Wikipedia talk:Notability (highways)/Archive 01

Do we really have a problem which requires another guideline? This seems like just more WP:CREEP. --Kevin Murray 21:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of this guideline is to solve two problems. There are a lot of editors who still think that state highways aren't notable. If there's a consensus-approved guideline to point to, it can save a lot of time at AfD. Secondly, there have recently been a few editors at the various roads WikiProjects now creating articles on county highways, which aren't notable. Thus the purpose of this page is to find a happy medium between the two extremes that everyone at WP:USRD and Wikipedia as a whole can agree on. -- NORTH ^talk 21:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you demonstrate some AfD examples where the current guidelines have failed? The rules so far seem rather arbitrary and non-WP. --Kevin Murray 23:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:USRD/P. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, Common outcomes states that highways are notable. Presumably, this means "state highways", as I've never seen anything higher than a state highway make it to AfD, and there's no clear consensus regarding county highways (or at least, there wasn't until recently). The WP:USRD/P page Rschen cites shows that even though this has been listed as a common outcome for quite some time, state highways are still sent to AfD relatively frequently, but usually closed as keep, and always at least defaulting to keep. -- NORTH ^talk 06:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Worldwide?

Surely if we're going to have a guideline for the notability of roads, it needs to have a global perspective not just an American one? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm in full agreement with that. However, I don't know who's going to be interested in writing the non-US portion. -- NORTH ^talk 23:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd have thought Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography would be a good place to ask for UK roads. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Good plan. However, the other thing I've thought of is that perhaps a specific notability guideline isn't necessary for other roads. From what I've seen, notability is only really being challenged for US roads, and people are writing articles on non-notable US roads, not country roads in the outskirts of Surrey.

In other words, yes, it would be great for Wikipedia's road coverage to be less US-centric. But at present, this is the guideline that's needed. -- NORTH ^talk 01:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Currently, we are trying to get the US portion of this guideline decided. After this, we will address the rest of the world. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have posted to the UK project as recommended, as well as WikiProject Germany. A USRD editor has said he will work on a Canada section. I think it's important to note that the guidelines will be different for each country, since the road systems are so fundamentally different (although there may be some consistency in EU countries). -- NORTH ^talk 06:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

In case nobody noticed, I posted Canada on there. Feel free to change any of it as needed, I did my best with what I know and what I could get off of Wikipedia. It's a lot like the US (with which I'm more familiar), so I used that section as my basis, which is why they're very similar. --MPD ^{T / C} 19:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If it's so strikingly similar, it may be better to simply merge the US and Canada into a single section. -- NORTH ^talk 21:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm no expert on it. If some Canadian specialists revise it and it's still pretty much similar, then merging the two sections is definitely an option. --MPD ^{T / C} 22:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

AFD precedent for German highways is that all autobahns are notable (even those just a few km long). We do not have many articles on other federal highways in Germany, but I guess that all German federal highways will be notable (with lots of verifiable information). The German Wikipedia has articles on all federal highways, both Autobahnen and Bundesstraßen. See List of federal highways in Germany and German Autobahns to see what exists here and what is still missing. State-level roads are probably not generally notable (and their numbers are unknown to most Germans using them). Thematic tourist roads (de:Ferienstraße) that do not necessarily have a single number are sometimes well-known and probably notable. de:Deutsche Märchenstraße and some others have already been translated into Japanese. Kusma (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm still a bit confused, there are conflicting messages in the above discussion. But based on these comments[1] [2] , it seem that the proposal is designed to be US-centric and that a worldwide convention isn't required. That being the case, why isn't this named "Notability (US highways)" instead of "Notability (highways)"?-- Waggers 14:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Instruction creep

Kevin Murray started this page off wondering if it was instruction creep. While I think that it's important to have a notability guideline for roads/highways, we should remember that this page is a notability guideline, and not a style guideline. The information on <div> tags and anchors should probably go on one of the WikiProject pages. -- NORTH ^talk 21:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• There's no real reason why it can't be both. For instance WP:FICT explains both parts of the equation rather well. At any rate I would appreciate seeing a demonstrable need for this page. >Radiant< 11:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Are the AfDs mentioned in the first section not enough? -- NORTH ^talk 18:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Guideline needs a clearer direction WRT notability=existance of source materials

The biggest issue is that articles can only be written where significant reliable source material exists to write an article about. Generally, roads that are part of a national highway system (Interstate or US roads in the U.S. for example) WILL have this source material, and Generally, secondary or county numbered roads won't. However, the existance of this guideline should never imply that it trumps Wikipedia policies like WP:NOT, or that articles that will never be more than stubs should be encouraged to be created; or conversely that articles with copious source material should be deleted. There are some problems I see:

1. Some interstates, especially the very short ones (I-395 in Baltimore, I-189 in Vermont, the I-x75's in Tampa Bay come to mind) are essentially long exit ramps that for some reason got their own interstate number. There is little more than a single paragraph to ever be written about roads like these; they likely may be better served as part of a list article like List of short Interstate Highways or something like that.

1. Some secondary numbered roads are VERY notable in that local press coverage on them is extensive, they are long and heavily traveled, etc. etc. The XX00 series in Virginia (Fairfax County Parkway, Franconia Springfield Parkway, Prince William Parkway all come to mind) are ostensibly tertiary routes, as 4-digit routes (generally, in Virginia, 4-digit routes are cul-de-sacs, neighborhood streets, etc.) but they are major public works projects, have copious coverage, and can support full articles.

The best principle, as always is CAN extensive, reliable source material be found on articles. I propose the following guidelines as indicating that the source material is probably there:

1. If the road is a limited access freeway with at least one full interchange along its length, it is probably notable, regardless of what authority maintains it, or what number convention it falls under (or even if it is unnumbered).
2. If the road is a major artierial road that is used as a major commuter route, or connector to the above, then it is probably notable, again regardless of numbering or anything else.
3. If the construction, maintenance, or existance of the road has been the source of community controversy, or otherwise part of the public discourse(i.e. press) in its community, then it is ALWAYS notable, even if it was never completed, or indeed even built (Boston's Inner Loop, for example). Even if cancelled, many of these projects have VOLUMES of source material to draw from.
4. If the road is historically significant, such that historical source material exists about it, it is probably notable. Such obvious examples are the Lincoln Highway, Route 66, the Dixie Trail, the Boston Post Road.
5. Roads where the ONLY reliable source material upon which to base an article are listings in route logs, lines on a map, or otherwise trivial source material are generally not notable (see WP:NOT a directory) and should be merged into a list article, such as List of Delaware state highways or something. Within those list article, actually notable roads can be wikilinked, while non-notable roads can be left unlinked, for cases where the article will contain no extra information beyond what is reported in the list. Examples of this include the short interstates I listed above, state highways that avoid major communities, county routes, secondary routes, etc...

Any kind of road I missed above? What do you all think? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Interstates should always have a separate article. The same is true with (nonbannered) U.S. Routes. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

If any reliable source (i.e. maps, routelogs) can be deviated, it is notable. Sources such as these can be easily turned into text. Articles such as these are not anything mentioned in WP:NOT. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路)} 04:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, WP:NOT clearly states that wikipedia is NOT A DIRECTORY. If all an article is is a list of simple facts about a roads mileage and intersections, then the article is simply a directory entry from a route log. Articles need prose, and prose needs to come from other sources of prose. Even converting directory information into prose does not make it an article. I could also write: "John Doe lives at the adsress of 123 Elm Street. This home is located in the city of Anywhere, USA. The zip code for Anywhere is 97865. John Doe can be reached by phone at (999)123-4567." If this is the ONLY reliable information about John Doe printed in any source, it doesn't make John Doe notable, and as such he does not merit an article. Likewise, writing "Route 23 is 38 miles long. It's northern termini is in Anywhere and its southern termini is in Sometown. Route 23 has intersections with three other numbered routes: I-42 in Thistown, US-68 in Thattown, and SR-99 in Anothertown." If this is ALL the information we have about Route 23 in reliable sources, how can we build an article out of it? Making a telephone book entry into prose does not make a person notable, and making a routelog entry into prose does not make a road notable.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It will actually turn out that, at least for the U.S., the roads that would be considered notable under Jayron32's criteria would be essentially the same as the roads in the Interstate, U.S. and primary state highway classes. While many people seem to frown upon using classes of objects as criteria for notability, using classes of objects is a convenient and easy to check against method of determining notability. There usually is a reason why states assigned numbers to certain routes and not to others (usually either current or historical importance), and with enough research, one can obtain sufficient resources to write decent articles about most of them. These guidelines are just a convenient way to determine notability without knowing too much about the road. Of course, as in any article, all road articles should still state why they are notable. --Polaron | Talk 04:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It is more important than stating why they are notable. Claims which indicate notability need to be referenced to reliable sources. The statement that "all X are likely to be notable because many X are the subjects of extensive writing in reliable sources" is NOT THE SAME as saying "All X are always notable". This guideline needs to be clearer that the first statement is what it means, and not the second. Sometimes, "X" is not notable; and sometimes "not-X" is notable. The only class of roads that are always notable are the class of roads which are written about extensively in reliable sources. If a road does not belong to that class, then it does not merit an article.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

State highways always have reliable sources that can be attributed to them. They are, but not limited to maps and route logs. Obviously, there are historical maps that can supplement the history section, and there are also newspaper articles. In this case, every state highway is notable no matter what. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路)} 23:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) This guideline is purposely meant to be similar to WP:BIO, at least in regards to U.S. roads. At WP:BIO, one can find the following statement about politicians: "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures." Thus, all governors, etc., are "automatically notable". The accompanying footnote explains why this is:

“ This is a secondary criterion. People who satisfy this criterion will almost always satisfy the primary criterion. Biographers and historians will usually have already written about the past and present holders of major political offices. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of major political offices, incorporating all of the present and past holders of that office, will be complete regardless. ”

In other words, they're automatically notable because (as you said, Jayron32) there are likely to be reliable sources to supplement the article, even if they haven't been found yet. That being said, this can only be applied to state highways a vast majority, but not all, of the time. That's why this guideline admits that there will be exceptions to the rule, and minor state highways are best placed in a list article, rather than individual articles.

To sum up my humble opinion, Vishwin and Jayron are both right. -- NORTH ^talk 19:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks CREEPy to me. How about we go with "A subject is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial..." and leave it at that? If you're right, and that is true of all state highways, they're all notable. If you're not, this is instruction creep trying to make them something you're not. I'm not convinced they are myself, most state highway articles that I've seen cite pretty trivial coverage, and they also seem to run afoul of WP:LOCAL, many are solely of local interest. I'm also not impressed with "precedent" outcomes, to be blunt, the last time I saw a road AfD, Wikiproject Highways was out in force with a "newsletter" to aggressively canvass its members, and amazingly enough, soon as that came out, there were a ton of keeps. This will have to go through the same evolution schools did-the beginning will be "ALL X are notable!" vs. "Barely any X are notable, what are you talking about!". In the end, most people will realize the answer's somewhere in the middle-not every school (or stretch of numbered pavement) is notable, but a pretty good number of them are. It still comes down to the same old question-"Well, has it actually been noted?" Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Your logic seems to be faulty. In the roads/highways case, if somebody takes the time to research historical and current info about the highway in question, it is notable. As NORTH said, "there are likely to be reliable sources to supplement the article, even if they haven't been found yet. That being said, this can only be applied to state highways a vast majority, but not all, of the time. That's why this guideline admits that there will be exceptions to the rule, and minor state highways are best placed in a list article, rather than individual articles." V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路)} 15:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing meaningful in this proposal that can't be achieved by properly applying WP:N. While the participants here are working in good-faith with the best of intentions, there is no need for expanding the already bloated system of rules at WP. No need has been demonstrated. At minimum the guideline should be well written, specifically the US section which is atrocious. --Kevin Murray 16:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no rush; we can develop this into something clearer as we go along - unless of course, there is another rash of highway AFDs :) I think one problem is that many of the people who put highway articles up for AFD don't really know much about the particular highway they nominated. My guess is that most highway AFD nominations are because: (1) the article is currently a stub, and that (2) the nominator doesn't think one can find sources on highways to expand the article. As I mentioned earlier, certain routes were chosen to be numbered and signed for the public to be able to follow along for a reason (usually historical or current importance). Granted this is not always true, but we need a way to discourage people from nominating highways for AFD that they know very little about. --Polaron | Talk 16:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Kevin here, provided its well sourced and so forth applying WP:N, then a well sourced highway article had demonstrated that it is notable. Also highways notability do vary by country to country, so listing every country on this proposal would just completely bloat the proposal. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 01:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

AFD outcomes in which road articles were kept do not provide a good basis for notability policy if canvassing brought in Keep votes. That appears to have been the case in several AFDs for numbered roads. If a road has been noted by substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, then it should have an article. If the only references are a line on a map or being on some hobbyist website, or a directory listing in a state database, then its notability is questionable. A guideline such as this could be useful, especially if it was not brought out as guaranteeing inherent notability to some class of roads, when that would prevent deletion of permanent stub articles which were basically directory listings. Some editors do not agree that any road with a number is guaranteed an article, and I would have problems with any such guideline. There are some roads in the world (and yes, in the U.S.) which are too insignificant to have their own article. in an encyclopedia. Edison 18:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Those insignificant roads are most county routes. State highways, on the other hand, can have multiple, independent, reliable sources that we haven't bothered to find yet. V60 ^{干什么？ · 喝掉的酒 · 路} 22:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The US Road project page would be a great place to list sources that editors could use, if the sources you "haven't bothered to find yet" exist. Then 10 high quality articles could be written in a given period of editing instead of 100 likely permanent stubs, which merely express connectivity between intersections, and milage. I would personally enjoy reading about the history and lore of highways I have been familiar with. Some were Indian trails, some are steeped in the history of the Civil War, or saw outlaws hold up stagecoaches, or were the sites of civil rights marches. Some had long battles to get built or paved, or were washed away by floods. If you think that WP:A quality sources exist, then please base a road article on them. I have seen a huge number of state highway articles that have remained stubs for a long time. They should not be forever above deletion when no one seems to be able to find more than directory listing quality information. Some are just little short connectors of no apparent significance other than being a tiny bit of acrage with pavement and a number. The equivalent in other countries would lack the pavement and perhaps the number. Wikipedia policies and guidelines should not be U.S.-centric, and we should have general enough guidelines that they fit a road anywhere, such as requiring substantial coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources, or perhaps other surrogates for these. Having a number may not be enough of a guarantee that sufficient info exists for a good article. I agree with Jayron that the leaast of the state highways belong in something like List of Delaware state highways. This could be in tabular form and include milage and termini. 21:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagreed- the reason the stubs exist is because there is noone with local knowledge regarding the road and/or noone has bothered to edit the article. A merger into a list article is not acceptable for length and style reasons. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"Local knowledge" does not satisfy WP:A. If "local knowledge" means someone saying "I remember the fall of '63, when the bulldozers cleared the way for the road," then that does not satisfy WP:A. If it means checking the local or regional newspaper, then I would agree it takes a while for someone to dig into those, especially pre-Google actual newspaper archives. If some little road is so unimportant that no one has ever written about it in a source satisfying WP:A then many would disagree with your assertion that it requires an encyclopedia article which just says "it exists". If no one has time to research and write a proper article, now, how do we know someone will in the foreseeable future? Better to spend time writing good articles on interesting roads people care about, than encouraging the creation of countless permastubs. Opposition to road stbs does not equal opposition to road articles in general. Edison 20:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Within the U.S. roads project, we are actually discouraging the creation of new stubs and encouraging improvement of existing articles. Also, what if in the guideline instead of explicitly saying state or nationally numbered roads are notable, we list criteria (like Jayron32's above) that would make a road notable, then add a note that numbered roads are more likely than not to satisfy the criteria and further examination is probably warranted when nominating a numbered state road stub for deletion. --Polaron | Talk 20:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

In reply to that last post:

Some of the reliable sources that we are using now are newspaper archives, as well as historical maps (Pennsylvania Route 145). As for stubs, articles like New Jersey Route 70 can be expanded with plenty of reliable sources, if somebody had the time to do so. As for a road that somebody might not care about, I don't really care about New Jersey Route 35, however it recently had a bridge replaced. Same goes with a decommissioned route, New Jersey Route 25.

• "Opposition to road stubs does not equal opposition to road articles in general."
• To be honest, about 65% of our road articles are stubbed. Because of this, it implies that you oppose road articles in general. V60 ^{干什么？ · 喝掉的酒 · 路} 20:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• It is improper to impute beliefs to another editor contrary to what they say in plain English. So 45% of the road article are better than stubs. That's great. Many of the others are probably important parts of the transportation system that people had to fight to get built/paved/widened and material could be found to write a useful and interesting article satisfying all policies and guidelines, specifically WP:N and WP:A. This proposed guidelines could include surrogates for the actual finding of those sources, so that the more important roads are shoo-ins with a presumption of notability (if not inherently guaranteed notability) which should make AFD's unlikely, and less contentions if you can cite some provision in this guideline. Some, though, are just so short and humdrum that it just does not seem encyclopedic to have a permastub which just says they exist, referenced only to a line on a map. There seem to be lots of roads which I judge to be noteworthy which don't even have stubs yet. Why not concentrate on those? Is there a "request line" for road articles? Arguing for guaranteed inherent notability for all the stuff you are a fan of just about guarantees eventual failure to reach consensus. Edison 22:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of the roads articles are stubs because we haven't gotten around to fixing them yet. There are currently over 4000 stubs- if we fixed one a day (which definitely isn't happening), it would take years to get each one up to snuff... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• • One good compromise would be to have articles like List of minor Maryland state highways and park the little connector roads there and work on the longer roads rather than proliferating stubs such as the roads on the list of roads shorter than one mile. Edison 22:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Routes such as California State Route 259 can be made into a full article: routebox, state law, description, and all. This would clog up a such minor route page, which quite frankly, is made by a slightly nonstandard project. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Bad example since CA-259 is a freeway, which is very likely to have secondary sources and definitely deserves an article. But a List of minor state roads is not out of the question. There is, in fact, such a provision in the currently proposed guideline in the U.S. section. --Polaron | Talk 22:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Okay, but only truly minor routes should be there. I'm concerned that other users will have a heyday and decide to merge everything into a list article. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
        • We have an encyclopedia to build, and I hate to a guideline encouraging someone to waste their time by moving some 1/10 mile road from a "list of minor roads in state x" to becoming a stub article that will likely never say more than it goes from a to b. I would argue against indiscriminate merging into lists roads longer than a mile (or 2). Consider MD 979 which is only .04 miles long. Why should it be guaranteed its own article, (by being a numbered state highway) rather than an appropriate entry in List of minor Maryland state highways? Edison 05:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Correct, so the guideline would in this case encourage the merging of this. Now, if there were important facts regarding MD 979 (such as ... I dunno... a meteor from Mars destroyed it and it was rebuilt?) then you could split it off. Or if it was a freeway or something. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
            • There's that little steep crooked street in San Francisco which merits an article because it has been written about a lot. I'm sure there are roads .5 miles long which have had several articles. Maybe it cost a bundle to build the road through the quicksand or there was a scandal because it went to some politician's cabin, or the town dried up and died because they delayed building the spur after the main highway through town was relocated. Or as above, some historic event. Or some famous author lived at the end and wrote about all his neighbors. Or it was the first concrete highway in 1890. Or the mob buried 10 bodies under it when they paved it. Lots of possibilities. Edison 21:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Instead of having this... we could have a general notability for "places and structures", or geography, guideline

It would include buildings, roads, towns, villages, hamlets, bodies of water, hills, forests - any individual feature or structure existent in human or physical geography. What do you all think of this idea?

The main criterion would obviously, as with everything else, be that a subject is notable if it has been the primary focus of multiple non-trivial reliable sources. There is a lot of potential to create geography stubs, many of which are still missing encyclopedic articles and are almost always encyclopedic (unlike MySpace bands).

See also Wikipedia:Places of local interest, a rejected proposal. I'd appreciate feedback. Thanks--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 04:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagreed. Highways are differently classified than other geographical things. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Has this policy been rejected?

The actual problem with this proposed guideline is that it lacks community feedback. I would therefore encourage the proponents of this page to advertise it (e.g. WP:RFC, WP:VPR) in order to get more feedback on it. By which I specifically do not mean a vote (see WP:POL). It probably needs some rewording to make it more acceptable to the community, but there is no a priori reason why we can't have a notability guideline on highways.

Personally, I would suggest broadening the scope to include all kinds of streets, because that'd make it more practical advice to editors. >Radiant< 09:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The poll was to show that this policy has not been rejected, since one user made it his personal mission to ensure that a {{rejected}} tag was on there. But otherwise, agreed. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Part 2

This policy is actually still in active discussion at the above section(s). I don't want to have to go into another revert war. I think the reason why this keeps getting a {{rejected}} on it is because the people placing it there don't know much about highways or that they don't care about highways. To me and some other people, that's just sad. V60 ^{干什么？ · 喝掉的酒 · 路} 19:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Your accusation is simplistic. People are concerned about a proliferation of poorly written guidelines which contradict each other and the WP:N. Perhaps there might be a justification for a succinct guideline as part of a broader guideline on transportation, which might include trains, buses, roadways, airports, etc. Why in the world do we need different guidelines for various countries? This is at best a rambling essay. --Kevin Murray 20:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

One of the predominant proponents of this proposal, User:Northenglish has retired from WP. It seems that there is very little support remaining. --Kevin Murray 20:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I've ignored this page for a while because I am sick of fighting over this dang proposal: specifically, users who hate highways and who decide that this proposal is crap. Sorry. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not opposed to instead create a wider guideline encompassing transportation infrastructure and services if that is what is needed to get wider acceptance. However, many AFD nominations for roads are misguided simply because the articles are currently stubs so some kind of "official" guideline is definitely needed. We can reduce the country-specific information by grouping the countries into two: one where state/province roads are significant and another where these roads are not. But national roads are almost always significant. --Polaron | Talk 20:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly, tagging this proposal with {{rejected}} is prejudicial against highways. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Since my name has been brought up, I might as well contribute. I think the USRD people need to realize that their goals may be in conflict with the goals of Wikipedia as a whole, since whenever they try to participate in anything that involves the whole encyclopedia (i.e. official guidelines, FAC, cleanup templates), they're shocked to find that there's opposition. They might also want to reconsider accusing others of prejudice, since that's surely not the way to get what they want. -- NORTH ^talk 10:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I think most people would agree to a guideline that says "the following classes of highways shall have coverage on Wikipedia". In other words, those about which very little can be written can and should be merged somewhere in one way or another. Maybe that's what we should be aiming for. Lower-class highways don't always need even coverage; for instance, a list of all secondary state routes in Virginia would be ridiculously long and pointless. --NE2 14:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit requested

{{editprotected}} I would like to add a link to a relevant essay, Wikipedia:50,000 people per street, in a "See also" section at the bottom of the page. This may be a useful starting point if we are to expand this guideline to cover city streets. --Polaron | Talk 14:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreement?

I'm trying to get a sense of why there is opposition to the proposal. Is it because some feel that it is redundant? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Texas Farm-To-Market roads

Under the proposed guidelines, some 3000+ Farm-to-market roads in Texas would no longer be eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia. That would make a pretty fair amount of efforts in cataloging them (like this list of lists of FM/RM roads) superfluous. That may be good or bad -- I bowed out of attempting to influence Wikipedia highway policy after getting slapped down for preferring "U.S. Highway" over "U.S. Route" (I'm over it now! Really!). But the impact should certainly be considered. Side note: I wonder why there isn't a road-specific Wiki out there somewhere? If the Star Trek geeks can have one, why can't we roadgeeks? --Robertb-dc 16:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The Texas FM/RM system is a sparse system, therefore they are notable like the California County Routes and the 500-series New Jersey County Routes. V60 ^{干什么？ · 喝掉的酒 · 路} 17:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they really are that sparse. There are probably enough notable ones for a full list, but I would think that many of them have little to say other than the termini and when it was commissioned. --NE2 17:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, "sparse" would be the last word that one would use to describe the FM system in Texas. "Ubiquitous" would be more like it. Texas is big, but 3000+ FM roads do a pretty good job of blanketing the state -- and that's in addition to several hundred more in the SH, Loop, and Spur categories, plus US and Interstate routes. Many of the routes are less than a mile long, and/or terminate at a county line or unnumbered road junction. As much as I want to index every single one, I'd have to say that the 7.8 miles of FM 2860, while well-known to me, is probably not of much interest to anyone outside of southern Kaufman County, and only a local roadgeek would care that in the early 1970s, it was combined with FM 3095, a designation that now covers a road I'll probably never see in Midland County. --Robertb-dc 17:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This history can easily be covered in a table, much like list of bus routes in Manhattan. --NE2 17:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think like most things, this would be on a case-by-case basis. I don't think every FM/RM roads deserves its own article, but some do. "Under the proposed guidelines, some 3000+ Farm-to-market roads in Texas would no longer be eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia." is an innacurate statement, they just wouldn't be eligible for their own separate article, but they can be included in a list. Getting back to the case-by-case basis as outlined in the second bullet of exceptions, take Farm to Market Road 1 for example. The road itself may not warrant an article, but since it is the first FM road designated by Texas, it has some historical significance and notability. Although, I am not totally convinced that the system doesn't fall under the category as the California county roads since Texas FM roads are built to the same standards as all highways maintained by TXDOT, for example you will never find a dirt or gravel FM road, they are all paved and you will typically see a speed limit of 70 mph on most of them in rural areas. --Holderca1 15:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus?

Do we have general agreement to pass the parts of this page? Note: consensus is not unanimity, as some would have you believe. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Silence equals consent, so yes. V60 ^{干什么？ · 喝掉的酒 · 路} 18:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Not yetI still see productive ongoing discussions, and stylistically we still have the same verbatim text passages occurring repeatedly in discussion of different geographical areas. This would be better consolidated under general principles. I see a lot that I like in this, as it seems to be trying to strike a balance between inclusionism and deletionism to keep articles for encyclopedic highways and have lists of minor roads. Edison 14:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Parts, not all. V60 ^{干什么？ · 喝掉的酒 · 路} 15:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is not good in its current state. --NE2 05:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)