Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of numbered highways in Washington/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 09:21, 25 August 2008 [1].

List of numbered highways in Washington

This list is an edited version of List of numbered highways in Maryland, a FL. This list is super long, has been accepted on DYK and has 221 references. ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) 21:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I-605 is proposed, yet never actually planned, and has been proposed in one form or another for decades; it seems odd to include it on a list of extant highways with a minor note saying it's "proposed". Maybe it should be separated somehow. --Golbez (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you suggest making another section, called Proposed Interstates? ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) 16:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - In the references, it probably isn't necessary to have multiple citations for the same map with the only difference being the section number of the map. Just one simple citation to the map, reusing the reference name as necessary should be enough. Also, in the tables, you may want to put spaces in between the reference tags so that they don't skew the column widths. In addition, although it isn't a major issue, you may want to consider renaming the page, since it doesn't actually list all numbered highways in Washington - the state routes are on a separate page. - Algorerhythms (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to Comments - Agreed, renaming to something like List of Interstate and U.S. Highways in Washington --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 15:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then would List of numbered highways in Maryland and List of numbered highways in Utah have to be renamed? Also, the map will be fixed. ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) 16:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, they should be renamed, too, as they also only list Interstates and U.S. highways. - Algorerhythms (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Utah is already renamed, as it was suggested earlier, and I had just not gotten around to it --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 16:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It has been moved to List of Interstate and U.S. Highways in Washington. ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) 16:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments The external links need to go, as they are self published websites, and ushighways is a deadlink. The Interstate shields on the map do not look right with the black box, they should be "cut out." In the lead, why are you referencing Washington state highways when this article is about Interstates and U.S. Highways? All of your references are great, but in the table, after every five can you add a break in, so that it doesn't stretch the page off to the side of my monitor, as I have to scroll left-right to see the whole article. Otherwise, ref links check out, images check out. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 15:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the websites and I will separate the references as soon as I can. ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) 16:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - How about a small white box? I only have MS Paint, and I need help. ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) 16:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - What about asking the MTF for a new image. It should be done fairly quickly as this is a FLC. Also, they can create one as an SVG for you, which maps should be. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 16:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I requested a map at MTF. ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) 17:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no limitation against an external link to a SPS. The links could have stayed if they are 1) quality links that add to the article and 2) likely to be found on a Google or Yahoo search of the topic. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — This list should be split into two list articles: one for interstates and one for US highways. As a result, it feels like a forced marriage on one hand, or it's missing a sibling (state highways) on the other. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Imzadi, Maryland's similar list passed its FLC with interstates and US routes intact in one list, so this shouldn't be a problem right?
  - Had I known about that FLC, I would have opposed it on the same rationale at that time.Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - US and Interstate routes are both federal highway systems, which is why I think they belong together, separate from the state highway system. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 19:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - US Highways are just state highways that share a common numbering scheme and shield across state lines. Interstates are set up the same way, except there are minimum design standards and a federal funding scheme. This list has cherry-picked two of the three types of state-maintained highways in the state and left out the third. The first highway FL is List of Interstate Highways in Texas which focused on one subset of a much larger highway system in Texas. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Further comment, the quantity of references does not make something feature-level. It's the quality of the references used. Many of the references here are actually the same map with different individual sections called out. This pads the reference count, making 221 an inflated number. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I understand your reasoning, it's just that featured lists that had interstates and US routes only have passed before. But I did not realize that some references were the same; I assumed, with two-hundred twenty-one references, well, you know, assuming just sucks sometimes :) CL — 21:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - There are three featured lists for all of WP:USRD. One is List of Interstate Highways in Texas, the second is List of highways in Warren County, New York and List of Interstate and U.S. highways in Maryland. The first focused on one part of that state's highway network. The second was comprehensive of all the highways, Interstate, US, state and county in that one county and the third is the template used for this one. That template is cherry-picked though, just like this list. Until this list either adds in the rest of the state highway system or splits into two lists based on the two parts of the system listed I can't support it. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Title has been fixed and has all the references you want. One comment that doesn't pertain to the article all that much, the shields for I-605 and I-705 probably shouldn't be in Series B, the signs I've seen for the two are in series C most of the time. I'll go to the shields request page and see what can be done, as some other shields' numbers are too widely spaced - C L — 19:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why does there need to be a ton of references for each route? Furthermore, it's mostly all the same map being referenced. It would be better to just make a general reference list and only have in-line references for specific anomalies not covered by the general references. --Polaron | Talk 20:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed all the specific WSDOT map references. I took away more than 100 references. ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) 18:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The opening sentence leads me to believe the article covers Interstates, U.S. and State Highways, yet the list itself only includes two of the three. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 12:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Current ref 1 (Washington State DOT "State Highway Log) is lacking a last access date.
What makes http://www.interstate-guide.com/ a reliable source?
Likewise http://www.ushighways.com/usbt.htm?
And http://www.westcoastroads.com/?
You don't need to specify (in English) or (HTML) in website references, it's assumed to be the case unless otherwise noted (Examples include current t ref 57, 59)

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Comments: Blue_Bridge and U.S._Route_99_Alternate are ambigous links. — Dispenser 23:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]