Talk:List of state routes in Arizona

Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll/Part2

This state's highway naming convention is up for debate above. Feel free to participate. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

List format

I see you reverted changes I had made to List of state routes in Arizona. I don't quite understand the rationale behind your reversion. With the template, it's both readable and organized, so I reverted back to my version. I am trying to avoid making lists of routes look like List of Interstate and U.S. Highways in Washington, which I think is ugly and unreadable. {{Road list}} can take the same information found in the Washington example and lay it out differently so it's readable. --Fredddie™ 21:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the notion that it is organized, unless you mean organized by number. The original format of the list makes it clear, at a glance, which routes are extant, which are historical, and which simply never existed; your version of the list would imply to the casual reader that Interstate 410 exists in Arizona, which it never has. Note as well that this is a list of state routes and the previous version of the list emphasised this fact by placing state routes first and foremost in the list. As far as readability/usability is concerned, the old list clearly separated U.S. Route 95 in Arizona and Arizona State Route 95 - they were in separate sections and there could be no confusing which was which. The current iteration of the list places them next to each other and makes the likelihood of a misclick much higher. Finally, the current version of the list takes up a lot of real estate on the screen and loses the TOC, both of which add up to a lot of unecessary scrolling to get through the list to a specific entry. I understand your issues with List of Interstate and U.S. Highways in Washington but the old version of the Arizona list does not suffer the same issues. I am going to have to revert back to the original version until it can be explained in what way the templated version is superior. I'm also copying this conversation to the list's talk page for trancparancy to other users, and it would probably be best to continue dicussion there. Shereth 22:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: the above is copied from User_talk:Shereth#List_of_state_routes_in_Arizona.

I am going to link this to WT:USRD to get some more input on this. My issue with the non-templated version is what happens when someone wants to add information like length, endpoints, counties the routes traverse, etc., which I hope we can agree is sorely needed in this list. The template ensures that whenever the information is added, each route will display it the same. I guess I have no objections to splitting up the list by route type, but I do think all routes numerical order is the most logical. Your point that this is a state routes list is a non-issue as the state route lists have become de facto complete lists of state, U.S., and Interstate highways for most states. --Fredddie™ 22:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Be that as it may, I think the list loses a lot of utility when all of the routes are bunched together with no distinguishing between types. If this can still be accomplished with the template I have no specific issues with the template itself (although I would request that the highway shields be reduced to the size in the current list, they were taking up a lot of screen real estate previously). Naturally sorting by numeric order, within route types, makes the most logical sense. Shereth 22:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the size of the shield is what it is because of readability. While the template is not used there, yet, there are some routes in Canada where the text on the shield is impossible to read at 20px. --Fredddie™ 22:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

How about Utah's list? Perhaps it's a little too detailed, but I think it works just fine. IMO, I don't think you guys need shields for every route either. Maybe something like the infobox in this would suffice? CL (T · C) — 23:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sherth, I'm not sure if you are aware, but technically an Interstate and a US Highway are just state highways with a different shield. US Highways are state highways with a common numbering scheme used nationally that don't change numbers when they cross state lines. Interstates are the same, except that they have higher construction standards (limited access, grade separation, dual/separated carriageways, etc) and a Federal funding source. I prefer a list though that is sortable. That way you can sort by length, creation date (unbuilt highways wouldn't have a creation date for instance), decommissioning/deletion/whatever term you prefer date (likewise an unbuilt highway wouldn't have a date, and current highways can be set to default to the current year), etc. I'm sure we could figure out a way that would allow the sorting to sort by type (I then US then SR) by some hidden parameter as well as raw numbers. The raw numbers are also used as the browse order in the infoboxes in the articles, btw. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

For the format of listing numbered highways, I think both {{Road list}} and a table list the information in a clean and easy to read way. However, these formats can cause the pages to load very slowly, see List of Maryland state highways. For these lists, the bulleted list may work best, as it would be the most manageable to load. ---Dough4872 00:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I would advise against having that many shields one page. We need to remember that not all the world has broadband speed internet access, and a page bloated with images will take forever to load. Anybody who has experienced the internet on a 14.4baud modem knows exactly what I'm talking about.Dave (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of state routes in Arizona. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527184255/http://tpd.az.gov/mpd/data/Highwaylog.asp to http://tpd.az.gov/mpd/data/Highwaylog.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

ADOT history document

Arizona Transportation History (Report 660, Dec. '11) Mapsax (talk) 02:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC) [Edited] Now noted that this shows up on various Arizona U.S. Route articles and a couple of state route ones and is mentioned at the old WP:USRD/AZ but it probably should be more widespead. Mapsax (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Wye Route

I don't see a good definition of this kind of route (though I think i've seen the suffix "Y" before in AZ). Can anyone explain this? I've looked at the source and on Google a bit. It would be good to add an explanation to the article, if possible. YellowAries2010 (talk) 07:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)