Talk:List of state highways in Minnesota

New Format

Shouldn't all the new information in the new format be in the highway's article instead? This article should be an easy to read list.
-- Voot42, 16 August 2007

I accidently messed up several times trying to edit this page -- I made a clarification to the section about Business MN-371 & Business MN-23), and accidently posted it at first to the Talk Page, and then I messed up trying to get the update to the article page, but I got it fixed now

SpaceJunkie 05:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Decommisoned Highways

Are decommissioned highways going to be on this page or do they belong elsewhere? --Sable232 22:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

They should be here, but denoted as decommissioned. --Station Attendant 22:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. --Sable232 23:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

TH 262 no longer exists. It was authorized in 1949 and decomissioned in 2007, by the Minnesota State Legislature. Source: [1] --Moland freak (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Highway Sheilds

I messed up when I was applying highway shields, however it should all be fixed now.--MNAdam 01:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, is that what happens when two people edit an article at the same time? --Sable232 01:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I missed Highway 120--MNAdam 01:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Highways that go beyond the state border

It seems like all of the highways that go beyond the border begin or end in or towards another city just over the border. For example, I-94 is listed as beginning in Fargo, ND and ending in Hudson, WI. But as far at the state of Minnesota is concerned, it really begins in Moorhead and ends in Lakeland. I think it would be better form if I-35 began south of Albert Lea instead of towards Mason City, Iowa. Similarly with all other highways ending at the border.DandyDan2007 12:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, to a point. When I went through and put the termini on a most of the MN articles, I put the locale (usually the township) at the border where the highway actually ends. Where there's a river crossing I put the name of the river (i. e. "ND 54 at the Red River"). I also (usually, IIRC) wrote the nearest Minnesota city into the prose of the article. --Sable232 (talk) 03:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Maps

I really don't think these belong here. They add a great deal of length to the page and aren't very readable anyway. I don't see a benefit to including them here. --Sable232 (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Someone added pictures and maps to the New York route list years ago, and I removed them a year or so ago for the same reasons. – TMF 02:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

A while back I shuffled the lists for Michigan into first two lists (state highways, the county-designated highway system). Later I split the state highways highways list into separate lists and left all of the highway system information and history in its own article. That's another idea to break up the length, but I agree, the maps, strictly speaking, aren't needed. Imzadi 1979 → 02:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

External links

If we are being strict, then these links are fansites per WP:EL

• The Unofficial Minnesota Highways Page, by Steve Riner
• Twin Cities Highways, by Adam Froehlig

Although, I have yet to find a set of more comprehensive, junk free, information packed sites than these. Group29 (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Links like those have been fine in the EL section, but they shouldn't be used for citations. http://www.michiganhighways.org/ has been used in the EL section of Michigan highway articles, including Featured Articles, but it's not used for citations. Imzadi 1979 → 18:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

That is a fansite too. A very nice one to be sure, but same problem. Group29 (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

They can't be cited, but the general expectation across the thousands of American highway articles is that they'd be listed in the EL section of an article/list. This isn't the place to change that for 10,000+ articles; I'd suggest you discuss the topic at WT:USRD if you feel so strongly. Imzadi 1979 → 00:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I really don't feel all that strongly about the links, merely pointing out a bit of etiquette. I would have expected that when you reverted my add, that you would have cleaned up the rest of the links. I searched the archives for "external links" at WT:USRD and found your post, in about 30 seconds, from 2011 on the topic. This tells me you are a moderator and long time contributor in this space: ... The various roadgeek websites are fine for external links, but they shouldn't be used for source material... Imzadi 1979 → 00:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC) And also, that it's your rule. I actually like those "roadgeek" sites quite a bit, particularly the two above. Also, in general you have made a ton of contributes to some very useful articles. Thanks, Group29 (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

1920-1933 highways

Highways established in 1920 but removed with the 1934 renumbering haven't appeared in this list. I suspect that the main reason for this was simply the fact that Steve Riner's site originally didn't include them, and his calling them "Constitutional Routes" served to over-distinguish them. Save for the fact that they were relatively short-lived I see no reason to not include them here; while Mn/DOT uses "Constitutional Route" to describe the legal definitions, that term is a neologism as far as the actual roadway is concerned. The general public in the 1920s would not have called them that. While 45 out of the 70 have been renumbered, I don't think it'd be excessive to add them to this list since, from a practical perspective, they were just highways like those that came after. Any objections or concerns? (I have no plans on creating articles for any, just including them in the list.) --Sable232 (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. If that many of them were renumbered, why not create the redirects? I would title them [[Minnesota State Highway 1 (1920–1934)]] and so on. –Fredddie™ 01:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

In many cases, it wasn't simple, with multiple new numbers placed on what was previously one highway. But I think that'd be reasonable where the entire highway was given a single new number, provided the article for the current highway makes note of it. I'd prefer just "...(1920)" for the links to keep them concise, and to align with how the marker images are named. --Sable232 (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

We should be consistent across the project with how we put years in articles. I've seen the (1920–1934) method used more than any other, which is why I use it as well. –Fredddie™ 01:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'd want to confirm whether the renumbering happened in 1933 or 1934 (because I'm quite confident that the highway department wasn't swapping signs on New Year's Day) first, but I think that'll require a trip to the Historical Society. 1933 is most probable since all the new routes were signed into law that April, but certainty would be nice.

Since you created the existing 1920 shields, would you be able to create the remainder? --Sable232 (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

What is the range, 1-70? –Fredddie™ 17:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, 1 to 70. Highway 72 (established 1923) would have been marked with a yellow star as well, but I don't think there's going to be a need for that one. --Sable232 (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)