down further to a specific state. It's all one country, and the articles are all about roads, the differences between states, even if on different coasts, can't be that severe. — PCB 18:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support - per PCB. Dave (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The difference between a task force and a subproject is pretty much nil anyway. I would, however, like to see the existing non-state "task forces" (maps, planning, etc.) instead referred to as "departments" so that when we need to say something about "the task forces" it doesn't include those as well. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - There's no reason one project should decide to absorb several other projects as a group. It should be done on a case by case basis as it's been done elsewhere. For example, when WP:USA proposed making WPMD a task force, they held the discussion on WPMD's page. That said, I do like the idea of creating task forces for all the remaining states and am surprised this hasn't been done already. That way, if there's enough interest, one of them could become a full-fledged wikiproject. As a member of MDRD, I propose that should this proposal pass, Maryland be exempt along with New York.-Jeff ^(talk) 19:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Two questions - 1) What makes MD different from any of the other projects to warrant special treatment, and 2) VC is also a member of MDRD, as is Dough (sort of). Both of them support this proposal (with VC's provisions above noted, of course). How do we reconcile that? --Rschen7754 20:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm not saying that MDRD is any more special than any of the other projects in question, but I am saying it's just as special as the others. If NYSR can be exempt, there's no reason MDRD can't.-Jeff ^(talk) 20:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
      • If you can establish that the consensus of MDRD is to remain a SH WP, then MDRD can be added as an exception to the proposal. Right now I don't see that. --Rschen7754 20:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
        • In the interest of sounding less "authoritarian", how about limiting this proposal to the state road wikiprojects that are clearly dead (which is most of them, regardless of the criteria that is used to determine deadness)? Dave (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
          • Well, with the above post that you replied to, I'm just trying to be fair. While Jeff02 may have founded the project and I do respect his past contributions to MD, there are other Maryland editors who have given their opinion above, and it's not fair to just ignore them and go with Jeff02's proposal. --Rschen7754 21:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I strongly disagree with the plan to redirect all state talk pages here. It's difficult enough to find things as it is, I feel that discussions to state-specific issues should take place on their own talk pages. If input is lacking one can always post a note here later. --Sable232 (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • And if the editor pool from another state has discussed and resolved a similar situation, you'd be depriving yourself of their potential input. Very few issues are really specific to only one state, and even so, a diversity of opinion and experience is beneficial. As for the rest of the proposal, what is your opinion? Imzadi 1979 → 04:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
    • At the moment I'm neutral on the rest. --Sable232 (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
      • As far as the talk pages are concerned, everything at a state project as it is now would be archived. The links to those archives would be placed in the search box at the top of this page and they would all be tied into the search box. By using the search box, you would be able to find relevant topics across the states. Overall, I think it will make it easier to find things discussed on talk pages. –Fredddie™ 05:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I've started a discussion for Minnesota at WT:MNSH, as there seems to be some division and no clear consensus from the MN editors. --Rschen7754 08:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Why don't we just use the talk page of the task force page to discuss things relevant to individual states? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Not sure what you mean; can you clarify? --Rschen7754 06:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Instead of redirecting all subproject/task force talk pages here, let people discuss, say, Delaware related stuff at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Delaware. I doubt they'll often be utilized enough for discussions not related to that state to really make missing something on one of them a problem, and if you just have to know, you could just watchlist all of them. (Or set up a page linking to all of them and use the "Related changes" option...) If a few national editors did that it would be pretty easy for one of them to just put a notification here or move the discussion if something needing wider attention were brought up. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
        • This is basically the status quo. --Rschen7754 20:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
          • And when some of us have a state's talk page watchlist even though we aren't residents of that state, we're accused of being canvassed when we don't agree with a certain editor's opinions. If the states are redirected to the national page, then any questions can prompt discussion that could benefit editors of every state. Editors with questions can get a diversity of viewpoints as well. The solution to something that seems to be OK-specific might come from a MD-based editor, and it could be a good thing for other states. In short, there aren't enough of us active members around here to segregate discussions by state, and rarely is this talk page so busy that things will get lost in the shuffle. (If the page is getting too big, we can always adjust the archival frequency as needed.) 21:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
        • I disagree with keeping task force talk pages intact. If the traffic for a particular state becomes excessive or there is another situation requiring a specific state talk page, we can split out that particular state's talk page. One suggestion I have to improve ability to find items on a particular state is to add a note to the 511 box at the top of the page requesting that for topics related to a particular state, that state's name be the first word(s) of the section title.  VC  22:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I'm also an active contributor at Wikipedia:WikiProject College football, which started out essentially as a collection of school-specific articles created by editors interested in contributing those specific topics. Now it boasts much greater project-wide standardization and a broader sense of community. Frankly, I don't comprehend the recalcitrance of certain editors in resisting this proposal. DeFaultRyan 16:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Can you describe the process your project used in its consolidation of subprojects? Was the process top down, bottom up, or a combination of the two methods?  VC  16:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support There are only about 10 state projects left that haven't been demoted, and even fewer with more than one or two active editors. The rest either don't exist or don't do much anymore, and until this proposal came up I forgot most of them were still around. For example, take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Wisconsin. It was demoted long ago, hasn't been updated in who knows how long (it lists two GAs that were demoted last April), and all but two sections of it are redundant formatting instructions. I'm apparently the only active member, even though I forgot the project existed and I only work on roads intermittently nowadays. I suspect that most of the state subprojects/task forces look like this or worse, if they even exist; there are reasonably active states like Arizona and Delaware that don't even have state projects or task forces. If the handful of active state projects want exemptions, that's okay for now, but something ought to be done about the 45 or so terrible-looking ones. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Although I have been semi-retired from editing articles on Wikipedia (I made an exception to amusement park related articles at the moment), I feel the need to contribute to this discussion. I'm throwing my support behind this proposal because the WikiProject needs to be reformed, and reading through the discussion, clearly compromise is the only answer. In my opinion, the days of each state having it's own WikiProject should be done; I don't think NYSR should stand on it's own. I agree with the sentiment that Wikipedia has entered a new era of contributions, one where the number of contributors has fallen. It just strikes me that having one project for all 50 states makes more sense than having 50 projects for 50 states. I don't see the logical rationale for why NYSR should stand on it's own, let alone any other state. I understand that NYSR can't be forced into that kind of decision...nor should it. But I feel like it's time for a change. --Son (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Guinea pig model taskforce

I used the content from WP:OKSH to create a model page at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Oklahoma to illustrate my idea for what each task force page could look like. Feel free to tweak as necessary; a boilerplate could be created based off this. I imagine the green banner at the top (designed to coordinate with the USRD navbox) would be templatized and consistent from state to state to provide a sort of cohesiveness between states. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I've actually heard opinions to the contrary, to provide individuality between the states. --Rschen7754 20:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with those opinions. If this proposal passes, the best thing to do, to keep things running as smoothly as possible, is to keep all the pages exactly as they are now, as if the only thing that changed is their page titles.-Jeff ^(talk) 20:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's two reasons for cleaning up the pages - 1) there's some very outdated stuff on some of them (see WP:NESH for an example), and 2) we don't need 50 copies of instructions for how to use Infobox road. --Rschen7754 21:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Jeff, the process I'm personally envisioning over the short term is to just move pages, but over time, we'd each need to take a role in de-cluttering them. As rschen said, we don't need 50 copies of infobox road instructions, however a list of the type codes for IR/jct would be beneficial. Some level of standardization beyond that would be good, but for the new pages that will be created, we should use one template and go from there. Imzadi 1979 → 04:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Last night, I added Iowa to the search box and linked its archive to the banner and redirected the task force talk page to here. This should give those who are interested an idea of how to do it. –Fredddie™ 22:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I also created Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Delaware as a new task force to also serve as a model for the new TFs for states that do not have them yet as well as how existing subprojects and TFs can be modeled. Dough4872 01:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I created Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/TF header by expanding on Scott's sample coding. Fredddie added a |sub=open parameter to the USRD navbox so that it will open the subproject section on a TF page. Imzadi 1979 → 09:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

All of the existing TFs have the header and navbox. So long as they are consistently applied, and the requisite information is present, I don't see that there's any issue with how exactly the information is formatted. One caveat to that: I pulled a bunch of color formatting from WP:USRD/KS because it clashed with the color scheme set up by the header. USRD has migrated to using the MUTCD colors in our "branding", and we should honor that. Imzadi 1979 → 23:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Departments

Since it seems like the best thing to do to clarify things even if we don't move forward with project consolidation, I have "renamed" our pan-national, project-wide task forces as departments. We now have the:

• Assessment Department,
• Maps Department,
• Newsletter Department,
• Planning Department, and
• Shields Department.

Each has a header similar to the exiting state task forces, but using blue instead of green. Feel free to suggest different logos, I just picked some that I thought were appropriate. Imzadi 1979 → 13:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Userboxes

As part of any consolidation, we'll need to deal with the userboxes I've created a list at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Userbox list. I'd like to move them all to a consistent naming scheme in the near future. I would also like to propose using a harmonious color scheme so that we have some consistent "branding", if you will. Basically, I'm proposing that the backgrounds be MUTCD green with a white border and text for the state TFs. USRD departments would use MUTCD blue with white border and text; the US 66 and auto trails TFs would use MUTCD brown. We can either color the links in white (using boldface) or in MUTCD yellow. The MI CDH TF will be consolidated into the MI TF, and FL CR TF was consolidated in the FL subproject already, so those userboxes can be deleted in the end. Imzadi 1979 → 10:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I approve of this idea.  VC  19:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the idea too. In addition, the state task force userboxes can be modeled after Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Delaware/Userbox. Dough4872 23:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Closing the discussion

Ok guys, I'm calling this proposal to a close, provisionally. The provision is that states with open discussions (MD, MN) will close a week after those discussions started, and NY is still excluded at this time. Otherwise, there is consensus to move forward with the remainder of the states.

In the coming days, the affected pages will be moved, the standard headers applied. I will set up a new participants list soon, and everyone from every state will be requested to sign up. The reason is that as an objective of the consolidation, we are one project going forward, and it will allow us to do a roll call to see who's still active. Userboxes and barnstars and other things will be standardized in future discussions. Imzadi 1979 → 01:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

1918 map

If you're looking for some information related to the old auto trails, take a look at File:1918 AAA General Map of Transcontinental Routes.jpg. It's a 17MB file that I recently uploaded to Commons. Imzadi 1979 → 07:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I've discussed this map quite a bit with authorities on various auto trails. Many of the routes were quite approximate or provisional. This is especially true for the many auto trails that were created close to the 1918 date (a great many of them). Notice that the Bankhead Highway even has a note on the right side of the map, and much of that route barely resembles the official route from a couple years later. Rand McNally was beginning to make a few auto trail maps in 1918, and these are much better. In the pre-1918 period, the best route maps were probably those put out by the National Highways Association. I have scans of quite few of these. — ★Parsa ☞ talk 02:36, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Maps older than January 1, 1923, or produced by the federal government can be uploaded to Commons. Maybe we could get a category set up to hold some of these resources? You can cite the online version by linking to the URL for the Commons file. I've done that with some of the early Interstate planning maps. Anyway, I saw this one online, snagged it and uploaded it because it's PD and potentially useful. Imzadi 1979 → 02:56, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, it is an important resource, and a very cool map! Thanks for putting it on Commons. I consult this map quite often when researching very early auto trails. I just wanted to put out the warning that it may not be the most reliable source for the routes of the trails from this period. I consult it to affirm what I know from other, more reliable sources. I do have pre-1923 road maps, but other than the strip maps, they are rather hard to scan since I don't have a giant document scanner like map libraries possess. — ★Parsa ☞ talk 20:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice contribution! I think this map should be the starting point to our coverage of trails. Meaning that if a certain trail goes through your state, there should be an article about it. –Fredddie™ 03:52, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Logo for Auto Trails task force

I made the following SVG logo for the Auto Trails task force (or department, or whatever it will end up being called). I haven't uploaded it to Commons yet. So take a look at the image, and let me know if it's OK.
Auto Trails logo
— ★Parsa ☞ talk 02:42, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Just curious what others think here... I think the talk page banner uses the Lincoln Highway marker as the logo, and for that usage, I think that works well given the size. Where were you thinking of using that logo? Imzadi 1979 → 02:53, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks fine! Note: I'm not familiar with copyright law, so you may want to check when the blackout's over. --Rschen7754 02:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I like it. Again, let's just hope there are no copyright issues. I wouldn't think it, given the era of auto trails was the 1900's - 1920's, but you never know.... Dave (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Even if not, they're all composed of simple shapes and text, nothing that I think would even be eligible for copyright. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 12:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I made the Auto Trails logo image above for use in the task force's user box and for the title banner on that page. I understand Imzadi's concern regarding it's use in the talk page banner templates, as these are usually small. Of course, there's nothing really wrong with using the Lincoln Highway marker, but I would suggest a more generic looking auto trail pole marker for that purpose if people feel the three-sign logo it too big. Perhaps the following would be better:

National Old Trails Road,   Lone Star Trail

The red, white, and blue tricolor pole marker was actually used by a few different auto trails, not just the NOTR. Copyright isn't really an issue as these are user created image files, not photos, and they simply represent painted pole markers from before 1923. As far as I know, none were trademarked, and none of the original auto trail associations existed continuously into the present in any event. — ★Parsa ☞ talk 00:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Metro area nav boxes

I forget, what is the consensus surrounding templates like this new {{Oklahoma City Highways}} that's popped up? I don't particularly care for it (and if we decided to keep it around then I'm going to have to make some changes), but I can't recall if there's a precedent for this type of template at TFD or not. WP:USRD/P doesn't have anything listed. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 12:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I've also noticed some tacky templates for roads included in larger metropolitan area templates in Pennsylvania such as {{Altoona, Pennsylvania}}, {{Reading, Pennsylvania}}, and {{State College, Pennsylvania}} that include roads within the county along with attractions, public transportation, shopping, newspapers, and radio stations. What should be done with these templates? Should the roads simply be removed or should they be deleted? Or should they be kept the way it is? Dough4872 18:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I think consensus has been to tolerate them as long as they don't duplicate another means of linking already on the page. An example of this would be the state interstate highway navboxes that have popped up that duplicate the links already in infoboxes. –Fredddie™ 20:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I also am not a fan of them, but have tolerated them. However, I've seen some that are 100% redundant to categories, and have wondered if those should be deleted. For example Template:Arizona Interstate Highways which duplicates Category:Interstate Highways in Arizona. Dave (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not a fan of them. The definition of the metropolitan area is arbitrary, and two or three of those on a page is way too many. --Rschen7754 21:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a fan either, especially the ones that start out listing everything in that metro area. That starts polluting the "What links here" listing for an article, making it hard to know what's a substantive link (in the body of an article) and what's a tangential link (only from the navbox). Imzadi 1979 → 22:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Since the general consensus seems to be against these navboxes, what should be done with them? Dough4872 03:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Group TFD maybe? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

We're probably going to have to do the same with the Interstates by state navboxes that are floating around like the undead. Imzadi 1979 → 16:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of Interstate Highway navboxes, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 21#Template:Iowa Interstate Highways. Imzadi 1979 → 21:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

What about the three PA templates I mentioned above? Should I simply remove the roads from them? Without the roads, the templates serve a useful purpose. Dough4872 23:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason to mess with templates that are not part of our project.  VC  23:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

But these clunky templates intrude on our articles. Dough4872 23:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

No matter how much we edit them, they will never be "ours". –Fredddie™ 00:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Dough, I'd hold off on anything with those until we handle the stand-alone ones. If we establish a consensus on those, either here or at TFD, then you'll be in a position to where you can approach whichever project maintains that template and say "Hey guys, I'm from the roads project, and we've had some of these for roads and we've decided they're a bad idea because..." and see if they'll agree to take out the road links and remove that template from the road articles. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

For the PA ones, I didn't remove all the roads, I simply limited them to the roads within the city limits rather than all of them in the county. Dough4872 04:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Project page titles

I've noted what seem to be inconsistencies in the names of the various page titles for task forces, departments, etc. Some of the pages have every word capitalized (ex. "Interstate Highways"), some are all lower case (ex. "auto trails"), and some have only the first word capitalized (ex. "Visual aids"). The WP Manual of Style page on title capitalization gives the convention that the first word is capitalized and following words are not, with the exception of proper names, initials of proper names like "U.S.", titles of books, etc. So an article title would be "National park", not "National Park." But "Isle of Wight" would have a capital letter on Wight since it's a proper name. The words road, route, trail, and highway are not proper names. — ★Parsa ☞ talk 19:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

"Interstate Highway" is actually a proper noun. U.S. Route 395 is an interstate highway, but not an Interstate Highway. And Interstate 16 is an Interstate Highway, but not an interstate highway. --Rschen7754 20:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The auto trails TF should probably be moved to /Auto trails, and the departments should be renamed to reflect their new status. Imzadi 1979 → 20:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC):

Yes, well certainly at the very least that title, "auto trails", needs to be changed since it's all lower case and violates the naming rules for WP pages. — ★Parsa ☞ talk 22:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Auto trails and its two subpages (including the userbox) now direct to /Auto trails. –Fredddie™ 23:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

3di Section

Three-digit Interstates (3dis) have rules on what they connect to. I think articles about 3dis should have sections on whether or not they follow these rules, and how they do (not necessarily all the 3dis that connect to them. Here's a guide on Kurumi.com written by Scott "Kurumi" Oglesby (another roadgeek) about 3di numbering rules.

Multi Trixes! (Talk - Me on Wikia) 19:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

List of auxiliary Interstate Highways already has a guide to how the numbering conventions work. I don't know that a special section on each auxiliary Interstate article is needed for something that's a bit esoteric. Our main audience in our articles is the general population, not roadgeeks, so while this is useful information to cover (even my mother knows the even/odd convention to 3dIs), I think that a section in each article is overkill. A sentence in the articles about specific highways that "break" the rules is probably sufficient. Imzadi 1979 → 20:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Maryland former route list

I started a discussion at the talk page of the List of former Maryland state highways to figure out how we should reform the list.  VC  21:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Florida State Roads

Do you know where I can find an official list of all Florida state roads (past, present, & future)? I am trying to update the List of State Roads in Florida & List of toll roads in Florida pages. Thank you so much! Allen (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think any state DOT publishes such a thing for former highways. The closest you'd get is if a state DOT publishes a route log or a control section atlas that lists all of the current highways, but a current log won't have former highways in it. Imzadi 1979 → 02:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Here are a few things that might help

• Florida state highway links
• Blue Diamonds - The Old Florida State Road System
• Evolution of Florida's State Road System (has 1917 and 1946 maps)
• Robert V. Droz's U.S. Highways from US 1 to US 830
• Florida in Kodachrome
• Historic Roads and Highways of Florida
• Destination Florida Presents a World of Color
• AARoads Florida Gateway

— ★Parsa ☞ talk 17:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

And all but the first one are self-published sources, and none are official. I advise caution in relying on SPSs around here, and in fact, policy basically says not to rely on them. Imzadi 1979 → 18:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The pages do include maps and governmental sources. It's OK to look at them. Your eyes won't burst into flames. So, OK, here's a Rand McNally auto trails map from 1924 that shows the eight (unsigned) state highways as they existed in 1922. They are shown with white triangles. District 21 map Rand McNally 1924 Commercial Atlas of America

And here are two images from the 1925 Rand McNally Junior Auto Trails Atlas of the United States showing state roads in white circles: Florida North — Florida South and Panhandle — ★Parsa ☞ talk 18:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

They might, and the maps could be cited using the SPS sites as "convenience links", but anything that's not a duplicate of a government source can not be used. Imzadi 1979 → 20:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

But self-published sources in the roads field generally have some accuracy. While they can't be used in article space, they can at least give you dates to look for in a newspaper archive, for example. --Rschen7754 20:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

And the original poster did request "an official list of all Florida state roads", which no one has supplied yet. Imzadi 1979 → 20:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to mention that before 1927, many of the official state maps were actually produced by Rand McNally, and are identical to their auto trail maps. A good example is the 1924 "Illinois Official Auto Trails Map" that was put out by the state of Illinois. — ★Parsa ☞ talk 22:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to know how Rand McNally atlases or scans from historical versions of Rand McNally atlases are (1) self-published sources, comparable to roadgeek websites; and (2) not reliable sources.  VC  23:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said before: "maps could be cited using the SPS sites as 'convenience links', but anything that's not a duplicate of a government source can not be used." The commentary and such on SPS is the problem: it currently can not meet the policy requirements to be used as a source. Imzadi 1979 → 23:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand using convenience links and I understand SPS commentary is not a reliable source. However, I interpret your statement "anything that's not a duplicate of a government source can not be used" as a blanket discouragement of all non-governmental sources, including professionally produced works like Rand McNally atlases.  VC  00:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I was referring to text on the roadgeek websites. Bessert has copied MDOT publications word for word on his site, which can be cited, but the remainder of the text can not be used. Imzadi 1979 → 01:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course not all secondary sources are governmental or produced by university publishers.... The maps are a good example. I would think a secondary source can even be a self-published book if it cites sources and is reliable, in other words of academic quality. I also think as we move into a fully digital world, we will see more digital self publication, not less. If the web site were to have footnotes, sources (bibliographies, maps used, etc.), and all the other features of a verifiable and reliable secondary source, then I think it could be cited in an encyclopedia. I only provided the links above for background information to help in a search for material such as newspaper articles, etc., not to be used directly as citation sources. — ★Parsa ☞ talk 18:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I use a book entitled A Drive Down Memory Lane: The Named State and Federal Highways of Michigan that's possibly self-published. (I haven't been able to confirm if Priscilla Press is a specialty imprint of another publisher, a small-scale publisher or a vanity publisher.) Even if it is, it falls under the exceptions in the WP:SPS policy because Dr. Barnett is the former Chief Archivist of the State of Michigan, an "expert in his field", and widely published in other venues for his articles on Michigan history. If a roadgeek website is listing its sources, I would counsel a Wikipedian to track down those original sources just as a teacher would tell his student to read Wikipedia for the background and then seek out our sources to write the paper. Imzadi 1979 → 18:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

How to access articles with a task force template

How do I get a list of the articles with a USRD template tagged for a particular task force (such as Auto trails)? There are tens of thousands of articles in the WikiProject according to the article assessment box, so that would be a big list of articles to search through.... — ★Parsa ☞ talk 20:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Each state and topic area has an assessment category. For the auto trails, you have Category:U.S. auto trail articles. All of them are listed in Category:U.S. road transport articles by topic. Imzadi 1979 → 20:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I was looking for.— ★Parsa ☞ talk 01:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

cleanup templates

I am curious as to whether there are any other road-related article cleanup tags out there (whether tagged with USRD or WP:HWY banners) which could be listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Article templates. Right now, it has {{USRD-wrongdir}} and {{mileposts}}.

I stumbled upon {{Exit list}} and {{RJL}}. Both appear to be little used, but are basically for the same purpose: calling out a junction list section of an article that is bulleted where it should be created as a table instead. These two templates should probably be merged and standardized. Any preferences on a name and layout to follow? -- LJ ↗ 06:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

County roads in the banner

Michigan and Florida have had separate task forces for county roads; New York still does. I would like to formally propose, for discussion, a change to the banner based on how Michigan tags its county roads, and an enhancement. Right now, if an editor inputs |state=MI-CHTF in the banner, it links to the Michigan task force, but it displays a CDH marker (for H-58) and lists the topic as "Michigan County-Designated Highways". I would like to propose that the banner accept XX-CR for all states. If that is input, the text would still link to the XX task force page, but the link would display "<state> County Roads/Routes", similar to how Michigan is done. The enhancement is that the banner would populate that article into a Category:B-Class U.S. county road articles category, or whatever assessment is appropriate. We could then both track how many county road-related articles we have, and what their assessments are. Right now, we have very little method of knowing how many of these articles we actually have, yet many of us profess our hatred of them (in general). Note, I'm not advocating different state-based assessment categories; each state would continue to receive its CRs for assessment tracking purposes. If you look at Talk:Saginaw Trail, you'll note that it's currently classified for the Auto trails, Michigan and Michigan CDH topics, but assessed only for Auto trails and Michigan. (The MI and MI-CHTF tags are harmlessly redundant for assessment purposes.) Imzadi 1979 → 09:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Support in principle, but oppose in practice. Rather than adding 50 new types to the banner, all we need is |type=CR used with |state=<state>. –Fredddie™ 12:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I considered that solution, but that doesn't resolve the situation that a CR would be labelled as falling under the topic of the state's highway system. It's not inaccurate to label an Interstate Highway as both an Interstate and a state highway as that is correct, but county roads, by definition, are not state highways. Our banner template has never referred to states as being "subprojects" or "task forces", but topics. Imzadi 1979 → 13:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Another thing we would need to consider doing this is how we treat secondary state highways. Would the Virginia secondary highways (routes 600 and above), Missouri and Wisconsin supplemental lettered highways, and New Jersey 500-series routes that maintain their numbers through multiple counties be considered state highways or county highways?  VC  15:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

In Wisconsin, the lettered highways are County Trunk Highways, and under county jurisdiction, compared to the numbered State Trunk Highways under state jurisdiction. A "WI-CTH" label should have the blank CTH marker (the CR pentagon is not in use in that state at all), assuming any articles ever exist. As for the others you mention, if it's a secondary state highway, it's still a state highway. Imzadi 1979 → 15:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

For our purposes, I, personally, would consider county roads and secondary state highways to be the same. Coding |type=CR to not trigger the state highway category will not be difficult. In fact, there should probably be |type=SH/SR/<state>/etc. which would take out any ambiguity. –Fredddie™ 22:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think county routes need their own special shield in the banner as there are generally nonnotable roads. In addition, there are I and US highways in a state that are tagged with the state's banner. I know New Jersey's county routes do not use a special county routes banner, they use the state banner that I, US, and state routes in the state use. Dough4872 01:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting we create a new banner for county roads. We already track Interstates, US Highways, and state highways; why not county roads? –Fredddie™ 01:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I see the point now, we can see how many CRs have articles vs. how many have lists and track the overall quality for possible merging of stubs. Dough4872 02:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess I somewhat question the relevance of county routes in the banner as a completely separate entity/topic. Perhaps this is because I come from a state where only one, maybe two, such articles would be so coded... I do appreciate the desire to want to have the categorization available for tracking/assessment purposes. However, I thought the mentality around here was to eliminate many of the county road articles or combine them into RCS-style lists--would county coding in the banner on a wider basis be counter-productive to that effort?

Consistent state task force scope & branding

Now that we have a state task force page for every state, I think we should look at the scope and name/branding of the task forces for consistency. Take for example, the newly-created task force for Arizona: The landing page says "Welcome to the Arizona State Routes Task Force". The scope listed on the page talks about editing all state-maintained highways within Arizona, not just state routes. The project banner shows "Arizona Highways" as the link to the task force page. The userbox also says "Arizona State Routes". So I see an inconsistency there as what the scope says versus how other aspects of the Arizona page are presented.

A little while ago, I renamed the Nevada task force from "Nevada State Routes" to "Nevada Roads". I felt this this was more representative of what had been tagged under the project and reflected in the scope--i.e. not just the state route articles, but all state-maintained routes, state-detail pages of national highways, and other regionally significant roads/highways in Nevada. This renaming I thought also alluded to the relationship with USRD in the name and reflected the parent project's scope of including more than just numbered highways. I hadn't gotten around to asking for the {{USRD}} link to be changed, but that was another thought.

It seems that most of the state task forces are similar in scope to Nevada in that they include more than just state numbered highways. For the sake of consistency, I think it would be prudent to rename all of the task forces to "(state) Roads" and revise scopes and links to match this mentality. The USRD template links could be revised to mention either "(state) Roads" or simply the state name as the link. Thoughts? (Of course, WP:NYSH would be exempted due to maintaining full project status.) -- LJ ↗ 09:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

My initial instinct was to name the task forces "(state) Roads" as the scope covered more than state routes. I wouldn't be opposed to changing all of them to that name. Dough4872 16:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with standardizing and maintaining consistent and inclusive terminology within a task force. I also agree with changing the USRD template links to just the state name and route marker. However, I disagree with the one-size-fits-all solution of naming everything "<state> Roads." The prevalent generic term for notable roads in some states could be "highways" or "routes" or "trunklines." I think we can allow for variety among state task force names as long as each task force is internally consistent. We can also allow for a variety of names that better reflect the scope of articles within each individual state.  VC  18:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Something to remember, in Michigan, it is legally (see Public Act 51 of 1951) called the "State Trunkline Highway System", and it includes Michigan's section of the Interstate Highway System and Michigan's section of the United States Numbered Highway System. The county roads tagged for Michigan are using a different code in the banner ("MI-CHTF") and come up with a different marker (H-58's instead of a blank MI diamond) and the different name ("Michigan County-Designated Highways" vs. "Michigan State Highways"). That's a remnant of the former CDH task force under the MI subproject. I actually would like to expand that system of tagging to all states so that in the future we can track the CRs separately. In other words, "XX-CR" for a state code would place the article in the state assessment category, like a state highway, but use a CR marker and variant of the name, and then in the future, add the article to a CR assessment category so we could have a single CR line in the leaderboard. Imzadi 1979 → 20:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Since when are we bound to follow state laws as it relates to organizing our project subpages? (We're not.) I really don't care what we call them. Awesome pavement ribbons of destiny, I think, was thrown out as an option on IRC. All I care is that the same information can be found at the same place among the states. –Fredddie™ 23:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

My point is that a state's highway system doesn't exclude the Interstates and US Highways in that state; they're one integrated system with different classifications. Imzadi 1979 → 23:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't care about the names really as they relate to state law... however, I'm concerned that a change to "Roads" will change the scope of the task forces. I'm aware that there are some non-state highway roads in CA that are not tagged under the CA task force... because the project was "California State Highways". --Rschen7754 23:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Rschen on the "Roads" issue; many editors who aren't members of, or familiar with, our project assume that USRD covers all roadways in the US when that isn't the case. Articles on city streets have been outside of our scope for several years (barring overlaps), yet confusion exists because we're "U.S. Roads". Our primary focus has been, for many years now, the state highways of each state and their analogs in the territories and district. Those state highways (or state routes/state roads) include the Interstates and US Highways/Routes in each state. It is no less improper to call US 41 a state trunkline in Michigan because it is just one part of the State Trunkline Highway System as well as being one part of the United States Numbered Highway System.

Now, on a side note, Talk:H-63 (Michigan county highway) lists the article as falling in the "topic" of "Michigan County-Designated Highways", not "Michigan State Highways", yet for assessment purposes and task force links, it goes to the Michigan task force. If you look on H-63 (Michigan county highway), you'll even note that the infobox specifies the CDH system without mentioning the state highway system. County Road 492 (Marquette County, Michigan) even specifies that its system is "Marquette County Roads". We should be doing more in our articles and talk pages to build the separation between the state and county systems, even if a link in the banner for a county road links back to the state task force. Remember, the banner is listing topics, not task force names, per se. Imzadi 1979 → 09:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, so "Roads" may not be the best unifying word to go with, and maybe "highways" (or "trunklines" or whatever) might be better. But I think the issue is clear that the banner and other media saying "Nevada State Routes" on US 95 in NV or I-80 in NV articles is a bit misleading in reference to the scope of the project. Just trying to have all the links be a bit more inclusive to what the task forces actually cover. -- LJ ↗ 09:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The each state task force includes the Interstates and US Highways in that state; they're also covered by the IH and USH task forces as well. Overlap isn't an issue; State Route 74 (New York – Vermont) is covered by both of its states. As for your example, US 95 and I-80 in NV are both Nevada State Routes, but of two subclassifications. Imzadi 1979 → 16:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I draw a distinction there: US 95 in NV and I-80 in NV are part of Nevada's state-maintained highway system and can be considered state routes (noun), but they are not "State Routes" (proper noun). I also look at other things tagged as part of Nevada task force, such as Summerlin Parkway, which is not a State Route (it's city maintained) but is a freeway and thus falls under the scope of the task force and clearly not with anything else such as USST...I have to imagine there are similar circumstances elsewhere... IDK, maybe I'm just arguing semantics, but I do think it could be more clear in the banner that the topic is not just State Routes. -- LJ ↗ 04:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

And the occasional exception doesn't totally eviscerate the general rule or name. We have to be flexible sometimes and avoid hyperliterality. Where would we put Pierce Stocking Scenic Drive? A overly literal interpretation is that it doesn't fall under either MISH or MISH-CDH because it was privately built and now maintained by the National Park Service. Imzadi 1979 → 04:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's back up a bit. Do we even need consistent scopes? What benefit do we obtain by making the scope consistent from state to state? WP:OKSH#Content currently excludes all county and city roads from the task force (though it does not, strictly speaking, walk the talk; Gilcrease Expressway, a county-maintained freeway, is tagged OKSH). How does the project benefit by requiring OKSH to adopt more articles, or theoretically any other state to adopt less, by harmonizing the scopes between states? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I suppose scopes need not be consistent across state pages. I was moving on the assumption that more of the states had the similar scopes and apparently that is incorrect. However, I do think something can be done with the branding to make things consistent with respect to each individual state page, userbox, USRD banner link, etc. We've spent a lot of time unifying the look and brand of USRD; we shouldn't let the states get forgotten about. My personal opinion is that using the "official" name of the state highway system is not the best way to brand the state topics, but that's me. -- LJ ↗ 03:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

FHWA sign colors template on Commons

I was looking at the pages Category:PD MUTCD and Category:Road signs of the United States by number on Commons, and they use a template for MUTCD colors based on the Pantone colors shown on the FWHA web site (FHWA specs actually use a complex CIE chromaticity system for differeing lighting conditions). Here is the template on Commons: Template:FHWA_sign_colors. These colors seem to come from several web sites that generally cite one source (http://www.seoconsultants.com) for the conversion. Here's an example. These colors seem dark or muted compared to what you see if you photographed a sign in full sunlight (or used a photometer). In addition, when I use Adobe Illustrator, open a Pantone Color Book in swatches, and pick one of the MUTCD Pantone colors, I get much more saturated colors. A good example is MUTCD orange. The FHWA template page says Pantone 152 is #dd7500       , but in Illustrator Pantone 152 gives #F3901D       , a much brighter color. Admittedly, printing in Pantone is not the same as colors on an RGB monitor, but RGB monitors are what WP is targeting. When you compare the actual signs in the Commons category, they don't generally match the template colors anyway. These are the colors Illustrator gives me for the MUTCD colors:

• Brown Pantone 469 - #794400      
• Red Pantone 187 - #C41230      
• Yellow Pantone 116 - #FFD200      
• Purple Pantone 259 - #781D7E      
• Green Pantone 342 - #006F51      
• Blue Pantone 294 - #005596      
• Orange Pantone 152 - #F3901D      

By the way, for the fluorescent green-yellow I get an average of about: #ABDA15       for bright light images. It's pretty green — close to green-yellow, but with a yellower hue angle (74-78°). Most coral accident signs are about: #FF2E70       . — ★Parsa ☞ talk 03:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the template since there was no objection. ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ — ★Parsa ☞ talk 01:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Will this mean that we need to change all of the created graphics, update the infobox colors, entire series of highway markers (California, BS/BL Interstates, etc) and change all of the userboxes/navigation templates, etc? Your original post didn't specify what you wanted changed, which is why most of us probably ignored it as insignificant. Imzadi 1979 → 01:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Not only that, none of the numbers (on the template or the list above) are what I use for my shield work. So, I disagree with all of them anyway. –Fredddie™ 02:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I downloaded images from the FHWA MUTCD sign pages, and the colors I used above are only a few digits off from their colors. MUTCD green was #006F53 instead of #006F51. You can't even notice the difference on any of them when you shift the colors in Illustrator's color picker. As far as changing the sign colors, hardly any of the signs on Commons agreed with the older color template anyway. Graphic creators were evidently ignoring the template anyway. I just changed the template since the colors on there were way off. — ★Parsa ☞ talk 02:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure reverting the template solves anything, as those colors aren't even supported by the source given. Some of those colors (gold, cream) aren't even listed on the FHWA site. OK, so here are three blues. First is the blue from the template. Second is the blue used by the FHWA artists who made the signs for their web site. Third is Pantone 294 swatch color found in the color books of Photoshop and Illustrator (the Pantone color specified by FHWA that I gave above).
                           — #003f87 | #005a9c | #005596
The template blue is really dark. The FHWA website blue is even a bit lighter than the Pantone blue color. Color for the human eye is really very much a matter of relative perception. I started out in college as a fine arts major, but got my degree in physics and astrophysics. I know quite a bit about color perception. Look at this image from the MUTCD document, and tell me if the blue in the Interstate sign looks different to you than the county sign... The fact is, they are exactly the same color of blue as proved by using the eyedropper tool in Photoshop. — ★Parsa ☞ talk 06:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Major intersections vs. Junction list

I noticed that in most states that the table listing intersections along a route is titled "Major intersections". However, in some states like FL, MD, MO, and OK the table is titled "Junction list". Shouldn't the title of the table be consistent for every state? Dough4872 02:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral—consistency is nice, but it's not exactly broke. As long as a state is internally consistent, I don't think it's a big deal. If someone wanted to run AWB across the project and flip everything to one, that's fine. If I had to !vote, I'd actually go with "Junction list" as a better counterpoint to "Exit list" on freeways. Imzadi 1979 → 02:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • While it would be more work to convert to "Junction list", I see the logic of converting all the articles to it. However, "Major intersections" asserts that only the important junctions are included rather than all of them, which a "Junction list" can lead some to infer. Dough4872 02:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with Michael that internal consistency is what's important. OK uses "junction list" because its lists are generally restricted to other highway junctions—about the only time a non-highway will show up is if it happens to be a terminus. Other states may not restrict their lists in such a manner, in which case "Major intersections" is more appropriate. (Also, I am not sure if you can really generalize for MO; most of those junction lists were probably added by me, and I titled them "junction list" out of habit. I don't really think there's enough JLs in MO to really say "MO does things this way" because, well, MO is sort of dead.) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• A state should remain consistent in the header usage, but to be frank, I think that trying to standardize it nationwide is a waste of time that we could better spend doing other things. --Rschen7754 03:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Lately we have been trying to standardize all the states as part of making one USRD. I feel making the headers consistent nationwide is a part of that process. Dough4872 04:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to change them all yourself, but the rest of us seem to not see the point. –Fredddie™ 06:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. The ongoing standardization process is an operational issue, not a content issue. We are standardizing project processes because we came to the realization we tend to function more as a national project in practice than as a bunch of state projects, New York notwithstanding. We are standardizing the project pages so that newcomers are less confused about helping out and finding resources. However, this standardization process does not extend to the articles themselves. I agree that we should be internally consistent within each state, but I see no need to be consistent nationally. States operate differently; a one-size-fits-all model is not going to work for the U.S. While the name of the header for RJLs is a rather trivial manner, this idea is symbolic of a mission to standardize everything in the U.S., which I believe is going too far.  VC  17:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • It would still help if all the intersections table would use a standard header, similar to "Route description". For instance, we do not use "Highway description" or "Route summary" as alternate headers. Standardizing the headers has more to do than with the consolidation of USRD, its about making all the articles consistent. Dough4872 19:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    • The thing here though is all route descriptions will contain about the same type of content, or at least all content that can be described as a "description of the route". As seen above, it varies from state to state what is included in the junction list. Another thing is that you're calling for a change to promote consistency but not establishing why consistency is good in this case. Why must this be consistent from state to state? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
      • As part of standardizing USRD, basically all JLs will include I, US, state routes, and county routes that are part of a statewide system for surface road and all exits for freeway. I feel that the "Major intersections" title across the board will assert that the tables only include the "major" intersections that are state routes or above. Dough4872 02:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Alternately "Junction list" could imply only highway junctions. "Major intersections" makes me think that a major city street intersection could potentially qualify. But still, you justify making this change as "part of standardizing USRD"—why is standardizing USRD in this way necessarily good? You're assuming that as a given without proving it, and then using it to back up your argument.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
          • I don't care if we go with "Major intersections" or "Junction list", we should just pick one of them. Dough4872 04:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
            • Why though? Why is standardizing this a good thing? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
              • Because it makes Wikipedia a consistent and reliable encyclopedia. Dough4872 05:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
                • Really? That's why? Shouldn't the content of the section determine its reliability? –Fredddie™ 06:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
                  • You just said, in effect, "Consistency is good because it makes Wikipedia consistent." That's not a reason, that's a tautology. Do you have something more explanatory? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
                    • I think it would be easier for a reader to follow along with a road article if all of the sections have the same title. A reader may be baffled if they see the table as "Major intersections" is some articles and "Junction list" in others. Also, the titles of both could give different meanings. Having them follow one title makes it easier for a reader to understand the purpose of the table. Dough4872 19:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
                      • I'm a "junction" proponent myself, since that's the terminology used when highways meet. However, consistency is much less important than verifiable and reliable content. I'm still trying to wrap my brain around the best way to handle junctions with auto trails since some of these old roads had multiple branches and spurs, as well as widely changing routes over time. I know it's a requirement for moving up on the quality scale, but for auto trails, topics such as history, associations, community involvement, early legislation, etc. are much more important to understanding the subject. — ★Parsa ☞ talk 02:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

US Routes navbox

Resolved

 – Went with one of the proposals. Imzadi 1979 → 21:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Currently, it looks like:

I'm proposing updating it to use the navbox meta tempate, along the lines of:

{{U.S. Routes/sandbox}}

By doing so, it will match up with the existing navboxes in terms of width and collapsibility. Thoughts? Imzadi 1979 → 04:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Still needs a legend. –Fredddie™ 04:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

That works. –Fredddie™ 05:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the new navbox will work well in articles. Dough4872 04:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The only concern I would have is whether this will look good on screens that aren't wide. Maybe a dot or dash in the spaces where routes have not existed. Otherwise, thanks cause this template has needed an overhaul for some time. {{Interstates}} could use a similar treatment but would be understandably harder to implement. -- LJ ↗ 05:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

My idea was to replicate the original a bit. I did up another sample that uses 30 numbers per line:

{{U.S. Routes/sandbox2}}

As you can see, the fewer columns, the more they get spaced out because navboxes take up the full width of the window. Personally, I wouldn't go less than 30 numbers per line or more than 40. Imzadi 1979 → 06:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. Dough4872 14:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Would it be possible to add template parameters to this navbox, so that some of the other common navigation boxes can be merged into this one, such as the state navigation box present on many state detail articles? For example, I'd like to see a single unified navbox on all US highway articles that could replace the navbox at the bottom of both the national U.S. Route 50 article as well as the state detail articles, such as the two at the bottom of U.S. Route 50 in Nevada? Dave (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

They're two different boxes with two different purposes though, although both are for navigation. This one above binds the various national-level articles together, while the one on the state-detail articles is a succession box that links the state-detail articles together in order. I can't see how we'd combine them without polluting the incoming links in the "What links here" further. (There's really no reason that US 8's article should link to a s-d article for US 50.) Imzadi 1979 → 23:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Not to be unhelpful or anything, but I have no preference regarding the 30- or 40-routes-per-line version. Either is fine with me. –Fredddie™ 04:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I viewed both templates with various screen sizes, and the 30-column version looks much better across the board. My only concern is with the Lists row and how it's stuck off to the left, visually separated from the rest of the template, which spans the whole screen. It'd probably be better to put the list links in the footer along with the legend, something along the lines of "Lists: list1 • list2<br>legend contents" or the legend on top and the lists on the second line. I'm well aware that {{navbox}} is what makes the Lists row appear as it is, but I do think there's a better way to go about it. – TMF 05:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with TMF's comments. One other question: Is there a reason why the route numbers are using larger than normal text? -- LJ ↗ 08:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Text is larger than normal because at normal size, it was difficult to discern the difference between normal, bold, and italic text. (see this diff, also US 1 is bold for reference) –Fredddie™ 18:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The 30-column works much better. The other one gets very compressed when you resize the window to a narrower size. The main advantage of the old version is that you can better see the relationship of the more principal (pink) routes. — ★Parsa ☞ talk 02:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I tried to figure out a way to embed the table from the current version inside of {{navbox}}, but it wouldn't seem to work. I just tried something else, and I got:

{{U.S. Routes/sandbox3}}

Either way, the current version is not using a standard meta template, it's not stackable with other standardized navboxes and it doesn't collapse. However, using the current table inside a navbox wrapper still has a lot of whitespace on either side of the table. Attempting to maintain the grid will have some tradeoffs no matter what we do, how many columns there are, and the current template does not explain what the pink coloring is for at all. Imzadi 1979 → 02:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't like that, the numbers are too squished and there's too much white space. Dough4872 03:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't like it either, but it's there for comparison. Imzadi 1979 → 03:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Since {{Interstates}} didn't have a grid before, just highlights for the "major" routes, I redid it using the meta template. This is what we got:

So I did the same with the US Highways, and got: {{U.S. Routes/sandbox4}} This last sandbox will not have a grid, and it will scale in width based on the reader's window. So, we have some tradeoffs to consider. Imzadi 1979 → 04:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

That looks better. Dough4872 04:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Putting the old grid into the navbox doesn't work. I'm of the opinion that the grid is not completely necessary, but if a grid format is kept the 30 column version would be better. -- LJ ↗ 06:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Of all the proposals so far I like the last one the most. Dough4872 16:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I like the 30-column grid better. — ★Parsa ☞ talk 23:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I prefer the latest designs that are not trying to be a grid.  VC  23:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, the non-grid designs are more in line with the navbox style that's used elsewhere on Wikipedia, and there's no scaling issues to boot. – TMF 07:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Should we split the list up such that the highlighted routes and the italic routes are on separate lines? That way, we wouldn't need to highlight them in any way. –Fredddie™ 12:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, that would have the disadvantage of requiring the reader to know what sort of route they're looking for before reading the article. It may not be at all intuitive to most people that US 50 is a "major" route or US 66 is a former route. Having them numerically listed makes sense to most people. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 15:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Scott, the routes should be listed in numerical order. Dough4872 20:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

For sake of discussion, I reused the first sandbox and made it look like what I was talking about. –Fredddie™ 01:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't like the ideas the roads are split based on type. They should be in numerical order. Dough4872 01:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

They are in numerical order. –Fredddie™ 02:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I think this is substantially harder to read. --Rschen7754 01:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not in love with it either, but I didn't know how much I'd hate it until I saw it. –Fredddie™ 02:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there any consensus for what proposal to use? Dough4872 21:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

There are more people (myself included) in favor of the fourth sandbox (no grid, but all numbers in one list together) that that is what I implemented. Imzadi 1979 → 21:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Interstate Highway System

Anyone willing to help pitch in on the article? Moabdave (talk · contribs) started cleaning up some of the trivia, and I got to work on updating some of the citations. I think if a few willing people grab a section and work on cleaning it up, we could have a good shot at a joint nomination to get this article to GA status, at least. It looks like the library at Michigan Tech has copies of the old MUTCDs in print, so I could make a trip to check some stuff out to complete those citations. (I'll try to post here before I go in case there are additional requests for specific scans.) Imzadi 1979 → 12:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Forget the library. They're online: [2]. Imzadi 1979 → 13:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

KML requests

Is it possible to have KML files made for Delaware Route 261 and Delaware Route 300 for their GANs? Dough4872 19:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Since the process is nearly identical to making maps, should these go to WP:USRD/MTF/R? –Fredddie™ 23:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it can help to have a KML section there for future requests. Dough4872 23:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yet another Infobox and major junction discussion

Discussion going on Talk:U.S. Route 66. Posting here as whatever is decided would have implications for our other decommissioned highways (such as US-99). Dave (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

National Parks Highway

I helped on the Yellowstone Trail article and somehow got on their email list (which is fine with me). Their latest newsletter [3] has an article on the National Parks Highway from the 1920s. I found it might be an interesting topic if someone was looking for an interesting new article. Royalbroil 13:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. This is a good resource, let's hope it gets put to good use. Dave (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

problems with U.S. Route 48

Moved from WT:HWY because this is US-specific. Imzadi 1979 → 22:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem, in a nutshell, is that there isn't any US 48 at present, but there were two previous incarnations, and there will be a third. The first version was a stretch of what is now US 50 in northern California, which was deleted in 1931. The second is what is now designated Interstate 68. The third is a mixture of new construction and redesignation of existing roads which is intended to run from Strasburg, VA to Weston, WV; however according to the WV DOT none of this route carries this designation yet, and some of it hasn't been constructed. There is also a very confusing pattern of redirects for "Corridor H" of the Appalachian Development Highway System, which depending upon exactly which of them you follow, ends you up at different articles. If anyone would like to help sort this all out, please join us at Talk:U.S. Route 48. Mangoe (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

From what I know the future US 48 is currently signed in VA, making it a current route there. I would keep the U.S. Route 48 article covering the upcoming route. The history of the two previous US 48's can either be covered there as well or presented with hatnotes to the U.S. Route 50 in California and Interstate 68 articles. Dough4872 22:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The degree to which it is actually "there" is obscure. The VA DOT website lists it as "overlapping a portion of State Route 55 from Interstate Route 81 near Strasburg in Shenandoah County to the Virginia/West Virginia State Line" here but the official highway map doesn't show it. At any rate the urge to merge this into U.S. Route 48 in West Virginia (none of which is so designated yet) seems problematic. Mangoe (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

US 48 in WV can be covered in the main US 48 article, which would overview the future highway. Since this future highway will become current someday, I feel it should remain the primary topic. Dough4872 17:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

US 48 was officially established by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the group that regulates U.S. and Interstate route numbering, in 2002. See page 8 of the report of their 2002 route numbering meeting. Despite the spotty signage, this route clearly exists. I agree with Dough that a good step would be to merge U.S. Route 48 in West Virginia into the main article. There is no need to have information about this U.S. Highway in two or more articles. U.S. Route 48 in Virginia redirects to VA 55; perhaps we should also figure out whether that is the best solution or to redirect US 48 in Virginia to the main article.  VC  17:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Much of it does not exist at all; according to the WV DOT two segments haven't even started final design work, and another segment hasn't started construction. All the extant segments are designated for other roads. From what I see of comparable routes, detailed route information is typically kept in the "by state" articles (I'm not saying whether this is a good idea or not, just that it appears to be the convention). If we folded this all back into one big article, it perhaps would make more sense to point back to the articles on the current designations of the extant segments for detailed information, and then describe what there is to say about the other segments in the main article for now. Mangoe (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me know if I am mistaken, but you sound like you are arguing against the notability of this US 48 designation, and thus whether this article should exist. As for more practical matters, I do not think it is practical to use summary style for the West Virginia portion of US 48. The completed portions of the U.S. Highway — referring to the completed Corridor H segments since Corridor H and US 48 will eventually be congruent — are followed by many different U.S. and state route numbers. It does not make sense to have six main templates and use summary style here when the reader is better served by the full Route description treatment. I am fine with using summary style for the Virginia segment because only one route number is in play there. I am not worried about the article being too large. Right now, US 48 and US 48 in West Virginia combined would be 41K. Article size would not be increased too much with a full Route description. As for state-detail articles, we no longer create state-detail articles for U.S. and Interstate highways that only pass through two states. There are a few remaining out there that we have yet to merge into one article, such as this one.  VC  22:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I would say that it is notable. I'm somewhat concerned with the double description, given that every extant segment is signed as some other road at present. But otherwise I would agree that it should all be merged together. Mangoe (talk) 06:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about duplication. We have three Featured articles that all have to describe the section of highway between Escanaba and Gladstone, Michigan because of the triple concurrency of U.S. Route 2 in Michigan, U.S. Route 41 in Michigan and M-35 (Michigan highway). Sometimes a level of duplication is acceptable, and other times it is needless; it's the needless duplication we need to eliminate. Imzadi 1979 → 06:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

A change to the MOS with relevance to this project

I'm not sure how many people are aware of this - hell, I wasn't until a week or two ago - but the MOS was changed in mid-2011 to call for unspaced en dashes in any and all compounds, save for those relating to ranges. See MOS:DASH. (It should be noted that this change came about as the result of lengthy discussions, and it's unlikely that it's going to change back anytime in the near future.)

This obviously has implications for several articles, such as State Route 74 (New York – Vermont) and U.S. Route 40 Alternate (Keysers Ridge – Cumberland, Maryland).

Just wanted to post this here since I think this is something that flew under the radar of the majority of editors on Wikipedia, not just here. – TMF 05:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

So State Route 74 (New York – Vermont) will now be titled State Route 74 (New York–Vermont) and so on? At this point, should we move all the affected articles? Dough4872 19:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

1) Yes and 2) moving the affected articles is the only logical action to take at this point. We could either have random editors move them one at a time every so often, or we could stay ahead of the curve and move them all now. – TMF 23:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and started moving some of the pages. Dough4872 00:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Banner-related proposal

See Template talk:U.S. Roads WikiProject#Cross-project tagging for the discussion. Imzadi 1979 → 01:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Moving forward on project consolidation

Now that we provisionally moved forward on the consolidation (see #Closing the discussion above for the provision), we have some housekeeping yet to do to implement the plan.

1. Rename the topic-based TFs as departments.  Done
2. Move all existing subprojects to their new titles.  Done
3. Archive subproject talk pages, redirect them to this page, and link the archives to the search box above.  Done
4. Shut down WP:USRD/SUB.  Done
5. Restore the IH and USH pages as task forces.  Done
6. Update the navbox.  Done
7. Create task forces for the remaining states to act as landing pages. (Better name for the "dumping space" concept)  Done
8. Decide on a structure of task forces for the territories and DC.  Done
9. Create userboxes for the new task forces.  Done
10. Standardize the various userboxes.  Done
11. Catalog the barnstars in a central location, and discuss their fate. In progress
12. Move the various resources to the task force pages to centralize state- and territory-specific information to each state.  Done
13. Implement a new participants list. Done
14. Clean the TF pages to remove duplicated materials, leaving only state- specific items.  Done
15. Update {{USRD}} to reflect the new TF links. Done

Current status

Numbers 2, 3 and 10 have not been done for Maryland and Minnesota at this time pending the resolution of discussions at WT:MDSH and WT:MNSH. The navbox has been updated to the current state of affairs, but it will need to be updated further for all of the new TFs and to reflect the outcome of the MD/MN discussions. I've started some subsections below to discuss specifics for some of the tasks above. Imzadi 1979 → 06:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Task force creation

Someone should develop a form of a template that can be substituted into the new pages to create a structure for the landing space content. We have {{Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/TF header}} and {{Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/nav|sub=open}} to place on top of each page. What standard sections should we have and such? This template could be used as a format to guide reorganization of the existing pages. Imzadi 1979 → 06:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Sections each task force should have are Scope, Naming Conventions, Resources, State-specific Standards and Structure, Participants, Assessment and/or Recognized Content, Goals/Tasks/How You Can Help (specific to the particular state, such as article requests and systematic things that should happen), Templates, and Categories.  VC  18:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The newly-created Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Delaware task force could possibly serve as a model for the new task forces. Dough4872 01:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

There are a few things I want to see, beyond a standardized list of sections, in every task force page:

• A completion list page that contains all articles in a task force as well as all of the possible redirect article pages.
• Based on the route list, a Recent Changes page.
• A state assessment table.
• A list of recognized content, for those states with recognized content. My preference is to place the recognized content next to the assessment table in an Assessment section, but other ways of organizing it could work.
• USRD Announcements template at the bottom of each task force front page.

Is there any other content that should be included for every task force?  VC  18:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The {{U.S. Roads WikiProject}} banner "state" field options should be revised to reflect that all states except New York are now task forces. The "type" field options should be checked as well.  VC  17:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It appears all remaining U.S. states have been created. -- LJ ↗ 22:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Territorial TFs

The idea for a single territorial TF dates back to early 2008. How do we want to organize this? Imzadi 1979 → 06:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I say that DC and possibly PR have their own task forces while the rest can be lumped together. Dough4872 01:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

How different are guidelines, standards, and conditions among the territories? If they are significantly different, each territory should have its own page. However, I would make this lowest priority on the list of consolidation tasks.  VC  15:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts are that all of the territories save PR should be one TF. The Northern Marianas (MP) doesn't even have a numbered highway system nor any articles at present, and I'm not convinced that DC needs its own TF at this time. PR has several levels of highway classification, and it has a small group of editors. Imzadi 1979 → 15:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I still think is it awkward to lump DC, which is on the continential US, with the other territories, which are islands in the ocean far from the mainland. Dough4872 20:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that we just leave it out of the task forces entirely; there's only 1 "state highway" article and a handful of S-D articles. --Rschen7754 06:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

But then where will we put DC-specific information? Dough4872 01:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I am in favor of DC having its own task force, but to reinforce what I said above, this is very low priority.  VC  18:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: the three territorial TFs have been created: WP:USRD/TERR for AS, GU, MP and VI; WP:USRD/DC and WP:USRD/PR for DC and PR. Imzadi 1979 → 00:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Userbox transition

We have Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Userbox list. I already standardized the names and colors. Do we want to use the wording used in the DE userbox for all states, or go with the the style of AL? I'm kinda partial to the DE-style wording because it doesn't emphasize the TFs as separate from USRD; we're coming together in one project now in a more unified way, so it might be time to reflect that better in our userboxes. Imzadi 1979 → 06:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I like the IA wording myself; it mentions USRD first while also mentioning the task force. That said I don't think we need to create userboxen for TFs that don't have one yet; I know that if OK ends up with one it probably will never be used, since I barely touch my user page and don't use userboxen anyway. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem I see with the DE wording is that it applies to anyone who might edit the articles, and not necessarily members of the task force. It is indeed more inclusive, but the AL wording would encourage people to join the task force before placing the userbox on their page. The Iowa wording is the clearest, but it's a little long. Of course you could give users the choice of the three wordings on the Task Force page. — ★Parsa ☞ talk 04:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Something to remember is that we're going to be consolidating the participants' lists together into one project list. The TFs won't have separate lists at some point in the future. Imzadi 1979 → 05:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstars

I'm going to make a single listing of our barnstars. We'll need to decide what to do with them. Imzadi 1979 → 06:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The list is now at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Barnstar list. We only have three state highway project-specific ones, one CASH shared with WP:CA and the USRD/IH ones. Imzadi 1979 → 07:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

With the consolidation going on, I think one USRD barnstar makes sense. However, I think we should change the I-5 shield to our project logo to better reflect it representing all roads, not just Interstates. Dough4872 02:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Dough4872 on that point. If there will indeed be only one barnstar, then I would say that an SVG file could be created in which the USRD logo is superimposed on a good quality star. However, I think of barnstars as pretty casual pats on the back in most cases. I don't really mind that other versions exist. Perhaps if the USRD barnstar was awarded by group consensus via recommendation, then the others would serve as more casual personal awards, but is this actually done anywhere on WP? — ★Parsa ☞ talk 02:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

On IRC, I suggested having the ability to superimpose a state blank onto the barnstar, for when you want to award something state-specific. –Fredddie™ 02:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that's a cool idea. We could make it so different shields or markers could be placed on the base star in a similar way to the placing of numbers in the shields on userboxes. BTW, I worked up an idea for a USRD logo SVG barnstar. You can see it here: Barnstar_USRD.svg. — ★Parsa ☞ talk 03:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I like the logo. Dough4872 03:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the base star get a green tint, like MUTCD green since we seem to be standardizing to MTUCD colors. Imzadi 1979 → 03:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

We have {{Superimpose}}. We would just need a regular barnstar and then superimpose the USRD logo over it by default, leaving the option to replace the project logo with whatever shield we choose. –Fredddie™ 03:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Do we have a final decision on what to do with the barnstars? Dough4872 15:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No. –Fredddie™ 23:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

At this point, would you say it is best to go with one project barnstar or to do barnstars for each state? Dough4872 00:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

At this point, I don't see a need to create additional stars. Imzadi 1979 → 00:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

But should we keep the stars we have now or consolidate them all into one USRD barnstar? Dough4872 02:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, we can't do too much consolidation; the graphics can't just be deleted because they're used for existing uses. Hopefully all of the existing awards have been substituted so the templates could be merged/deleted/etc. I see this as really low-priority, lower than continuing to move the remaining resources out to the state landing pages. Imzadi 1979 → 02:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Example

The renewed interest in barnstar consolidation led me to create {{The WikiProject U.S. Roads Barnstar/Sandbox}} tonight. Currently, you can change the shield to whatever and the background to any MUTCD color, even the oddball colors (thanks Parsa!). –Fredddie™ 02:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

{{The WikiProject U.S. Roads Barnstar/Sandbox|color=yellow|shield=I-80 (IA).svg}} gets you:

The WikiProject U.S. Roads Contributor Barnstar

YOUR TEXT HERE

I like that. Dough4872 03:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Do we want to go with this as our new project barnstar? Dough4872 02:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I like the concept and versatility. I think it is quite large with a lot of dead space on top. How might it look laid out as a more typical barnstar award with the star on the left and vertical alignment of the text centered on the star? -- LJ ↗ 08:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I was going for the style of a big green sign, so there's naturally going to be some dead space. Nevertheless, I created a second sandbox. –Fredddie™ 03:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Contributor Barnstar YOUR TEXT HERE

I think this barnstar looks more like the standard barnstar still with the USRD twist. I like it as it has less empty space. Dough4872 03:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm starting to like it more than the first, myself. Anyway, I made the images link to WP:USRD since it was doing something weird where the only link over the image was for the barnstar image itself and hovering over the shield meant no link. –Fredddie™ 03:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly as I envisioned with my previous request. Still has the semblance of a road sign (more like a street name sign now with city seal on it), so the effect isn't lost. I like this. Nice work, Freddie. -- LJ ↗ 09:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I like the second, but I'm not particularly picky. --Rschen7754 13:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Before we deploy the new barnstar, we should proabably subst the ones that are out there, or is that unnecessary? –Fredddie™ 23:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd say we grandfather the old barnstars in and use the new ones for future use. Dough4872 00:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Are the barnstars for individual states going to be subst'd too? Dough4872 23:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but only if you help. –Fredddie™ 03:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Resources

Technically, we have a sixth department, the "Resources Department", but it will be superceded by moving the state-specific resources to the state TFs now that each state will have one. What do we do with items that aren't specific to one state? Do we make a template page for them that's transcluded to each state page? Imzadi 1979 → 06:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

If the resources are national, we can keep them there and rename the page Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/National resources. Dough4872 01:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a comment... that since the Auto trails resources are primarily pre-1927, the resources for these should be on the AT page, or a sub-page bibliography and maps list. I plan on putting some general resources on the main AT page. — ★Parsa ☞ talk 20:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

All state-specific resource links and internal information pages have been moved to the appropriate state task force pages. -- LJ ↗ 22:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Now's the time to move any additional resources to the TFs, even if that means we're duplicating regional or national items to multiple TFs. Each TF should have a link to any resource applicable to it so that an editor can find what s/he needs. Imzadi 1979 → 00:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Participants list and roll call

I've already started on User:Imzadi1979/SandboxUSRD, and it needs some revisions yet. (My focus tonight was on other things related to the consolidation.) I'm hoping to get the subtemplates coded so that a user's status is either an X on green or an O on yellow for active and semi-active, respectively. I also need to split the South into "Atlantic Coast" and "South Central" subgroupings. The plan is to get this done soon, and then we can include in the newsletter a roll call. (All listed project members would get this issue of the newsletter, regardless of subscription status). Each editor would have to add himself/herself to the unified list, and the remaining lists would be archived. Imzadi 1979 → 06:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Should we remain consistent with what WP:GA uses? --Rschen7754 07:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, going with AS/GU/MP as "Pacific" and PR/VI as "Southern", the charts I came up with already follow the GA listing; both are based on Census Bureau groupings. The thing is that there are so many jurisdictions that the table got so wide for the South. We discussed on IRC trying to split it in half, which is the "Atlantic Coast" (MD, DC, WV, VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, PR, VI_ and "South Central" (TX, OK, AR, LA, MS, AL, TN, KY) groupings. Imzadi 1979 → 07:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

We could always put the territories into their own group, with DC remaining with the south. Personally, we should reclassify some of the states in the south to other regions, such as moving DE, DC, and MD to the northeast and possibly TX and OK to the midwest. Dough4872 01:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not like the proposed grouping of states into regions for the purpose of filling out charts. The use of regions (not the definitions of the regions) is arbitrary and unequal in size, and there is a lot of whitespace between the small X's that indicate a person is a participant in a particular state. I would prefer we have a more traditional participant list, with the following headings:

• User: Self-explanatory. Admins would be in bold.
• Affiliations: List of task forces and/or departments within which the user works. I might also include other WikiProjects the user is affiliated with because that could be helpful for liaison purposes.
• Notes: User's interests, geographic specialties, etc.

I would like to have participant lists in each task force and have the task force list data be able to be substed to the national participant list, but I am not sure if we have the technology to do that. Even if we need to do it manually, I think it would be more useful and easier to read than the current proposal.  VC  15:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I oppose leaving participants lists on the TF pages because that defeats the idea that "we are one USRD". The idea behind regional tables with each TF listed as a separate column is to allow sorting/searching. We can't sort by a state that's second or third in a text list in one column; each sort term has to be a separate column. The status quo now is a subpage at each TF that's substituted onto the TF page and the national list, meaning that if a new editor wanted to sign up for three states, s/he has to edit three pages, not one. This proposal would allow that editor to edit one page. Imzadi 1979 → 16:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we're adding too many layers of difficulty with subtemplates and regions. All we need is a simple table where users can identify who they are and which states they edit. If someone wants to make a fancy sortable table after the sign-up period, great. –Fredddie™ 23:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Fredddie. Let's start simple so we are in a position to do a roll call without too much hand-wringing.  VC  18:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

For now, let's just make a table like the existing ones, but after the roll call period is over, we can transition it to templates. Imzadi 1979 → 03:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The newsletter went out yesterday, and people are signing up on the new list. One thing that I've seen is that people are signing up for the newsletter subscription and not adding their names to the participants list. I'll sent out a note in a month as a reminder that the participants list requires positive action going forward; in other words, we purged the membership roll. Imzadi 1979 → 00:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Memorials

Do we want to list certain editors as "editors emeritus" or a similar status if they've made significant contributions to the project, but no longer edit for whatever reason? Imzadi 1979 → 06:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, but IMHO we might need some standard or nomination process so people don't leave editors up at will. User:Vaoverland is one editor who could remain in this status though. --Rschen7754 07:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking of Vaoverland and Stratosphere as two that I'd grant emeritus status to. I know there are others, but until we do the roll call, we won't know exactly who'd be potential candidates. Imzadi 1979 → 07:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I said this on IRC, but it bears repeating. Emeritus means someone has retired. Vaoverland didn't retire; he died. I think a memorial section is the most respectful thing to do for him and for those who inevitably will follow. However, I do not think it's a good idea to "honor" those who left Wikipedia by choice regardless of their accomplishments. Instead, we should shower those we respect with wikilove and barnstars now and then hope they don't blank their user pages when they choose to leave. –Fredddie™ 00:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I say we stick to the memorial idea for editors like Vaoverland who passed away. I don't think we should go with the "emeritus" idea as some of these "retired" editors could always come back in the future. Dough4872 01:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. I was in a phase of "semi-retired" for a good year or so there, but I found more energy to start editing again. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No banner Auxiliary Plates?

Resolved

 – Correct image found. ---DanTD (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Are there still no banner auxillary plates around? Because I could use some for the time being. ----DanTD (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean? Dough4872 17:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The ones for blank spaces where alternate plates would be, so that you can put them on the left side of those that actually need to use them. ----DanTD (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

There are, most are named with a scheme similar to the following File:Alt plate.svgFile:Alternate plate.svg etc. Dave (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

There is an entire category of auxiliary plates on Commons. That being said, I really don't know what is being requested. –Fredddie™ 22:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm talking about a blank space over a shield for when you want to put it next to another shield that has a banner. This used to exist on Wikipedia, but I can't find it anymore. ----DanTD (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You asked for a banner plate and then for a blank space, thus my confusion. File:No image wide.svg is what you want. Example → –Fredddie™ 23:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

And {{jct}} will insert that blank graphic as needed, watch:

BL I-196 / Bus. US 31

It should be rare that anyone needs to manually encode the graphics outside of some of the longer lists, so I guess I'm curious what the issue is here? Imzadi 1979 → 00:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thankfully, I just found it on Interstate 95 in North Carolina, although Freddie already mentioned what I was looking for. I thought this was going to be archived before it was resolved. Anyway, the article I needed it for was Florida State Road 55, which needed it for the transition to US 221. Evidently though, there must be some reason to doubt that {{jct}} will add blank spaces, because whoever fixed the interchange list for I-95 in NC must've still felt the need to add the "No Image" plaque. ----DanTD (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not exactly a good example, though. It appears the "no image" plate is being used to aid in the manual insertion of "To" banners...longstanding USRD practice has been to not show the "to" banner in junction lists. There's other problems with that exit list as well... Suffice to say that there really isn't a reason for us to use that in 99% of all cases. -- LJ ↗ 10:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm working on correcting the deficiencies in the I-95 in NC exit list by converting it over to the templates. In the process, I'm removing the To plates. I would suggest that the SR 55 article also get a full table at a future date. Imzadi 1979 → 10:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I can agree with that. A Gilchrist CR 55A shield for the related route wouldn't be such a bad idea either. ----DanTD (talk) 13:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Missing CR marker graphics are the least of our worries as a project when we have articles that don't meet standards. When it comes to marker graphics in articles, if the infobox has the main one for the subject of the article, any missing are luxuries. When it comes to article priorities, lists of county roads are dead last on the list behind extant and former Interstate/US/state highways, former auto trails and even business routes in the state highway systems. I won't say you can't work on them, but we have so many other articles that should get more attention first. Imzadi 1979 → 13:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

County routes in Hudson County, New Jersey

I've never liked the idea of combining county road articles in Hudson County, New Jersey with other articles, especailly railroad station articles. In fact I'd like to see List of county routes in Hudson County, New Jersey re-formatted Rockland County, New York-style. ----DanTD (talk) 13:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Then fix it. As far as county road list articles go, they are dead last on the usual priority list for most people in the project. We have many more articles that need more attention first. Maybe in 2018 we'll start a project drive to clean up the CR lists, but until then, this year's priorities are supposed to be the Interstate and US Highway articles as well as junction/exit lists on the upper class articles. Imzadi 1979 → 13:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Fine, I'll make a sandbox for the new version, and replace it when I'm done. ----DanTD (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I do not see a problem with the current list as it lists the basic details of the route. We do not need in-depth coverage of the county routes as they are generally non-notable. I would also prune down on the CR infoboxes in the non-road articles. Dough4872 21:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

SPI case opened

FYI, For those following the saga on U.S. Route 66 and U.S. Route 66 in California, I have requested a sock-puppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Route 6654152. Dave (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good, something has to be done. Thanks for taking care of the paperwork. --Rschen7754 22:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Future articles

Will county road pages be created sometime in the future? For example the 600 series routes in NJ, as well as routes in NY, FL, etc. I know the ones in NY are just redirects to the same page, which is useless (see for example List of county routes in Dutchess County, New York). I know at one time they used to be separate articles. Florida, New York and New Jersey are the only states that have county route related pages/categories? Correct me if I am wrong. PA and Delaware use "quadrant routes". Tinton5 (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

In the past we had separate articles; however, since then, we've decided that county routes are generally not notable enough for their own articles. See WP:USRD/NT. --Rschen7754 23:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

County routes are generally not notable enough for their own articles, unless they are part of a statewide system such as the 500-series routes in New Jersey or a freeway or other major significant road. The mention of most county routes should be limited to lists, and they can be in RCS style. As for PA, quadrant route lists have started showing up for PA; the mention of quadrant routes should again be limited to lists. As for DE, the "quadrant routes" are actually "maintenance road numbers" assigned by DelDOT to every state owned road, including I, US, and DE routes. The numbers are repeated among the three counties and in the case of I, US, and DE routes, the numbers often do not coincide with the route number (for example, Interstate 95 in Delaware is known as Road 56 and Road 59). There are many maintenance road numbers in Sussex County that match their route number, for example Delaware Route 24 is known as Road 24 throughout its length. The maintenance road numbers appear to be based on the original route numbers assigned in the 1930s, as such much of Delaware Route 1 in Sussex County is known as Road 14, reflecting the former Delaware Route 14 designation, and much of U.S. Route 9 in Delaware is known as Road 28 and Road 18 reflecting the former Delaware Route 28 and Delaware Route 18 designations along the alignment. As for mentioning these maintenance road numbers used in DE, I am willing to create lists for the three counties. I am just wondering if it is necessary to make these lists. Dough4872 23:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't have an exact number, but during last year's stub drive, at least 50 CR articles were PRODded and deleted or merged into lists, mostly in Florida. I think the number of CR articles we have now is still too high, so I really don't think we need to be creating more of them. –Fredddie™ 23:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, all county road articles should be kept. If not, then make a better redirect system for them. Allen (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree with Allen on this. Maybe it's because I live in a state where everything that isn't a state highway or a city street is a county road, and there are over 1,000 county roads in my home county. There are so many county roads in Michigan that we have primary and secondary systems in every county. For the cases where specific counties have lists in other states, the current system of redirecting the specific titles to the specific sections of the list is sufficient. Project priority should be with the state highway system articles over county roads at this time. Excluding the county-designated highways, which are part of a statewide system whose numbers are assigned by MDOT, Michigan only has two stand-alone county road articles, both of which exceed the notability guidelines. (Brockway Mountain Drive was a Depression-era public works project that has been mentioned in The New York Times, the Chicago Tribune and other papers since the 1950s. County Road 492 (Marquette County, Michigan) is the site of the first rural highway centerline in the United States; the centerline was painted in 1917 at a time when the road was a state highway.) County road articles need to be part of a state-wide system or assert specific claims to notability, or the articles should not be created. Imzadi 1979 → 02:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay. First, I said that, "in my opinion" all county road articles should be kept. If you don't like them, put it up for a vote, in a similar fashion as the AfD and such.

Second, I said that, if the county roads are not to be kept, a better (i.e. more efficient) redirect system for them should be implemented. Make it more user-intuitive as to just where the articles need to be redirected.

I'm originally from South Carolina, where (as far as I have ever heard) there are no county roads. However, I was in Florida the last 8 years. That is a state full of them. The county roads in Florida were highly important connector routes at one time.

If more information on SC or FL (or GA, where I am now) roads can be provided, especially on what I mentioned above, that would be appreciated. Allen (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm 99.999% sure there are county roads in South Carolina, as there are in every state. Most likely there is just a list or map, with route numbers, that is kept internal to the county courthouse that details the roads within each county that the county is responsible for maintaining. If a rural road is paved, graveled, or even dirt but in good shape, _somebody_ pays to mantain it. If the state didn't do it, it's most likely the county. Dave (talk) 03:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

South Carolina has a large secondary road system that's owned by the state. Similar to Missouri's, but not signed nearly as well. From what I've seen, the routes are only signed on street sign blades at intersections. –Fredddie™ 03:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC) (Here is an example of a secondary state highway in South Carolina. –Fredddie™ 21:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I don't think we can have a unified standard on how to handle county routes. Let's take the extremes. On one extreme: an almost entirely urban county with a population in the millions, not super big area wise, and with a highway department with an actual budget (and maybe even a website) with maintenance logs that are available, and signed county routes. In this extreme the ability to have an article or list page for county routes is dooable, although in such a county there are probably thousands of county routes, most only a few blocks long. Then lets take the other extreme: a rural county, enormous in size, bigger than some states, but with a population that numbers only a few hundred, a county road department that consists of 2 guys and a grader, no budget or standards for signs, and virtually no documentation on their highways. In this extreme, the information just isn't there, regardless of the notability of a given road. As such, I think our only viable option is to have a standard of "each article must establish its own notability" and have this on a case-by-case basis. Dave (talk) 03:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Now, I didn't say there weren't any county roads in South Carolina. I said that, during my 24+ years in SC, I never saw any roads that were signed as a county road. I only saw "the big three": Interstate highways, U.S. highways, and state routes. If you could provide an example of a road that was/is a county road (and its signage), that would be great! Allen (talk) 12:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

In a nutshell, they won't be and in 99% of cases, they shouldn't be. The redirects are hardly "useless": they provide links from mentions of county route numbers in, say, state route articles to the appropriate row of the county route list using anchors. A decent list will give the most basic information about the route - endpoints, length, location, etc. - and nothing more since these largely non-notable roads don't warrant any more coverage than that.

The RCS was developed in order to eliminate standalone articles in counties where a user or users were insistent on retaining articles for non-notable roads. As a general rule of thumb, new counties should not be converted over to that format because, really, what does it accomplish besides giving unneeded importance to roads that aren't important? – TMF 13:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess my words are being taken out of context (or something like that). I never said that the redirects are "useless" (even though I prefer every road to have its own article, "notable" or not). I just think that a more obvious (especially for newer users) source for each state's county roads should be developed. Also, the redirects should all be in the format: "County Road #### (####### County, <STATE>)", no matter the state. Thank you for listening to my "rant"! Allen (talk) 13:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

My comment was directed at the original poster. – TMF 13:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Some, not all, redirects are indeed useless, especially when you have a link on a page and you click it and its target page is the same page you are on. My example was shown in my first post, but I see that User:Twisted has begun fixes to it. Thanks by the way. Having said that, if these pages will not be created, then I suggest to eliminate any blue "mirror" redirects (click this for instance) and red links so the article can be more readable and less clickable. What purpose does a red link have if we have a plan on not creating these roads? {{NJCR}} ^^ Red links on each table. Tinton5 (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

"Also, the redirects should all be in the format: "County Road #### (####### County, <STATE>)", no matter the state". This makes absolutely no sense for California; please do your research before making statements like that. --Rschen7754 20:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

What is wrong with this format for California? Aren't the county roads in California listed in the same format? Allen (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Specifically, the county routes in California span multiple counties. --Rschen7754 21:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

California's county routes are assigned via a statewide letter-number system, with many routes crossing county lines--see County routes in California. The links/redirects are styled in the form "County Route X## (California)", as adding the county name is unnecessarily redundant because none of the designations repeat. The situation is similar to New Jersey's 500-series county routes. -- LJ ↗ 21:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention, it's completely insane to use that nomenclature for Louisiana. –Fredddie™ 21:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Florida has county roads that span multiple counties. There are links (redirects or not) for the following example (not using links, as this is a make-believe example): County Road 1 (Lake County, Florida); and County Road 1 (Orange County, Florida). Couldn't Louisiana use Parish Road XXX (XXXX Parish, Louisiana), or something like that? By the way, why is this section called "Future articles"? Shouldn't it be called "County roads"? Allen (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as CA, it's redundant, and an unlikely search term (who exactly is going to type out that mouthful?) --Rschen7754 21:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, there are people like me that will do that. But, if you think about it, there's Wikipedia's "autocomplete" feature, so users don't have to type the full name. Allen (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

@Tinton: I realized that after I posted. I see your point now, and I agree - redirects that point back to the article in question should always be removed. Most county route lists don't have these redirects, or at least they shouldn't.

As for the other tangent in this thread, I'm not seeing what the big deal is. Most if not all redirects are in the form "County Road # (Foo County, State)" or "County Route # (Foo County, State)". We shouldn't force all states to use either "Road" or "Route", just as we don't force all states to use a specific term for their state highways. Whatever term is used should be decided at the state level, and there's nothing stopping anyone from making redirects that use the "alternate" name if they're that inclined to do so. That said, I can find better things to do for those who are so inclined. – TMF 22:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

From what I know, CA, NJ, and NY use "County Route", LA uses "Parish Road", and most other states use "County Road". I think something needs to be added to WP:USSH mentioning the naming conventions of county routes. Dough4872 23:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Tinton's question about red links, for most states {{Jct}} has been edited for CRs so it won't produce a link at all if it doesn't exist. So, on those lists linked above, feel free to remove the red links. –Fredddie™ 00:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I, too, agree that a notice should be added with the naming conventions of county roads. Allen (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, a different page should be started since that is on state highways, not county roads. County roads, on the other hand, are totally a local item. So either we rename the page to expand its scope, at which point we probably have to discuss adding city streets as a logical consequence, or we craft a single page on NCs for county roads and their equivalents (which would also include Michigan's CDH naming convention). Imzadi 1979 → 02:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe create Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/County highway naming convention. Dough4872 02:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Dough, I agree that that page should be started. Allen (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion has been started over at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (U.S. county roads) to create the CR counterpart to WP:USSH, which I'd propose gets a shortcut of WP:USCR. Imzadi 1979 → 02:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Now, so it's crystal clear, not all roads are worthy of getting articles. Not all counties of the US are even worthy of getting CR lists. CR articles are still subject to notability requirements, because all articles are subject to notability requirements. Do not take the proposed naming convention as license to create articles. I will continue to WP:PROD to WP:AFD articles that aren't worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. Having a number assigned as a county road/route designation does not guarantee notability. Primary state highways are judged differently because the state DOT went to the trouble to assume jurisdiction, assign a number and assume maintenance responsibility for the roadway. In most states, the mileage of the state highway system is dwarfed by the mileage of the county road systems and by the mileage of the city streets, which only furthers the distinction that there is a special status to state maintenance (offer void in Kentucky and Virginia). Imzadi 1979 → 03:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Footnotes

Maryland Route 139 move to Charles Street (Baltimore)

There is a discussion going on at Talk:Maryland Route 139 about moving Maryland Route 139 to Charles Street (Baltimore). I am crossposting to WP:MD and WP:USST since this could be an interdisciplinary article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viridiscalculus (talk • contribs) 01:32, 7 February 2012‎

Interstate 570 (Missouri)?

Can you guys take a look at Interstate 570 (Missouri)? Is it a true designation? Or, is the author pulling our legs? Allen (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Did you see the full answer on my talk page? I googled the title to see if there was any legitimacy, and came up with a link, which unlike a lot of roadgeek websites, had a footnote citation supporting the proposal. I then recommended further searching on news archives to see if any more information came up as well. So not only do you run to my talk page with every question (when others can help out too), but then you wasted my time when I gave you a full answer in addition to a suggestion that you ask some questions on here. Thanks. Imzadi 1979 → 02:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Now, hold on just a minute. I know I'm not a great editor (understatement of the year!), but you don't have to bite my head off.

I did look at news.google.com, but I found nothing. I didn't think to look on the normal Google search. That is my fault.

How am I supposed to learn how to edit more effectively, if I don't ask my questions? You are the smartest person I know, when it comes to road articles, so, naturally, you are my first choice to ask. :( Allen (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, the first sentence of the only source says it all, "The Jefferson City Area Chamber of Commerce has proposed..." I take that to mean this Interstate highway is somebody's wish list, more than an actual proposal (as Chamber of Commerce's are basically a lobbying group, but have no direct authority). IMO, unless other sources can be found that suggest this has gone beyond a local proposal, AFD, AFD, AFD!!! Dave (talk) 03:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

In short, go to http://news.google.com/ enter a search term, like "Interstate 570 in Missouri" and then search. It will default to recent news, so the last step is to select the "Archives" link on the left, or select a specific time frame to get older articles. Thanks to Google News, I've found old newspaper articles from the 1950s and earlier online. Sometimes the results are to articles behind a paywall, but it's a good starting point. Imzadi 1979 → 03:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Allen, Imzadi1979 is not the only editor on here that can help you. There are several other editors who can answer your questions so you can improve as an editor and increase your knowledge base. Keep in mind Imzadi1979 pays attention to this talk page, so you can ask general questions here and he will see them. By asking your questions here, you will get a greater diversity of opinions, increasing the chances that you will get the answer you are looking for and that you will learn something new. As for biting your head off, think about how you would feel if Person A privately asked a question of you and you responded. Person A then asks the same question or something very similar to Group B, which you are a part of. You would feel unappreciated or ignored, right?  VC  16:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Viridiscalculus, thank you for your help. I know DanTD, TwinsMetsFan, and others are knowledgeable on these types of articles. It's just that the main person I see editing road articles is Imzadi1979.

As for your last part, I don't think I'd be too angry with the person. I would just know that they are trying to get a second opinion, or, at the very least, are verifying my information. Allen (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's a link to some info on it. It basically backs up that it'd be a loop, and it's only a proposal by the Jefferson City Chamber of Commerce. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

That link is a SPS and is therefore not reliable. However, it does cite other reliable sources. If these sources can be found, use them in the article to back it up. Dough4872 00:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Either way, since it's a proposal by one agency with little possibility of anything happening, I personally don't think the article should exist. It's an Interstate 11 scenario, IMO. 11 for a while was just a proposal and a roadgeek's fantasy, but now more groups are pushing for it. 570 is just one group. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a brief mention in Interstate 70 in Missouri would suffice? Dough4872 00:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

A concern

Just a concern. As of March 16, 2012, I am the only official member of the Alaska Routes Task Force. I am not sure what this means for the future of this project.

Again, just a concern.
Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 04:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

We don't exactly have memberships in the specific task forces anymore, per se, and not all project members are listed on the participants' list yet. We recently redid the list, and not all participants have placed their named on it. (We did it as a roll call requiring positive action; members have to add themselves to the new list because nothing was carried over from the old list.) In short, there are other members out there interested in Alaska's roads, but they may not have added their names to the new list yet. As well, we don't exactly track memberships separately by task forces anymore. Oh, and Alaska didn't have a task force until about a month ago anyway. Imzadi 1979 → 04:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

What it means is mostly that you might be only one who really cares about Alaska roads enough to bother signing up for the taskforce. As the only person in the Oklahoma task force, I can say there are some benefits and drawbacks to this—the benefit being that chances are you will not have to run any proposed changes by anyone, and you won't have to keep tabs on what other editors are doing as much (except for the occasional bot or anon editor). The bad thing is if you want improvements to the articles, you'll have to do them all yourself—no collaboration or work-sharing since there's nobody else interested in helping. How much of a concern it should be is really up to you and your individual editing style. Unfortunately USRD's editor corps is so thin this is actually the situation in more states than not—I know Oklahoma, Iowa, and Delaware, among others, are in the same boat. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

That's better than the number of editors we had in Alaska from 2006-2011. --Rschen7754 00:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

What's more, Awardgive, you haven't added AK to your list of interests on WP:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Participants. As I'll reiterate though, we don't have TF-level membership lists anymore, just one for the whole project, so there isn't a "Alaska Routes Task Force" membership list. Imzadi 1979 → 01:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Newspaper database

One idea that was briefly discussed on the IRC channel tonight was starting a page with a listing of editors who have access to newspaper archives for research, similar to our current map database. Any thoughts? --Rschen7754 06:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this would be helpful to have. Dough4872 15:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I support this idea. I think we can generalize this to all resources that are not readily accessible online, but focusing on newspapers is a great start due to the universal acclaim of the medium, the surprising trouble encountered when trying to access archives, and the importance of newspapers as sources in upper-class articles.  VC  16:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh absolutely! There are times I really wish I knew someone had account access to JSTOR, Newsbank, etc. Dave (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Resources/Periodical database. --Rschen7754 07:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

2012 SHS update and CR markers

For those that haven't seen, the design of the standard county route marker has been changed slightly in the latest revision of the MUTCD's companion SHS book. (OK, it's a supplement to the 2004 SHS book, but it has the same effect: [4]) New templates are already up at File:MUTCD M1-6 template 00.svg (standard width) and File:MUTCD M1-6 template 000.svg (wide).

Obviously, this means all of the existing markers will have to be updated, but while we're doing so, here's a couple of thoughts to chew on:

1. A new naming convention for the standard markers. The current naming convention leaves the door wide open for redundancy. For example, there are 14 Warren counties in the US. If every single one used the default marker for their county roads and every one had a CR 1, we'd have 14 identical copies of the same image - the only difference would be the state abbreviation in the file name. Thus, I propose that we remove the state abbreviation from the names of any and all markers that aren't truly unique design-wise to a specific county in a specific state. What this means is that File:Washington County Route 1 NY.svg would become File:Washington County Route 1.svg, but File:Erie County Route 1 NY.svg would retain its current name since it uses a non-standard sign.
2. Generic pentagons for uses calling for a 20px high marker. Many of the uploaded markers are used by only one article, and in most cases they're rendered at 20px in height. The top and bottom rows of the sign are illegible at that size, as we've all seen, which means there's really no drawback to using signs like File:County 527.svg for applications using 20px high markers, like lists or {{jct}}. It would certainly cut down on the number of unique shields that we need. – TMF 07:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Just some thoughts in reply:

1. Agreed on the updated naming convention, with a caveat. I would use "county road" in the scheme by default since that seems to be the more common term in use nationally. What the file is named isn't relevant so long as the content is correct when called up by an article. Of course these would only be in use by {{infobox road}} and {{infobox road small}} which use 70px and 40px high graphics meaning that's the only case where they're fully legible.
2. For the generic pentagons, we already have File:PR secondary 1.svg which at 20px is . I think that if we created a generic File:CR X.svg template without the place for the county name, we could file a bot request with the HighwayRouteMarkerBot for number combinations 1-999 and set {{jct}} to use those markers generically for CRs. If the distinction isn't important, that template could omit the word COUNTY at the bottom work as a parallel set of graphics for PR. We can evaluate the need for four-digit CR pentagons at a later date on a case-by-case basis.
3. Might we want to do generic square markers along the lines of File:Michigan 492 Marquette County.svg, which is , for states that use them while we are creating unified naming conventions? We wouldn't need to create the files as the first priority of course, just plan for them in the naming convention. Imzadi 1979 → 12:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that the MUTCD/SHS refers to the pentagons as "county route" markers, so we might be better off using that as a naming convention. Now, as for the generic markers, I'm indifferent as to whether the last row (reading "county" or "parish") is included on them. However, the nearly-identical PR shield uses larger numbers than a standard county route marker, and I'm of the opinion that numbers on the generic markers should be no larger than they would be if we were using the "real" markers.

If there's enough of a demand for the square markers (I don't know, it's not something I've looked into), then that's probably a good idea. Appending "square" onto whatever we decide upon for the standard naming convention is probably enough of a distinction between the two. – TMF 15:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea for the new county route shields to not include the state name so they can possibly be used for multiple states. I think it would also be a good idea to create a 1-999 set that just have "County" at the bottom as well as a 1-999 set with no words and just the number (for PR). We can also look into a 1-999 set for white squares with "County" at the bottom. Dough4872 17:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

As I was talking to TMF last night about these, the practice would be similar to how we handle 1948 US Highway signs. {{Jct}} would get a generic image that all states would use; I'm proposing "File:CR X jct.svg". This would eliminate any Road vs Route battles royale right from the start. Then for Infobox road (small), we would have a specific image. Pentagons could be called "File:<county> County X.svg", again removing road or route for the same reason. Lousiana's parish roads could be uploaded as "File:<parish> Parish X.svg" with no issue. Any oddball specific markers, like squares, could be "File:<county> County X <state abbr>.svg"

I went ahead and uploaded an example of a generic CR marker with no words (left) and compare it to the generic version with COUNTY at the bottom (right). I may move the numbers up on the left image, I uploaded it under a pd-self license, that way I'm not compelled to follow the specs to the letter like I otherwise would be. That is to say, the rest of the markers which would follow the MUTCD should be PD-MUTCD. Also, I do not think we should reuse the PR secondary markers for this as the number sizes change the higher you go, per the specs. –Fredddie™ 18:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This has my support. I don't mind if the numbers are moved up a bit (aka vertically centered) on the generics; my main concern was mostly regarding the size of the numbers.

The other thing is that some counties use narrow numbers for their three-digit markers while others use a wide version of the pentagon. Using the circle/ellipse signs as precedent, we should have a set of generics called "CR X jct wide.svg" for that purpose. – TMF 18:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This works for me. –Fredddie™ 18:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

If we do use a generic county route marker for junction lists, I would prefer if it has "County" at the bottom, much like the shields currently used for the 500-series routes in NJ. The county name would be illegible in the junction list and not really matter to the reader in this scenario, having this would cut down on the amount of county route shields that need to be created. However, shields with the county names would still be needed for infoboxes and larger uses. Dough4872 01:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

One advantage to not having county at the bottom: the generics could also be used for Louisiana, which has parishes instead of counties. Otherwise, we'd need a generic set for Louisiana with "parish" on the bottom, and since one of the implied goals of all of this is to reduce the number of shields we need, that seems counterintuitive. – TMF 02:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Markers are in the process of being uploaded at Category:Diagrams of generic county route markers. – TMF 23:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Will they be installing these updated shields on roadways and replacing the older ones sometime soon? Tinton5 (talk) 03:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see any guidelines or replace-by dates, but then again I really didn't look. I would imagine, though, that the new signs would be phased in when the current signs reach the end of their lives. –Fredddie™ 05:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

It would behoove us all if we compiled a list of non-standard route numbers needed to create the generic markers. Non-standard meaning anything not numbered 1-999, such as Z36 or 10N. For brevity's sake, I'd recommend putting them in a subpage in your userspace and then linking to the subpage here. –Fredddie™ 03:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Naming convention

Revisiting Fredddie's proposed new naming convention for markers drawn to standards, whether MUTCD or the county's own:

• Markers drawn completely to MUTCD standards: "File:<county> County X.svg" ("File:<parish> Parish X.svg" for Louisiana parishes)
• Markers drawn as MUTCD wide markers: "File:<county> County X wide.svg"
• Other markers: "File:<county> County X <state abbr>.svg"

If there's no objection to this, I'll begin implementing this over the next few days. – TMF 02:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that will work. Dough4872 02:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Implementation of this naming convention has begun. As such, a new category (Category:Diagrams of county route markers with county name) has been created to hold markers that fall under the first bullet point above. Markers under the second will be stored in Category:Diagrams of wide county route markers with county name (not created yet as of this writing), while markers under the third will be stored in the existing by-state categories. – TMF 22:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

RFD

See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 March 29#Interstate 370 (Missouri). Dough4872 16:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

If the redirect has been tagged for USRD, it will show up in the Article Alerts. Imzadi 1979 → 16:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Navigational templates

What navigational template can be placed at the bottom of articles on individual Georgia state routes? Allen (talk) 02:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Usually we don't put navigational templates on the bottom; otherwise they wind up being super big. In the past they've been deleted en masse; see WP:USRD/P. --Rschen7754 03:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean? Allen (talk) 03:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Navigational templates aren't meant to hold hundreds of items. That's what categories are for. --Rschen7754 03:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

(ecx2) Some states might have navboxes for every highway in a county, but those have kinda been phased out. The problem has been either the size of a single box to list everything (and then every highway in a state appears in the "What links here" list) or we end up with too many boxes at the bottom of the article. Imzadi 1979 → 03:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Allen, Unlike some Canadian provinces (WP:CRWP is different project) and other countries, the various states here in the US no longer have a navbox that lists every state highway in that state. If a state has a couple hundred state highways (excluding Interstates and US Highways for this example), then that's not a small navbox taking up space at the bottom of the article. If a template has links to a couple hundred separate articles, then each one of those articles has a couple hundred incoming links just from the navbox. That can make it harder to skin through the list to see what non-highway articles link to a specific article. The categories at the bottom of the article will link together articles, as will our list articles linked from the bottom of the infobox. Imzadi 1979 → 03:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay. But is there a navigational template or category for all highways in the Augusta, Georgia area? Allen (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure, certain metro areas have their own road and transportation navboxes. Personally, I do not like them but there is no rule against them. Dough4872 03:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Look around on other similar articles for that area. I know in Michigan, we have Category:Transportation in Marquette County, Michigan and even Category:Transportation in Grand Rapids, Michigan. It's just a matter of looking through similar articles and navigating the categories to see what's been created already. Imzadi 1979 → 04:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Portal-inline template bullet implementation

Not a huge deal, but since a user recently has removed the bullets on the inline portal templates found on each "See also" section, I have been placing bullets to these on several pages I come across, but there are hundreds of these pages. Tinton5 (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That same editor was supposed to arrange to have all of the articles fixed. I assume that if someone was handy with regex and AWB, we could do one run and have it done. Imzadi 1979 → 22:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am not familiar with those. I had a feeling there was an easier way instead of doing it manually which is a pain. Tinton5 (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I just applied for the AWB feature. Tinton5 (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

AWB isn't for novices though. I use it, and most of its power is above my pay grade. It's very much a "if you don't know what you're doing, don't use it" kind of tool, but it's also great if you know how to use it. You don't have to take the project on yourself... I'm sure that someone will see this thread and pitch in, ok? If you figure out how to use it though, that's great too. Imzadi 1979 → 23:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I left a message on Thumperward's talk asking when he plans to add bullets to the articles he affected by changing the template. He responded by saying he was fixing them as he goes. He would like some direction on where adding bullets is still required. I will pass that information along once we get a list together here.  VC  20:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

All the Maryland road articles tagged for WP:USRD/MD need bullets added. There may be some in NJ as well. Dough4872 23:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

References for Georgia state routes

Can someone tell me where I can get references about the Georgia state routes? I have tried to look on Google, but I have come up empty. Also, I can't seem to find any on GDOT's website. Thank you for your help. Allen (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You must not have looked very hard. These self-published sources, which should only be used as a guide, were on my first page of search results:

• Georgia Roads
• The Unofficial Georgia Highways Page (you'll see why it's unofficial...)
• Georgia State Highway Ends

In addition, here are some links from the State of Georgia website. HOV and construction information and state maps are helpful. If you follow the transportation map link, there is a page that has maps of revisions to the state highway system, however it only seems to be from 2006 to 2010. Using GDOT's Contact Us link, I asked them if there is any information that isn't easily found.

Checking the Google News archives, I found, for instance, a small article saying the state's highway department was put under martial law because of a tense disagreement between the former department head and the governor. I would love to read more about that.

My point here is that you have to be flexible when you're searching for information. You simply cannot search for "Georgia State Route #", get zero hits, and declare there is no information to be found. "Georgia State Route #" is a construct used only for article names anyway, so you should never search for that exact phrase ever. Search for "Georgia highway" (I did, above) or "Georgia road", or just use the SPSs I linked above and hit the news archives. The information is out there; we just have to be diligent and find it. –Fredddie™ 04:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

In addition, here are GDOT's maps and statistics pages. The maps page has a link to this page of Georgia state highway maps going back to the 1920s, which should be very helpful for finding the history of routes. I haven't found a mileage log for state routes, but some states have these and just don't post them online; try contacting GDOT to see if they will send you one. Alternately, try poking around their site a bit; some states display road mileage data in unlikely places, such as engineering reports. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 05:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Some states include their mileposting data in traffic count logs. That's where I found it for Seward Highway from Alaska DOT&PF. Allen, I suggest that when you get a decent list of sources that you add them to the Resources section on WP:USRD/GA for other interested editors. Imzadi 1979 → 05:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I said I asked GDOT for some help and actually got a reply. The biggest thing that will help us out is GeoTRAQS, which has a ridiculous number of variables to play with. I was also given a link to their 400 Reports page. A number of articles cited a 444 Report, so I replied asking if that report was discontinued. –Fredddie™ 16:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I tried to use the "GeoTRAQS" page, but it didn't work. Also, I don't think the "400 Reports" are very recent. I can try again, but I don't think so. Allen (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

"It didn't work" is a vague statement, please elaborate. It took a couple tries before I was able to find useful information. The 400 Reports are only 2-3 years old. Highway systems do not change dramatically overnight (not counting renumberings that take effect on a certain date), so we don't always need up to the second data. –Fredddie™ 19:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for being vague. When I tried to use it yesterday, the counties didn't show up in the drop-down boxes. As for the reports, I want to find information about specific state routes (223, 383, 388, etc.). I want to update the Wikipedia pages for the routes, but I can't find the information to do so. Those reports cover entire counties, not individual routes. Allen (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Issue unique to Interstate 80 in Nevada that could use some outside opinion

Discussion at Talk:Interstate_80_in_Nevada#Storey_County. Long story short, Interstate 80 has a very short span in a rural part of Storey County, Nevada (as if Storey county had an urban part) with no intersections. Over the years the exit list has been changed a few times on how to handle this. This is the only such instance in Nevada (as Nevada counties are normally gynormous in size), I know how California handles these, and I'm aware of Interstate 495 (Capitol Beltway), this could use some opinions from editors in states where this is more common. Dave (talk) 09:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Membership in taskforces

How do I become a member of individual taskforces? Allen (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

You don't, exactly. You become a member of USRD. You can indicate different states that interest you on the participants list, or even display the different userboxes on your page, but there isn't such a thing as task force membership anymore, just project membership. We are one project. Imzadi 1979 → 01:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Portals

Portal:California Roads was recently created, and before there's a mass effort to create any more state-specific portals, I think we should have a bit of a discussion on where we'd like to go regarding portals. There are currently Portal:Roads (which basically ignores the US, unfortunately), P:USRD (our national project effort, also a Featured Portal), P:CARD, its sister portal for Canada and four state portals. There's aforementioned California one, P:MISH for Michigan (also featured), P:NYRD for New York and P:WARD for Washington State.

1. I guess I'm curious to feel out the opinions of others in the project as to how many GA/A/FA-class articles a state should have before a portal should be considered. I waited until Michigan had a good solid pool to use since that portal is updated monthly. (If all of the GA/A/FAs were to get a turn individually, the portal has about another decade's worth of potential content. Since other portals randomly display a new selection each time the page is loaded, they're not as time-bound. So is there some kind of critical mass needed to sustain a separate portal?
   1. As a followup, do we want to be limiting portals to only DYK hooks that have already appeared on the Main Page? The new CA portal does, P:MISH did not.
   2. We can't limit our portals to only featured pictures because the USRD as a whole only has had four, and two of them have been delisted as FPs.
2. Another issue is related to visibility. As states gain portals, the articles in those states will lose the portal link to P:USRD under current practices. We already need to be spamming that link to as many of the project's articles as possible to increase its visibility. Perhaps we should revisit the idea that P:USRD isn't linked from from articles in states that have their own portals?
3. If enough states pick up portals, would we limit P:USRD's scope to the Interstates and US Highways leaving each state highway portal to cover state highways only?
4. One last point I'd like to discuss is what other possible topic areas might be good for a viable portal.
   1. U.S. Route 66 with all of its sub articles and Americana/pop culture would be about the only topic I would attempt to portal-ize. Since there are so many landmarks along The Mother Road, plus the song, TV show and various connected movies, that topic area could sustain a portal under the auspices of the US 66 task force.
   2. The auto trails might be another possibility, but there isn't the content at this time to feature a portal. Plus that's content that should be in P:USRD (along with the good stuff out of WP:USST).

Thoughts? Imzadi 1979 → 07:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Based on number of quality articles, a state should have at least 20 GAs and an effort to increase the GA count in order to be eligible for a portal in which the selected article is updated monthly. However, a state can have fewer GAs and have the GAs rotate randomly as it does for P:WARD. As for pictures and DYK hooks, anything that is interesting should be nominated, whether or not it is a Featured Picture or a DYK hook that appeared on the Main Page. As for visibility, once a state gets a portal, the articles should only link to the state's road portal and not P:USRD. The logic is that the reader can be directed to the state's road portal and see the link to P:USRD under related portals. Based on content, I think that PA, NJ, and MD are possibilties for having portals created as they have a high content of quality articles. Dough4872 15:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I am opposed to further state portals. I am also in favor of not having portals for states that do not have their own projects. Going with one of USRD's themes of the last several months that now "we are one project," we should not be showcasing particular state's articles. This may imply the articles of other states are not deserving of similar promotion and drives the desire for editors representing other states to start portals of their own. Also, portals are intended to recruit editors to a particular project. We may be misleading people by drawing them into a task force and not a project. Finally, creating more state portals goes against our desire to spam links to the USRD portal. I am not opposed to a US 66 portal, but I do not think there are enough showcase-worthy articles at the moment for such a portal.  VC  15:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I was going to state exactly what VC stated above. We are trying to merge together as one project and have taken multiple steps toward doing so. Why should more state portals exist? — PCB 17:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

How many people actually use the portals we have now? Is there any way to get numbers? If we're building infrastructure that only five people use, it hardly seems worth the effort. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

CA probably has enough content for a portal, but honestly, I don't care enough about portals to maintain it. --Rschen7754 22:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not talking amount of potential content, I'm asking about page hits. If no readers ever visit the portal, maintaining it is an utter waste of time, regardless of how many articles and images we could possibly cycle through. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

According to [5], the US portal received 2,630 page views in March. For Michigan, that portal had 1,368 views, 1,083 for New York and 524 for Washington. In comparison, I averaged the page views for the project's FAs which came out to 1,015.1 views for the month on average. I'd say that our portal isn't doing too bad considering only 2,224 articles are linking to it out of the roughly 11,096 articles that could/would/should have portal links. (The CA, MI, NY, and WA portals have higher incoming portal link percentages than the national portal in part because the portal creators immediately spammed the links out to the articles.) Imagine the possible page views if we got the portal links on all of the articles for the project. Imzadi 1979 → 19:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

OK. It's too bad we can't break down those stats further. I mean, how many of those portal page views are us? I'd still bet most of them are. –Fredddie™ 22:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm staunchly opposed to putting the national portal on intrastate articles where a link to a more specific portal already exists. The redundancy that would introduce sets a bad precedent, one that would inevitably lead to editors adding links to a state's overall portal, or even the overall US portal or the global roads portal. I treat portal links the same way I treat categories: only the most specific one is used.

That said, I'm indifferent to having the national portal added to articles that cover roads or topics that are interstate (note the lowercase "i") in nature. It's probably a better solution than having links to several portals and it ensures that the US roads portal is still advertised somewhere. – TMF 23:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

With regards to linking to the most-local portal, I think what you're talking about is already standard practice. However, I highly doubt the reach of the portal extends very far past those of us who have signed this page, so I personally won't be tagging any articles for any portal. I just don't see the point. –Fredddie™ 03:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The standard practice I've seen is equivalent to the standard practice for applying categories to articles; that is, linking to the most specific portal that exists for a given topic. Multiple links to less-specific portals are only used if that specific portal does not exist. Take the article on the Finger Lakes, which only links to the Finger Lakes portal and not in addition to the overall New York portal. (If that was what you meant, I apologize, but given the attitude of this project in recent weeks I can't take anything for granted.) – TMF 04:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I meant. –Fredddie™ 16:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly; that's what I've been telling editors who are trying to do otherwise. --Rschen7754 06:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

ACR Proposal

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review. — PCB 01:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal

See Talk:U.S._Route_64#Merge_proposal. — PCB 00:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

HighBeam Research

There are still lots of open slots for qualified editors at WP:HighBeam. Note, you have to have an account that's at least a year of age with a minimum number of edits. I would encourage editors to pledge to help other project members so we can share this resource. I've already pledged, within reason, to share articles from the service with other project member if I'm accepted. We don't need every member of USRD to have access. Imzadi 1979 → 21:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

There's also Wikipedia:Requests for JSTOR access, another popular database. --Rschen7754 20:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Several members of this project applied for and received HighBeam accounts through this special offer. Should we set up a page to receive requests related to this project from editors who do not have the accounts?  VC  16:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that would help, maybe also list the users who have it on Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Resources/Periodical database and make the request page a subpage of that. Dough4872 17:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested articles?

I have been looking and looking. Is there a list or category for requested articles for U.S. Roads, whether on the WikiProject or the Portal page? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 03:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing many would disagree, but perhaps we could add Needed-class to possible assessments? — PCB 03:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Some of the state pages have links to completion lists. Something though to be noted is that the project has wanted to improve what we have rather than create more stuff. (OK, I've created a handful of articles recently, but I'm also doing what I can to get them in good shape as well.) Imzadi 1979 → 03:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

We have 2400 stubs; fix them first. PLEASE! –Fredddie™ 03:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Georgia State Route 2

Can someone take a look at Georgia State Route 2 and review my latest edits? In your opinion (and according to policy, standards, etc.), what else needs to go in the page? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The biggest thing missing IMO is sources. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Looking through it briefly, references would be your biggest issue. Added to that:

• The lead needs to be expanded to summarize each section of the article
• The infobox probably should have its junction list pruned a little. So many of the listed junctions have three marker graphics or long location names that they all wrap to a second line, increasing the overall length of the infobox. (Remember that the infobox is a summary, not a replacement for the article, so you can ax some of the junctions as long as they are listed in the junction table.)
• When was the highway designated? That's missing from both the history and the infobox.
• Through what counties does this highway pass? You can add that to the infobox to give the reader a quick summary of the highway's location.
• The state name is constantly repeated in the RD section; pipe your links to bypass displaying the article title each time. In fact, if you could slip a mention of US 76 by itself in a sentence in the lead, you could pipe all of the US Route links as well so that everything is abbreviated.
• For 166 miles, I would expect a RD to be about triple that length in a "finished" product.
• The history needs expansion. You should be able to use GDOT's Map Archive to add more information on the backstory of this highway.
• The notes in the junction list are yucky. "GA 2 East joins US 41/SR 3 South/US 76 East" looks bad to me for two reasons: 1) the directions should not be capitalized because they aren't proper nouns and 2) I much prefer the form of "<direction> end of the <other highway(s)> concurrency/overlap" which tells the reader the general direction of an overlap concurrency. (For example, US 41 and M-28 run concurrently east–west through the UP of Michigan. US 41 actually changes direction from north–south to run east–west, so it's appropriate, and informative to say which is the "east end" and which is the "west end" of the concurrency.)
• When writing notes, do not assume that the reader will only read top to bottom in the table; if s/he reads bottom up, s/he gets the opposite direction of the highway!
• If any of the junctions are outside of cities/villages, leave the location set to "none" in the template.
• Portal links should be added. We're trying to expand visibility of our portal after all.

I hope this helps. Imzadi 1979 → 16:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately (you know what I'm about to say), I'm confused as to what you mean by what you said. If you could clarify your statements, that might help. Thanks a lot! Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Specifically, what are you confused about? --Rschen7754 20:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

What needs to be put into the lead?

This article has the longest junction list in the infobox with which I have ever dealt, so I don't know what intersections should be removed. I left out just SRs (unless they were part of a concurrency with SR 2. Also, if any US highways have a concurrency, I left it out, as well. Speaking of the junction list in the article body, I haven't gotten around to editing it.

Does it matter where in the infobox that the counties go?

Can the "piped state links" issue be explained?

What is a great way to expand the lead/route description to be 3x the "166" mile length?

Can the junction list issue be explained? Also the "when writing notes" issue?

I must have been tired, because I thought the portals were on the page.

Thank you, everyone, for all your help. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

1. The lead is a summary of the article, so, it should summarize the article. Read WP:LEAD.
2. I don't speak for anyone else, but if there are three junctions in a row with the same road, I will eliminate two of them. It's up to you, though.
3. No. Counties will show up where they're supposed to be no matter where you put them in the template.
4. Instead of saying "Georgia State Route #", say "SR #".
5. By writing. We have over 600 Good Articles. Pick one or two and pattern your work after them.
6. Read WP:RJL.

I'm a bit dismayed that this thread exists. Stop worrying about what we think and be bold. –Fredddie™ 21:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

If I don't ask questions and find out exactly what I'm supposed to do, then I get my head chopped off. If I try to do things on my own, they just get reverted, and I get a really long message ("You shouldn't do that" -type message) on my talk page. I want to be at least a decent editor, if not a great one, however, I don't understand how to do the little things. Just ask Imzadi1979. He knows that I am struggling. Thank you for trying to help. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a whole book written about Wikipedia and how to edit called Wikipedia: The Missing Manual, and it just so happens that the author and publisher released it under a Creative Commons license so it's on our website at Help: Wikipedia: The Missing Manual.

1. A lead should summarize every part of the article. My rule of thumb on longer highways is that every major section of the article gets a paragraph summary in the lead, combining the summary of shorter, but related, sections into the lead paragraphs, but there are many formulas or recipes you could use. (For instance, the section on historic bridges along a highway might be summarized with the history paragraph in the lead.) The key is that a reader should be able to read just the lead section, and only the lead, and still have a good idea what the rest of the article is about; if they want more detail, they'll read the full article.
2. WP:USRD/STDS says that an infobox should have no more than 8–10 junctions primarily in response to past criticisms about articles with long infoboxes when they were nominated at Featured Article Candidates. I try not to be overly redundant by listing the same highway(s) multiple times. Since your entries are wrapping to second lines, that's another consideration to take into account. The goal for US articles is to have an infobox that isn't longer than the article it's summarizing. (Look at German or British articles sometimes because they probably have an infobox longer than the lead and RD-equivalent section combined if they don't collapse the junction list.)
3. Templates don't care what order the parameters are in. All you are doing when you code the template in an article is giving the server the content of variables to plug into a type of math equation of sorts. The server see the double curly brackets "{{" and says to itself, "oh this article is going to use the infobox road template." Then the server starts seeing what information the template wants defined, looks for it in your various parameter definitions and plugs it into the equation. When it hits the "}}" at the other end, it stops, figures out what to display and displays it. That said, you can put the parameters in any order, but it's just a touch more logical and helpful to keep some semblance of order.
4. A "piped link" is something like [[Georgia State Route 3|SR 3]] The "|" is the pipe character, and since we use that to separate the target of the wikilink (the first part) from what is displayed (the second part) we say that the link has "been piped".
   1. My rule of thumb for good writing is similar to how newspapers handle the names of people in articles. They spell out "Barack Obama" or "Mitt Romney" the very first time those people are named, and every time after that, they use only their last names. How I apply this to highways is simple: the very first time I mention an Interstate (any Interstate) in an article, I spell the name out and include the abbreviation, like "Interstate 75 (I-75)". All subsequent mentions to any Interstate Highway are abbreviated like "I-96". Since this is a wiki, and we wikilink things on first mentions, I would also link the full name on that first mention, piping it to remove "in Michigan" from the display. I do the same for US Highways, county roads, etc. I don't personally spell out each individual highway because once you clue the reader that "Interstate 75" is abbreviated "I-75", they should get that "Interstate 96" is abbreviated "I-96", etc.
   2. The very first sentence of the article has "State Route 2 (SR 2) is ..." so there's no need to ever spell out "State Route 3" anywhere in the text of your article under this rule of thumb. The exception is if it works better to deal with a concurrency the first time you have to mention a US Highway or and Interstate, but then I try to mention it another way. I might say "The highway ends at Interstate 75 (i-75) and US 23 in Foobar" rather than spell out US 23's full name again.
   3. Also note, "Georgia" is not part of the highway's name, but it is part of the article title. Since it's "State Route 3", not "Georgia State Route 3", you'd pipe that link to drop it. The article on M-28 is titled "M-28 (Michigan highway)", but the full name of that highway in Michigan is just "M-28", so I always pipe the link to drop the parenthetical part; same idea with the state name in this case.
5. How do you expand the RD section three times? WRITE! What I do is pull out the paper map I'm going to use and plot out the Google Maps driving directions. Then I mentally "drive" the subject roadway by following along the GMaps satellite view and checking the paper map. Then I write about it. For interesting landmarks, I use guidebooks or other sources to reference something to say about them since the map won't tell you that the Syphon Bridge in Manistique has a roadway surface that's below the water level of the river. (See M-94 (Michigan highway).) I try to include the various landforms (rivers, lakes, etc) as well as the type of environment (forests, farms, marshes/swamps, river valleys, etc) in the narrative I write. Stick to facts that you can actually observe from the maps, and don't write it as a tourist guide. Keep your personal opinions out of the writing. You might think that the roadway is very scenic, but try to find a guidebook that describes it that way so you can cite their opinion. Remember to insert your footnotes as needed and save. Oh, and stick to north/south/east/west for directions, not left/right for directions.
6. Good notes in a junction list are like good photo captions: short, sweet and to the point. They're also normally sentence fragments, and that means that they lack periods at the end. If there are really complicated details to an intersection, leave them to the RD section and summarize them in the notes in the junction list.
   1. Direction names alone aren't proper nouns under our Manual of Style (MOS), so they're always in lowercase unless their part of a name. East Jordan, Michigan, isn't the eastern side of a city called Jordan, so the direction stays capitalized (same thing for "East Jordan Road" as a street/road name in the area). In Escanaba, streets have directions appended to them based on where in town they are, so "6th Avenue South" is a different street than "6th Avenue North". M-35 north is just the northbound direction of M-35 leading away from the intersection so you don't need the direction to differentiate, then it's lower case
   2. Now, like I said earlier, you need to write the notes so that a reader could start at the bottom of the table and read up. That's why I never use "start", "begin", or "end" as verbs since it's arbitrary that we "begin" at highway at its southern or western terminus and "end" it at its northern or eastern terminus. (I do use "end" as a synonym for "terminus".) Technically, the opposite (southbound or westbound) directions start where our directions end. For the ends of concurrencies/overlaps, I always use a directional style. If you look at the U.S. Route 41 in Michigan junction list, you'll see that I note the western and eastern ends of the US 2 concurrency, the northern and southern ends of the M-35 concurrency, etc. You get the benefit that the reader can tell that the highway is physically running north–south or east–west along a concurrency even if the overall signed direction is the opposite. (US 41 runs east–west along US 2 and long M-28 even though it's a north–south highway.)
   3. As for the other mechanics of junction lists, we have MOS:RJL and the various templates. (I recommend the templates because if MOS:RJL is updated in the future, as I can almost guarantee that it will be at some point, we can update the templates to change thousands of articles to support the new guidelines.)
7. Last piece of advice, but there is WP:USRD/STDS which is the list of article standards for the project. When in doubt, look there first to see if the answer is given. If the exact guidance you seek isn't there, see if something similar is (we can't detail every possible exception that might come up) and apply that similar situation to the best of your ability. If that doesn't answer your question, look through Category:FA-Class U.S. road transport articles at some of the more recently promoted Featured Articles to see if they have something that applies. (Some of the oldest promoted FAs lag behind in updates to current standards, which is why I suggest you look at the more recently upgraded ones if you can.) Then if you still don't have an answer, ask. Imzadi 1979 → 22:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Ranch to Market Road 187

An editor claims that original research and synthesis are taking place here - comments would be appreciated. --Rschen7754 22:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Newsletter spring issue

Submissions for the spring 2012 issue of the newsletter are still being accepted at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Newsletter/Newsroom‎‎, but don't delay because the issue will be published soon! Imzadi 1979 → 09:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Forest Highways

With the notability discussion at Talk:Forest Highway 61, there is an issue arising concerning the notability of Forest Highways. Should individual Forest Highways be notable enough for their own article as they are part of a system numbered by the federal government? Should Forest Highways be covered in a list article containing all the highways in a specific national forest? Or should Forest Highways not be covered at all unless they have demonstrated notability, such as Forest Highway 16? Personally, I feel that most Forest Highways are not notable enough for their own articles but could possibly be covered in list format like county routes. However, I would like to get the opinion of the whole project on this matter. Dough4872 01:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The thing about Forest Highways is that nine times out of ten they service "the middle of nowhere". Forest Highways exist to provide access to various parts of a national forest, so that people can use that part of a forest for recreational activities such as hiking and camping (as well as so that forest service employees can inspect and maintain the forest). Most of the time they will not have a "destination", per se, nor serve to link Point of Interest X to Point of Interest Y, but rather serve as simply a branch off of a more major highway, like a rural county or township road might do. If that's the case, what do we even have to say about them, other than that they exist and a vague description of their location? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The impression I have is that they are all essentially county roads with some support in terms of maintenance by the US Forest Service and some funding through FHWA. As such, the standards related to county roads are the best fit. Before we get any farther on creating additional articles, we should get a List of Forest Highways in the United States created, which means identifying some inventory logs of them. Whether we break that down into sub-lists will depend on how many we identified. Right now, the way I have jct set up for Michigan, if the article doesn't exist, the link points to Forest Highway. Imzadi 1979 → 03:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

If we are to cover forest highways, I think the lists should be done by national forest and not nationwide since forest highway numbers are only unique to a specific national forest. Also, I think we need to establish a naming convention for forest highways that are notable enough to have articles. I think that each forest highway should be disambiguated by national forest. For example, the article on Forest Highway 16 in MI should be Forest Highway 16 (Ottawa National Forest). This would avoid the issue of someone looking for another FH 16 ending up at the article for the one in MI. Dough4872 03:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure that they are only unique to a National Forest and not to a state? The list for Michigan that Chris Bessert has doesn't have any duplicates across the four NFs in the state. If they are unique by state (as as far as I can tell, NFs also don't cross state lines) then any disambiguation should be by state, not NF. Imzadi 1979 → 05:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

According to the List of U.S. National Forests, there are several National Forests that have portions in more than one state.  VC  21:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap. –Fredddie™ 02:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The recent activity on Alaskan roads still leaves me asking how much weight is being given to numerical designations versus the roads themselves in terms of history and notability. The list approach would make the most sense to me.

Real life has prevented me from offering suggestions on this recent effort. I believe there are designated, if not actually signed, Forest Highways in the Tongass National Forest. The building of roads in the Tongass has been a political football; many existing roads are little more than logging roads in the middle of nowhere. OTOH, the road system on Prince of Wales Island has evolved organically from random logging roads to an inter-community road network covering much of the island. This could very well be covered in a single article or list, rather than throwing on the turd polish in trying to make standalone articles out of something like the Hydaburg Road or the Thorne Bay Road.RadioKAOS (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, Michigan has 19 Forest Highways, but only three have their own articles: FFH-16 (marked as H-16 on the state maps), FFH-13 (also H-13 in the CDH system_ and FFH-42 (the Whitefish Bay National Forest Scenic Byway, one of three NFSBs in the state), so it's not so much a "OMG! it has a number! it needs an article!" type thing from some quarters of the project. We do have an enthusiastic editor from Texas that's been working on Alaskan articles though. As for Michigan, the remainder of the FFHs are not signed, and unless they follow a County-Designated Highway, they won't be getting articles. Those that follow CDHs could get redirects if we ever make a list. Imzadi 1979 → 20:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Metro ExpressLanes project

I'm unsure about what to do with this article, which isn't tagged as USRD but probably should be. --Rschen7754 06:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not generally in favor of articles about construction projects. If I can use the example of the T-rex project (a rebuild of I-25 and expansion of light rail in the Denver area), a wikipedia article similarly exists Colorado T-REX Project (TRansportation EXpansion). While nobody doubts that this was a mega project and indeed notable, as the years pass the Trex name will probably be long forgotten and this will just be known as "I-25". As such, I would have preferred that Trex just be covered in the articles on I-25 and the light rail. Another article that I similarly would like to delete is North Spokane Corridor for that same reason. However, I can think of one exception to the rule I've stated above. Although the Big Dig was originally the name of a construction project to re-route I-93 through Boston, the name seems to have staying power and has morphed into a colloquial name for the tunnel under Boston which was the biggest piece of this project. Were I king of wikipedia I'd probably rule, if the name is likely to stick long after construction is over (like the Big Dig has), keep the article. If the name is likely to fade and people will just remember the completed project, not the construction name (like Trex and the NSC), delete. Dave (talk) 07:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Dave on this one, and note that we also have the Unweave the Weave article out of Minnesota. I would also extend his logic to projects that construct whole new highways. The South Beltline Freeway for Grand Rapids was a name in wide circulation for 30–40 years, but that name has faded in the face of the M-6 designation. (And no one calls it the Paul B. Henry Freeway except radio traffic reports who think they're being hip when instead they're being clueless.) I similarly predict that within a few years, the Intercounty Connector name will fade out of usage to some degree, so leaving that article at Maryland Route 200 is the appropriate result, with the right amount of mentions of the project name. The TREX and NSC projects should eventually be summarized and merged ("smerged") into their proper parent articles to prevent WP:UNDUE concerns, and the Metro ExpressLanes should be smerged in now. Imzadi 1979 → 09:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I think construction projects should be tagged for USRD only if they are exclusively involved with building a road, such as the Pennsylvania Turnpike/Interstate 95 Interchange Project. Multimodal transport projects should be tagged for the Transport project instead. Dough4872 15:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Just wrote my very first article

I am fairly new to Wikipedia and I just finished my first article. Well, finish isn't the right word, because an article can always be improved. Anyway, if someone who knows what they are looking at could look at it, I'd be grateful. It's at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Idaho State Highway 71. Please add the appropriate tags for your project and if you have any questions or comments, leave them on my talk page. Thanks! Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The article is off to a decent start. To be complete, however, it needs a Route description and History section. The Route description should describe where the route goes, what towns it passes through, and what the physical surroundings are like. You can use an official highway map along with Google Maps for the satellite imagery to reference this. The History section should describe how the route has changed over the years. You can use old maps and newspaper articles to reference the history. Dough4872 23:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Utah State Route 269

Could someone from this project look at the Utah State Route 269 article. One of the refernces (#2) has been tagged as unreliable and I can't find it to confirm whether or not it is. It has been tagged since 2008 and the article is currently listed as being Good. AIRcorn (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

That reference is a roadgeek site and is considered a WP:SPS, which is not reliable per Wikipedia standards. Dough4872 15:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

That website is used to source 3 statements. All three of which are common knowledge to people who lived in the Salt Lake area during the time those events took place. I'd argue that 2 could be alternately sourced by looking in newspaper archives, and one probably doesn't need a source anyways. You might ping User:CL, I know he worked on this article in the past, as has User:Admrboltz. Dave (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I have sent the article to GAR for the referencing issues, among other issues. I notified CL about the reassessment. Dough4872 19:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Sweet, will leave it in your capable hands. AIRcorn (talk) 12:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Stubs

I know we're not doing a stub drive per se this year, but the number of stubs is starting to creep up again. Most of them seem to be coming from the South, which, as we all know, can be problematic. If anyone can help out with bumping a few of them to at least Start-Class, that would be awesome. –Fredddie™ 23:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I recommend personally asking our newest editors to do some de-stubbing. I think it will help their growth process as editors. Learning to put together junction lists and route descriptions, especially the former, are good places to start for new editors.  VC  00:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Explain to the editors the three sections that comprise a complete article. Dough4872 04:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, you can mention that—and don't forget the Lead, too, as part of a complete article—but you have to remember this is a process. Researching and writing history is generally more complex than writing a junction list or route description. I think someone new to writing road articles should start by learning the least complex and least nuanced procedures first. I would start with teaching about the junction list, because that is the most objective part of an article. Sure, there are ways to go off on a tangent, but if proper instructions are given, the end result should be similar in most cases.

Here is how I envision a potential four-step process. Convert a sub-stub to a stub by adding a junction list. Convert a stub to a start by adding a route description. Convert a start to C by adding a history section. Convert a C to B by adequately referencing each section, expanding the Lead to adequately summarize the body of the article, and revising the whole thing to correct errors introduced throughout the process. Repeat each step multiple times on different articles until the editor becomes proficient with each increasingly complex step.

One thing I often see is new editors being bombarded with information, like an article needs A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, K, L, M, N, O, P, R, S, T, V, W, X, and Y to be a good article, and read J, Q, U, and Z to learn how to do it. That is overwhelming for a new editor. Instead, start slowly and narrowly and gradually build the editor up.  VC  16:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Like –Fredddie™ 17:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I have started correcting and expanding the articles for Georgia State Routes. I've been trying to learn the more complex editing techniques, but what I have been doing is pretty good, I guess. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about the complex stuff when we're lacking the basics. Our newer editors just need to write. The complex stuff will come with time. –Fredddie™ 17:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to improve all stub-class articles on Alaskan Highways, but I am currently waiting for my three GA nominations to be reviewed. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 18:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You do not have to improve every article to GA right away. Take it one step, or if you are comfortable, two or three steps, at a time. Improve a stub to a start. Just because you have articles at GAN does not mean you need to wait for them to be reviewed to continue improving articles.  VC  19:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

We have no deadline so there's no reason to rush everything to GAN. Actually, I think by rushing everything to GAN right away, articles lose out on getting some nuance and color that you can only get from researching the subject for a few weeks. –Fredddie™ 20:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Going back to addressing the newer editors working on road articles: Point them to WP:USRD/NEW. Scott5114 did a good job putting that orientation page together and newbies should be encouraged to review it. Maybe a slight addition to incorporate suggestions for where new editors can start when approaching road articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljthefro (talk • contribs)

I agree with those suggesting learning one skill at a time. You can try and learn everything at once and do a horrible job on the whole article, or you can learn one thing at a time and slowly build up your skills while improving article quality. --Rschen7754 21:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I would emphasize aiming for B-Class. B is a non-intimidating, reachable goal for most editors, and represents a good end point for most editors. We don't need newer people getting bogged down in the MOS and getting tons of sources from libraries to attain a GA or FA; it's a lot of work and it could be demoralizing if the GA nomination is ultimately rejected. Once an editor is comfortable with the workflow of getting to B, then they can consider learning the extra researching and editing skills needed to progress beyond. The project needs Bs, too; we should really only focus on the higher ratings when we have a good chunk of Bs. (Unfortunately, a lot of our stubs from the last two years of drives just went up a step to Start; they are not completely taken care of.) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The reason a lot of stubs only went to start is because historical information can be hard to come by in some states. Anyone could easily add a route description and junction list to get a start, but may need to do the research for the history to get the article to B. Dough4872 17:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

"Anyone could easily add a route description and junction list to get a start..." Glad to see you'll be helping clean up some of these stubs. –Fredddie™ 00:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Temporary junction list template bug

Before anyone comments, there is a known bug with the generic junction list template regarding how handles handle independent cities, and articles affected by it will appear in Category:Jctint template listing independent cities.

{{jctint}} previously used a |location=<city> |indep_city=yes syntax. The state-specific templates that use {{jctint/core}} use a |indep_city=<city> syntax (and then customize the output for state-by-state variances). The generic template is now running on the core template, which means that we can move forward with plans to upgrading articles to use the dual distance columns (with auto conversion of miles into kilometers or vice versa) and to upgrade the templates for full MOS:DTT compatibility for accessibility requirements.

For now, change the article to use the new syntax. The link will appear red, but that's a temporary issue that will be fixed shortly. Thank you for your patience as we improve the articles. Imzadi 1979 → 09:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Jctint template listing independent cities lists which articles need this fix. –Fredddie™ 12:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Michigan State Trunkline Highway System

We are about 364 days from the centennial of the creation of the Michigan State Trunkline Highway System. The article is already a GA. I would like to get it to and through FAC later this year so that it can be a TFA on the centennial date. In short, before I co farther, I need feedback of a general sort. What would this article need in terms of content to be comprehensive?

I took the article to ACR, where I hoped we could have a discussion instead of four editors in discrete timelines offering stylistic suggestions. I did not want that, because it doesn't address the fact that unlike all other FAs under USRD, we do not have a formula for an article of this type. Admit it, all other articles on specific highways have a formula (lead with infobox + route description + history + junction/exit list + any related routes + references + external links = complete article), but these system articles do not have that yet.

So, I'm asking the project to offer suggestions about the article as a whole in terms of content, and leave the stylistic stuff (change this word to this, reword that, there's a missing comma/dash/hyphen here) for another ACR. I'm going to look for additional photos from the 19th century. (If anyone knows where I can get a plank road photo from Michigan from that era, tell me, please!) I also need to secure the exact page number(s) for the KDOT book to back the Kansas numbering. (Nebraska might use N-# as an abbreviation, but they don't use it as a name, which is different from Kansas and Michigan.)

In short, what might need to be added? Imzadi 1979 → 01:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I offered a bunch of comments at the previous ACR on how the article can be improved. Overall, I think the article is decent and can be a precedent for how other highway system articles should be set up. Dough4872 01:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It seems you're thinking too hard about this. Let's ask the six basic questions:

1. Who? (people who were influential in creating/advocating/updating the system over the years)
2. What? (types of roads and how they've changed over the years)
3. When? (important dates)
4. Where? (locations were chosen for a reason)
5. Why? (what were the transportation alternatives 100 years ago)
6. How? (how were the roads paid for and built)

Now, those were just questions I would ask. When I was writing these questions, others were popping into my head, so it would help to just step back and ask yourself a question and the ideas should come. –Fredddie™ 02:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

County Route 236 (Onondaga County, New York)

Another one here. This one looks further away from Good status than Utah State Route 269. It has quite a few tags and I see Rschen7754 suggested delisting it years ago. I started the reassessment myself, but if anyone wants to jump in and comment (or even better fix it) feel free. AIRcorn (talk) 04:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest redirecting this to List of county routes in Onondaga County, New York. Most county routes are not notable enough for their own articles. Dough4872 16:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it seems a shame to lose the substantial content. Would Onondaga County be able to do something similar to how Rockland County is set up, thus preserving the content, or is there that much to say about the other CRs? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a waste of time to me, especially considering how "wonderful" the other RCS lists turned out... – TMF (talk) 23:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a reminder about GARs and most other similar items. WP:USRD/AA is the project's Article Alerts page. GANs/GARs, FACs, etc are all listed on there by the bot which runs every day or so. The PRODs and XfDs are all listed as well, so long as the page in question has the {{USRD}} banner on its talk page. FxCs and ACRs are supposed to be listed at {{USRD Announcements}}, so individual postings on this talk page aren't really needed. Imzadi 1979 → 20:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Junction/exit list template updates

See also: Template:Jctint/testcases

There's two coming changes to the output generated by the junction list template suite that should be rolled out in the next few days.

1. Conversions. In short, a second column will appear with the metric equivalent to the mileposts.
2. Row scopes/headers to comply with MOS:DTT. The mileage will be coded as a "header" for the row for accessibility with a slight visual change. The mileage column (and possibly the kilometer column in a cosmetic sense only) will have the same shade of gray as the column headings. Other than the different-color background, this doesn't impact how the articles look and work. However, for a reader using adaptive technology like a screen reader, the software will be able to read the tables better. We already use the header coding for columns, but the row-based coding is the new part.

These changes will enhance the tables in our articles, and resolve some comments that have popped up in FACs in the past. Imzadi 1979 → 07:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. You may wish to post a courtesy message to WT:RJL for those in the international projects. I can't imagine there'd be too much of a problem there but since this is presumably reflecting a change to that guideline, we don't need any editors from other countries popping up midway through the template change and objecting. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 13:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, as I've been saying, the dual columns are currently discouraged by RJL, so we need to get that changed. --Rschen7754 15:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This would be a good time to get that article you've been working on's junction list converted to templates. Also, I've included a link to the testcases page, which will give you a good sense of what's going to change. If you've been using templates for junction lists, nothing on the editing side will change! –Fredddie™ 22:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The updates have been applied. If the footer at the bottom of an article's table doesn't span enough columns, adjust the |col=# as needed. We've added a column, so the number probably needs to be increased by 1. Anything else, post here and we'll correct it. (With as many combinations of needs, it's always possible that something got overlooked in the testing.) Imzadi 1979 → 04:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Error reports

If you have any, make a concise report of it here with a link to a specific article affected. Failure to list an article may mean that your error can't/won't be fixed. Thank you. Imzadi 1979 → 04:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

{{jctbridge}} is horribly broken for cases where there are no mileposts specified ("mile=none"); additionally, the link that the template generates for the location column is broken across the board. – TMF (talk) 05:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Also for CA (Interstate 580 (California), Interstate 680 (California)). --Rschen7754 05:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Fixed - apparently non-breaking spaces are needed here too. --Rschen7754 06:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

TMF, link to an example please? Imzadi 1979 → 05:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Really? No one noticed that the template links to "Delta Township" and not "Delta Township, Michigan" at Template:Jctint/testcases#Junction list? For shame.

The former can be seen at Taconic State Parkway. – TMF (talk) 05:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

That's because mile=none is not standard, and because you didn't use |exit. I've gone ahead and fixed the first transclusion of jctbridge. --Rschen7754 05:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Uh, mile=none was standard: [6] – TMF (talk) 06:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

"mile: milepost of the junction. If unknown, leave blank." --Rschen7754 06:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

They why did mile=none exist in the code? Better yet, do you realize how absurd it is to leave the task of updating articles broken by template changes to those affected by them, or is your head stuck so far up your ass that you don't care? – TMF (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I'm going to have to say that we can't use mile=none going forward for two reasons. 1) The mileposts are now acting as row headers, and there should be a milepost given for each line of the table outside of {{jctco}} uses except in the rare cases where we can't determine a MP. 2) We should be listing a MP for every feature along the way, and if we can't determine one, there should be a blank cell as a prompt to someone to insert the missing information. There is no shame in having a blank cell in a table, but removing the cell to cover the missing data isn't a good idea.

As for the links, they're fixed. A parameter was telling the template that the locations were primary topics that didn't need disambiguation, and a flip of a yes to a no fixed the situation. Imzadi 1979 → 06:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

In cases like those on the Taconic, the values aren't "missing"; there's nothing there because nothing should be there. For example, there isn't one defined point where a freeway segment begins or ends. Any point that's selected is purely arbitrary. – TMF (talk) 06:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a few comments... these changes weren't arbitrary, nor random. When ON-401 went through FAC this last winter, the FL director made a number of comments on the article's exit list, some specifically related to MOS:DTT. That section of the MOS is in place to comply with W3C guidelines for accessibility in data tables. That accessibility is becoming a very big deal lately, and failure to comply with MOS:DTT will be grounds in the future to fail an article a FAC. The row headers change is part of that. (The table header previously was updated to deal with column header scopes.) These changes to the templates now give all articles using them a measure of immunity from those comments because we can state that we have column and row headers in place. If MOS:DTT is further updated on the release of additional guidelines from the W3C, we'll update the templates again as needed. ON-401 almost failed over this issue when combined with the coordinates debate which was resolved by the KML solution. I wouldn't be be surprised if in the future, we have to update {{jctco}} to provide a row header of some kind, and if so, once again an update to a template will resolve the problem.

As for the TSP, milepost readings for the end of a freeway segment should be possible. Look at U.S. Route 10 in Michigan, which lists its milepost reading for the end of the freeway, as well as the MP range for the location of the welcome center. You lack the source that specifies it, but that doesn't mean that the measurements don't exist. Imzadi 1979 → 06:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd be stunned if they do. The NYSDOT highway inventory, the most specific, reliable source for lengths in the state, does not explicitly indicate where a freeway section begins or ends. Sure, it has a "Limited-access" column, but the changes in access often don't correspond to anything other than junctions with other roads. When that happens, and it frequently does, it's a very, very bad idea to use that milepost in articles. Specifying that junction as the end of a controlled access section is incredibly problematic, especially if said junction is an interchange. – TMF (talk) 06:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Really?!

Let me start by saying this: Going live with the template changes was at least 24 hours premature.

Now we have to self-report any errors that we come across? And if they're not listed above, tough tomatoes? Really?! That's not how I want to operate. By going live last night, we missed out on a number of opportunities. More time for testing and troubleshooting. More time to make "release notes". More time to, well, not be so damn hasty. Now instead of cleaning up a couple drips with a paper towel, we have to get out squeegee, mop, and bucket.

We've gone too far now, I wouldn't advise reverting. But, we should all be taking a random sample of articles and looking for problems. They're out there, and they're sure as Hell not going to self-report above. –Fredddie™ 03:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Footer

I split out this section from my rant since they're not really related. –Fredddie™

I've noticed one major issue, and that's the need to manually update the column values for the footer and for some jctbridge or all jctgap entries. I don't think anything could have been done to avoid this, as problems would have resulted from updating these ahead of time. However, we need a hidden category listing all the articles that use these templates. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed the ones that we've had to update use {{LegendRJL|col=<number>}}, for instance, instead of {{LegendRJL|exit}}. Maybe the tracking category could track only those articles that use |col=. –Fredddie™ 22:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

On a tangentially related note, I wonder how many tables use the legend footer when {{jctbtm}} would be just as sufficient (in other words, when no colors are used in the table). There's a reason I bring this up: the sandboxed version of {{jctbtm}} doesn't have the mi-km conversion line as it was removed in preparation for the updates that went live a week ago. When that change is carried over to the live template (it hasn't yet as of the time of this post), it will become unnecessary to specify |col= for {{jctbtm}} unless the {{{key}}} parameter is used. So, you can probably put two and two together where I'm going with this post: in the process of updating the column counts for LegendRJL, any transclusions of LegendRJL that are attached to tables devoid of color should be switched to Jctbtm without the column count set. That's how I see it. – TMF (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Another idea that popped into my mind after I hit save: essentially merging jctbtm and legendRJL by adding a {{{legend}}} parameter to jctbtm. Jctbtm would then show the legend if {{{legend}}} is set to "yes" (or "y" or something along those lines). LegendRJL could still be retained for those that prefer to use a sans-parameter template, except it would become a subtemplate of jctbtm. The current setup - two templates doing the same thing aside from one added feature - seems redundant. – TMF (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

It was discussed earlier on IRC, and the idea of leaving it up until most articles use templates was mentioned. But how do we determine this? Can we determine? Do we just throw out a date when we kill the conversion key? I'm thinking drop the key on July 1. –Fredddie™ 04:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Comparing which articles transclude jctbtm/legendRJL vs. jctint etc. using a list comparer (such as AWB's) would give you a rough estimate. – TMF (talk) 07:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

At least for California, I don't think I'll have many of the articles converted by July 1. August 1, probably. --Rschen7754 08:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Why wait? The key was added because it's a MOS issue that FAC wanted addressed. Fix the existing FAs, and make sure that all new articles headed to FAC/GAN/ACR are on templates, and we should be good to drop it. Bumblefuck County Route Twelveteen that doesn't use templates since it hasn't been touched since 2006 probably doesn't meet modern MOS or USRD standards anyway. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Does anybody know any instance of where {{LegendRJL|col=<number>}} can do something {{LegendRJL|exit}} cannot? Or where the behavior of the former is superior than that of the latter? I'm thinking we should deprecate |col= on each template that uses it. By forcing a type like "exit", we're reducing the number of points that need to be edited when we make a major change like adding conversions and we don't run into situations like Floydian described above. –Fredddie™ 04:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Since the footer uses defaults based on tables where "County" is the largest subdivision used, tables that have a "State" column generally also use {{{col}}}. (Note: for whatever reason, Jctbtm was edited to default to nine columns during the conversion update; LegendRJL defaults to the now-standard six.) If {{{col}}} is going to be deprecated, that's another thing that has to be coded into the template. Just aliasing it to exit won't really work as I can think of at least one article off the top of my head that has a table with both exit number and state columns. – TMF (talk) 07:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking we could account for the funny combinations with exit/old/name like {{Jctint}}, but wouldn't changing {{LegendRJL}}'s colspan to 9 like {{Jctbtm}} handle all the funny ones? –Fredddie™ 17:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Theoretically, yes, but it's poor coding. However, specifying "colspan=0" (a trick I just found today) would make the cell do exactly what we want - span the entire width of the table, regardless of how many columns it has. (Note: technically, colspan=0 makes the cell fill out the remaining width of a given row, but if the cell in question is the first in a row, it has the same effect as spanning the entire table.) – TMF (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's just do that and call it good. –Fredddie™ 02:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Or not. I tested out colspan=0 on {{Jctco}} and it did not span the rest of the row. I use Chrome on OSX. –Fredddie™ 00:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a bug in Chrome then. The colspan=0 "trick" isn't really a trick; it's standard HTML markup. It works as expected on Firefox. – TMF (talk) 05:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

And it appears that IE isn't on board with the spec either. – TMF (talk) 05:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Too many categories

I've noticed quite a few road articles that have way too many categories, most notably those associated with U.S. Route 21, and I'm thinking of moving the various county-related categories to redirected state-specific versions of these routes regardless of whether articles exist for them or not. Would this be a problem for anybody? ----DanTD (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

No. That's what should have been done in the first place, IMHO. Imzadi 1979 → 16:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

County Routes in New Jersey related pages are undergoing many changes?

I have noticed that User:Dough created a Category:County Routes in Atlantic County, New Jersey (I assume he's going alphabetical). I see Hudson and Monmouth Counties are also subcategories to the main category: County Routes in New Jersey. I assume that all other 18 counties will be fixed and created as well in the near future. Tinton5 (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

In addition, the tables on the County Routes in _______ County, NJ pages are different and the red links that are non-500 series routes will become redirects.

I have some subdivisions of lists of county routes in Hudson County, New Jersey in a few sandboxes. I'm nowhere near done with them, but they will include lists for CRs 601-650, CRs 652-699, and CRs 700-736. Keep in mind the larger infoboxes are strictly meant to be temporary. ----DanTD (talk) 00:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I am redoing the county route lists to have all the non-500 routes redirect to the lists as they are not notable enough for their own articles. In the process, I am making county route categories for the 500-series county routes and for routes by county. The by-county categories will include any 500-series routes that pass through that county along with the redirects for the non-500 routes. This is similar to how NY handles county routes. Please do not create any RCS lists or articles for the non-500 routes unless they have proven notability. Dough4872 01:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I have no intention of making any articles for the non-500 routes, but what's wrong with RCS lists? In the meantime, what would become of articles on historic roads that were pre-automotive turnpikes such as the Newark Plank Road and roads like that? ----DanTD (talk) 02:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The RCS lists are largely unnecessary as all the information about the CR can easily be presented in the table. As for the turnpikes, the current CR designations can redirect there. Dough4872 02:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Trying to edit a junction list box

I am trying to edit the junction list on Indiana State Road 51. The southern terminus is in the City of Hobart, not Ross Township. The area was annexed in a very contentious fight about 20 years ago. See the current state highway map for confirmation. I pasted the damn thing into my sandbox and have messed with it every which way I could figure, but still can't get it right! Help! Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Change the location for the first row to "Hobart" to change the location from Ross Township to Hobart.
2. Add |lspan=3 afterward so that the location will span three rows of the table instead of the default of 1.
3. Remove the |ctdab=Lake because Hobart doesn't need disambiguation by county.
4. Remove the location and lspan from the second row of the table because the first row is now handling that.
5. Success. Imzadi 1979 → 06:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

IP downgrading a CT article?

[7]???????? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I would expect a B-Class article to have a completed junction list, so I'll allow it. –Fredddie™ 15:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll see your demotion from B to c and raise you with a demotion of importance from "High" to "mid". Dave (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I would have left importance high because the road is a freeway and part of the National Highway System, but I do not feel strongly enough to switch back.  VC  02:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Per the lead it's a 2 lane boulevard and expressway that is 4 miles long. If what you say is correct, the lead does not convey the road's importance. Dave (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Remember that some East Coasters don't make the linguistic distinction between a freeway and an expressway though... ditto Chicagoans calling them all "expressways". Imzadi 1979 → 06:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

US roads related template subpage questions

Greetings all, Starting on Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates/5 and continuing to Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates/6 are a lot of template subpages that pertain to Roads related templates. Could someone take a look and see if these are needed. If not please let me know so I can submit them for deletion. Thanks. Kumioko (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. They are needed. –Fredddie™ 01:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I concur. They're all various subcomponents to {{infobox road}} or {{jct}}, and if deleted would either break the main templates or have to be recreated in the future. Imzadi 1979 → 01:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

OK thanks no problem. They are currently generating on the unused templates report so let me see if I can figure out a way to stop them from coming up. Kumioko (talk) 01:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

We could simply use them. That would keep them from showing up on that report. –Fredddie™ 02:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Lol, yeah thats true, very true. I can't help but wonder if there is a better way of coding the template that didn't require a half a truck load of subpages but if you could put some to use that would be great. If you need help let me know. Kumioko (talk) 02:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Many of these are the code that creates the links to the specific marker graphics for each country/state/province and type of highway. Others do the same for the links and the displayed abbreviations for each country/state/province and type of highway. There has been some consolidation work, but not everything can be condensed into larger subtemplates because we're dealing with two separate main templates here. Some items in the report are parts of the infobox or jct documentation, so they'll never be transcluded anyplace. This is a case where it is best to leave everything alone or risk breaking stuff. Imzadi 1979 → 02:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Advice poll

Capitol Loop is once again an oddball for Michigan and USRD. I originally did two sets of mileposts for its junction list because of how its routed over one-way streets in Lansing and how that affects the length. (It's about a third of a mile longer westbound than eastbound, which is significant on a 2-mile-long highway.) I could use some advice on how to revise the junction table to convert the mileposts and implement row headers. The ideas I have are:

1. Use {{convert}} to convert the MPs in place; set the row header to the EB direction MP for each row.
2. Use two separate tables, one for each direction, using the templates.
3. Toss out one direction and use the templates.
4. Amend the hard coding to double the MP columns.
5. Do nothing until someone complains and ships it off to WP:FAR.
6. Something else I didn't think of already.

Thoughts/votes? Imzadi 1979 → 07:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Separate east and west junction lists? –Fredddie™ 22:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll be headed out of town for the next few days, but I drafted up how I think separate tables would look, adding in each of the turns and noting the changes from one-way to two-way traffic. Discuss. Imzadi 1979 → 08:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Draft with two tables

The entire highway is in Lansing, Ingham County.

Eastbound

The entire highway is in none.

mi	km	Destinations	Notes
0.000	0.000	I-496 (Ransom E. Olds Freeway) M-99 south (Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard)	Exit 5 on I-496; northern terminus of M-99
0.451	0.726	Allegan Street	Capitol Loop turns eastward; one-way traffic starts
1.263	2.033	Grand Avenue	Capitol Loop turns northward
1.331	2.142	Michigan Avenue	Capitol Loop turns eastward; two-way traffic resumes
1.537	2.474	BL I-96 (Cedar Street)	Northern end of BL I-96 concurrency; Capitol Loop turns southward; one-way traffic resumes
2.088	3.360	I-496 (Ransom E. Olds Freeway) BL I-96 (Cedar Street)	Southern end of BL I-96 concurrency as Cedar Street continues south as BL I-96 only; exit 7 on I-496
1.000 mi = 1.609 km; 1.000 km = 0.621 mi

Westbound

The entire highway is in none.

mi	km	Destinations	Notes
2.398	3.859	I-496 (Ransom E. Olds Freeway) BL I-96 (Larch Street)	Southern end of BL I-96 concurrency; exit 7 on I-496
1.857	2.989	Michigan Avenue BL I-96 (Larch Street)	Northern end of BL I-96 concurrency as Larch Street continues northward as BL I-96 only; Capitol Loop turns westward; two-way traffic starts
1.553	2.499	Grand Avenue	Capitol Loop turns northward; one-way traffic resumes
1.481	2.383	Ottawa Street	Capitol Loop turns westward
0.638	1.027	Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard	Capitol Loop turns southward; two-way traffic resumes
0.000	0.000	I-496 (Ransom E. Olds Freeway) M-99 south (Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard)	Exit 5 on I-496; Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard continues south as M-99
1.000 mi = 1.609 km; 1.000 km = 0.621 mi

Template:Jct adjustments

After taking a weekend trip to Minnesota, and seeing how roads are signed there, I'd like to change how we label Minnesota's county roads with {{Jct}}.

Replace

CR 1

With

 County 1

"County #" signs seems to be the abbreviation for County Road #, so I don't this is too radical of a change. –Fredddie™ 00:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I should note that the Jct subtemplates that control county roads are locked down, otherwise I would have done this myself already. –Fredddie™ 21:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

U.S. Route 15-501

I am going to be working on the US 15 and US 501 articles in North Carolina and South Carolina in the next few weeks and I want to get some opinions on what to do with U.S. Route 15-501 in North Carolina. Much like U.S. Route 1/9, their 106-mile concurrency is colloquially known as 15-501, but without the special route markers of the former concurrency or of MD 2 and MD 4. Unlike US 1/9, but like MD 2-4, both ends of the concurrency are in the same state, so each route has mileage in the state on either side of the concurrency. It would be silly to have articles like U.S. Route 501 in southern North Carolina. However, it would be inadequate to summarize each of the four solo sections of US 15 or US 501 in the state in the national articles. The current article is kind of awkward. However, having separate articles for both highways would create a lot of redundancy; the concurrency is between 60 to 70 percent of the state total mileage for both highways.  VC  16:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

If the desire is to kill off the joined article, you could consider placing all of the content in the US 15 in NC article (priority to the two digit and thus more major route) and then briefly summarize it and provide a hatnote in the US 501 in NC article. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 16:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I would say have the U.S. Route 15-501 in North Carolina article cover the parts of US 15 and US 501 in NC that are concurrent and have the U.S. Route 15 in North Carolina and U.S. Route 501 in North Carolina cover the parts of the route that are not concurrent, with a brief summary of the concurrent portion. This is much like how U.S. Route 1/9 covers the concurrent parts of those highways in NJ while U.S. Route 1 in New Jersey and U.S. Route 9 in New Jersey cover the portions that are not concurrent with a brief summary of the concurrency. In addition, I would also prefer if the titles for both US 1/9 and US 15/501 were standardized to use either a slash or a hyphen. Dough4872 19:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Scott here. Two articles are better than three. –Fredddie™ 21:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You can have only two articles, but then there will a lot of redundancy and overlap describing the concurrent portion. In addition, like US 1/9, this appears to be a case where the two routes together are often referred to jointly. Dough4872 02:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Fredddie and Scott on this one, but not exactly. We have two basic options to minimize redundancy:

1. Three articles (Dough's option): U.S. Route 15 in North Carolina, U.S. Route 501 in North Carolina and U.S. Route 15-501 (hyphen versus slash TBD). In this option, a reader wanting to follow the route of one or the other has to start with one article, jump to another and jump back.
2. Two articles (Scott's option): U.S. Route 15 in North Carolina and U.S. Route 501 in North Carolina. In this option, the reader wanting to follow US 501's routing has to jump over to to the US 15 article for while and jump back.
3. We can minimize jumping for our readers and write the two articles from Scott's options, but make each one complete. This is what I've done with U.S. Route 41 in Michigan and M-28 (Michigan highway) in part because the concurrency is "opposite" for the two highways (NB US 41 is WB M-28 and vice versa). However, U.S. Route 2 in Michigan, US 41 and M-35 (Michigan highway) all have coverage of the triplex and duplex in Menominee and Delta counties. In this manner, no reader has to jump out of one article to another, even though we had to create duplication, and even triplication, of content.

My vote is to create the two state articles with full redundancy. (Hey, you can even copy/paste the content between them!) Yes, the highways are commonly discussed as 15-501, but that fact can be prominently mentioned in each article. That's just my $0.02. Imzadi 1979 → 03:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all your input. I like Imzadi's idea the best because he offered a solution to page flipping, which was something I had thought of glancingly but did not make it to my initial statement. I think that principle illustrates the main difference between this situation and that of U.S. Route 1/9 and another example I thought of, US 11 and its directional routes, both of which begin in Tennessee and end in Virginia. To wit, here are the progression of pages one needs to follow to continue along a particular route if Dough's option is chosen:

• U.S. Route 9 in New Jersey > U.S. Route 1/9 > U.S. Route 9 in New York
• U.S. Route 11 in Tennessee > U.S. Route 11W or U.S. Route 11E > U.S. Route 11 in Virginia
• U.S. Route 15 in South Carolina > U.S. Route 15 in North Carolina > U.S. Route 15-501 in North Carolina > U.S. Route 15 in North Carolina > U.S. Route 15 in Virginia

As you can see, the first two examples involve a concurrency or route split that spans two states, while the subject of this discussion is only in one state. I am not intending to set a precedent (I do not want to see the article U.S. Route 60-62 (Missouri–Illinois–Kentucky)), but I think we can conclude articles on single-state concurrencies do not work as well as for multi-state concurrencies. For U.S. Route 15-501 in North Carolina, the "in North Carolina" part can be removed because that is the only state in which they are concurrent. However, it is not a bad idea to keep the redirect. Scott's option minimizes page flipping for those people following US 15 but requires the same number of page changes as Dough's idea for those following US 501. I think redundancy is a better problem to have than having to change articles too much. Once I split the routes into separate articles, I will change the current article to a set-index article that explains the concurrency and provides links to both pages.  VC  14:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem with redundancy is that it tends to complicate things editorially. If anything is updated in the section of duplicated text, it must be done to both articles. This is of course no problem for veteran editors that know about the arrangement but even otherwise experienced editors might fail to realize the prose's existence in two places. (Eric S. Raymond discusses something similar to this in The Art of Unix Programming in a programming context; there, he calls it the SPOT rule.) When changes are copied over from one to the other, it must be done with care to preserve attribution, as required by CC-BY-SA/GFDL. This, I believe, is why summary style is heavily recommended and redundancy heavily discouraged throughout Wikipedia. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 12:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Scott on this one. I'd rather have one article reference the other with a "main article" or "see also" hatnote above a section about the concurrency (which is option 2 in Imzadi's list above). The problem with duplicating content into two articles is the two will inevitably get out of sync sooner or later. The reader who happens to read both articles is then left to guess which text is the more accurate of the two. I don't know enough about the situation to opine which article should get the detailed explanation and which should get the "main article" hatnote. I will leave that discussion for others. Dave (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not like the idea of only covering the concurrency in one of the articles as that is subjectively showing favor to one article while leaving the other one to skimp in coverage. In the case of a long concurrency where the routes are often referred to together, I feel a separate article describing the concurrency is the best way to go. Dough4872 00:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's the problem with Scott's idea: it sets up issues of undue weight and coverage. If we only cover the concurrency in the US 15 article with a main tag pointing there from the US 501 article, then the US 501 article doesn't have consistent coverage. Summary style, is about splitting based on size-related concerns, not maintenance-related issues. US 501 has to have coverage of the concurrency in its article for proper summary style, and when you factor in due weight of coverage, that section of highway needs the same level of detail as the rest of the sections of highway in the state. This is why I hate exit lists that omit whole sections of a highway along a concurrency with a "see here" link because you've violated due weight concerns to eliminate redundancy/maintenance concerns. Imzadi 1979 → 02:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm okay with the splitting of U.S. Route 15 in North Carolina & U.S. Route 501 in North Carolina, and the possible move of U.S. Route 15-501 in North Carolina onto one or the other, but I have to ask; Why is U.S. Route 1/9 good as a separate article, but U.S. Route 17/92 something that has to be redirected? ----DanTD (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The only two reasons that I'm ok with US 1/9 are 1) that the concurrency itself crosses a state line and 2) that the signage along it combines the two numbers onto one marker. Neither is the case in the US 15/US501 nor the US 17/US 92 examples. Imzadi 1979 → 17:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

And yet ironically, Of all the pictures of signage on the article for US1/9, all show separate shields. =-) Speaking for myself, I don't know why that decision was made, it was before my time here. However, I would be ok with simplifying that article structure.Currently we have Pulaski Skyway, U.S. Route 1-9 and the individual highway articles U.S. Route 1 in New Jersey, U.S. Route 1 in New York, U.S. Route 9 in New Jersey, U.S. Route 9 in New York, all of which overlap and are partially redundant. Dave (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I will oppose any measure that axes the US 1/9 article, as it would be redundant do have 30 miles of route description in two articles, just for Jersey alone. Same goes with the NY portion. Hell it even has its own damn truck route. Pulaski Skyway is notable in its own right due to its structural significance. US 1, US 9 in NJ can have a written summary for the 1/9 portion. We're not talking a 4-5 mile concurrency here. And for the record, signage is mixed along the entire alignment, so arguing it based on signage is really unlikely to be a justified reason. Mitch32^{(There is a destiny that makes us... family.)} 22:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

US 1/9 is a notable and detailed concurrency that is worthy of its own article. Merging all the information into the US 1 and US 9 articles would be overkill to both articles. The Pulaski Skyway is also a notable-enough structure to warrant its own article. Dough4872 00:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

And yet, the Pulaski Skyway is a mix of half bridge article and half highway article. I don't think anyone was really suggesting that Pulaski get merged someplace, just that it's part of a chain of articles. I'm fine with US 1/9 remaining on its own as kind of a "s-d" article for a "state" between NJ and NY, if you will grant me some license to use a metaphor here. In some ways though, our chain of s-d articles should ignore the Pulaski Skyway in the same way that I-75 would summarize and "skip over" the Mackinac Bridge and both CA's SR 1 and US 101 would summarize and skip over the Golden Gate Bridge. If we're going to cement US 1/9 in the chain of s-d articles for both US 1 and US 9 (as an exception to a "rule"), then the succession boxes should be set up a little differently for the other 4 articles on either side of it, something that can't be done with US 15 and US 501. Imzadi 1979 → 00:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Project articles with links needing disambiguation

In case you have not noticed, this project is one of the highlighted projects for fixing disambiguation links this month. [This tool] will show you the pages with links that need disambiguating. I believe that a good number of these are for places in the various states so anyone who is familiar with place names would be a big help. For the record, there are only about 120 articles that need attention. Note that due to the way the program functions, some of the pages that were changed by adding disambiguation needed to links do not appear at the top of the list. Sorting by DN, will move these to the top (or bottom) of the list. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Just curious, but highlighted where? This is the first I've heard of this, and we're 14 days into the month already. Imzadi 1979 → 21:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I really should have said featured, but try this link. I'm not sure how the projects get added there or removed. Since I usually directly link to the work list I don't always see or read the main page. So I don't know how long that has been there. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the help and the list is now down to about 30. I think that those that remain are caused by the {{jct}} template. The only fix I see is to edit the article manually and change the cityn parameter to the locationn one and then include the dabbed link. Templates are a problem for any of these tools since they mask the root cause of the problem. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

If disambiguation by county is needed, you can add |countydabn= to {{jct}}. This isn't well documented, but works. Imzadi 1979 → 01:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)