Talk:U.S. Route 119

Proposed merge with Corridor G

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Merge

• Cover the information in Corridor G in U.S. Route 119.
• Make Corridor G section on U.S. Route 119 in Kentucky.
• Make Corridor G section on U.S. Route 119 in West Virginia. —A L T E R C A R I  ✍ 09:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

 Partly done U.S. Route 119 in Kentucky & U.S. Route 119 in West Virginia are now redirects, so all of Corridor G has been merged into U.S. Route 119. —A L T E R C A R I  ✍ 23:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Corridor G follows US 119 for its entire length, the information can easily be covered in the US 119 article. Also, state-detail pages should be made for the Kentucky and West Virginia segments at U.S. Route 119 in Kentucky and U.S. Route 119 in West Virginia. Dough4872 17:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. While Corridor G follows US 119, less than 20% of US 119 is Corridor G. There's enough of a difference that I think the pages should be kept separate. Bitmapped (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Normally, when splitting Interstate and U.S. Routes, we split based on states, as in we have state-detail pages as suggested above. Splitting a U.S. Route based on ADHS corridor designations is not the standard split. Also, the ADHS corridor names are likely not as well known to the traveling public as the US 119 designation is. Therefore, I feel that Corridor G should redirect to the US 119 article as that is the common name for the corridor, with US 119 further divided into subpages for the Kentucky and West Virginia segments (Pennsylvania already has a state-detail page). The ADHS list can mention the specific routing of Corridor G with a hatnote to the US 119 article. Dough4872 18:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I could be OK with this as long as the state-level articles are developed. For what it is worth, in West Virginia the "Corridor G" name is probably more commonly used than US 119 for the section south of Charleston. Bitmapped (talk) 02:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support per Dough's reply above. Imzadi 1979 → 00:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support Since US 119 completely overlaps it, I don't see an issue merging the two. --WashuOtaku (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on U.S. Route 119. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20070513111800/http://www.us-highways.com:80/us1830.htm to http://www.us-highways.com/us1830.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)