Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Maybe a different approach

Okay, since there are quite a few different words that can be used in different circumstances with varying degrees of correctness. I've started a table below to help organize things. Discuss anything you add to the table below it so you don't have to sign in the table itself. I've started one row so those unfamiliar with wikitable syntax can see how to add new rows for new words. Mr.Z-man 18:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Term	Possible uses	Pros	Cons	Sources
Decommissioned	To describe a road (or road section) that has had its designation removed	Seems to be more concise than other ways to describe what happened	Not used by any DOTs, may be confused with closing the road permanently	Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe, Kansas City Star
Abandoned	To describe a road that has been transferred from state maintenance to a more local authority.	Cited in one (1) state law	Implies (by definition) that the road is no longer used at all, which is mostly untrue.	[1] (605 ILCS 5/4‑206)
Cancelled	To describe a road that has had its designation removed	Used by TxDOT	Could be confused with construction being halted during the planning stage/before complete	Transportation Planning and Programming Division (n.d.). "U.S. Highway No. 66". Highway Designation Files. Texas Department of Transportation.
Deleted	To describe a road that has had its designation removed	Concise	Some people find it surreal or confusing	[2]
Turned back/over	To describe a road transferred from state maintenance to a lower authority	Gets the general idea across with no confusion	Can be used in less situations; less concise	sources
Eliminated	"eliminated from the U.S. Highway system"	Used by AASHTO	cons	[3]
Abolished	uses	pros	cons	sources
De-designated	uses	pros	Clumsy	sources
Designation removed	uses	Unambiguous	Multiple words (so what?)	[4][5]

Sources for usage or sources for definitions? The latter aren't readily found for any term. —Scott5114↗ 01:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If we have sources for usage and the dictionary supports it, then we have a sourced definition. This seems to be a red herring; we don't need a source to say that "U.S. Route 66 was eliminated from the U.S. Highway system, becoming K-66 in Kansas" is a clear statement. --NE2 11:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This is for usage in articles; we'll have to figure out what to do with the article (might it make sense to expand its scope to something like changes of highway designations?) --NE2 11:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That question was specifically directed at the mediator. —Scott5114↗ 15:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sources for usage (or a dictionary definition that would also apply). If we use terms that aren't used elsewhere, it is basically original research. Mr.Z-man 18:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the biggest area of confusion is that these words are typically referring to the designation and not the roadway itself. Some people think decommissioned means that afterwards it is no longer of use. Even the decommissioning of a Naval ship doesn't mean the ship no longer exists, there are many that are still in use, one such example is as a tourist attraction. The USS Alabama being one such example. --Holderca1 ^talk 17:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

We're still concentrating on a single term to use, when we don't need a single term. We don't even have a single term for a highway designation (unless that counts): route number doesn't cover lettered routes, and there are designations like the Great River Road. We don't need a single term to describe many rather different situations. --NE2 00:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with that; we do need a term to use for infoboxes, disambiguation, and so forth. This discussion is starting to bear some fruit. —Scott5114↗ 00:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

We've already avoided the issue in infoboxes; see U.S. Route 66 for example. For disambiguation, we've been using years for a long time (U.S. Route 48 (1926) for example), and for categories "former state highways in [state]" works fine. It's only when we're writing about a specific case that we seem to have a dispute. --NE2 00:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Seddon69

This is an idea that seems to have been said by a lot of people so i have merely made it more clear. Every time it seems that the discussion gets side tracked and the objectivity gets lost. It is clear that using a single word is not the way forward at that more accurate words need to used for the given situation.

There are three main categories which roads seem to fall into if their status has been changed:

• Where a road is no longer in use - This would be the area where the word "decomissioned" seems to be in continuity with its dictionary definition. Or another well used word, "abandoned"

• A road that has been renumbered as with highway 666 - No reason why "renumbered" cant just be used here.

• A road which has had its status changed ie. From State Highway to county route or vice versa. - I see no reason why the term "redesignated" cannot be used. The result of the redesignation can then be stated.

• When a state highway becomes a generic town road - status was removed, designation was removed, or similar phrase

In the event people dont agree with this each category needs to be discussed in order until a consensus is reached. Don't move on to the next term until the current one has been agreed apon. Otherwise this discussion will never get anywhere and stay stuck in the mud as it has been.

I would also suggest, after consensus is reached, that these should be placed into a subpage of the Project and, if there is a good consensus, marked as a guideline for highway articles. Mr.Z-man 02:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Either that or a special article styles subpage of WP:MOS, linked from the project page. There is already Wikipedia:Manual of Style (U.S. state highways). --Athol Mullen (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a worldwide issue. I'll suggest Wikipedia:Manual of Style (highways). --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it is a worldwide issue. My point in mentioning that there is already an MoS subpage specific to US state highways was that there shouldn't be a problem getting a similar subpage created to cover consensus wording emanating from this project. --Athol Mullen (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I am going to have to disagree with this, I am still not sure why people are stuck on decommission meaning that the road is no longer in use, that isn't the dictionary definition. The situation where decommission is most commonly used is the decommissioning of ships of the Navy, and typically these are still used after being decommissioned, either as part of the reserve fleet or as a static tourist attraction. --Holderca1 ^talk 15:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If we removed the fourth category, would this work for you? I think "decommissioned" is a valid interpretation of the dictionary meaning if it were applied to roads whose designation was completely removed, especially if the route number is no longer used elsewhere in the system. --Polaron | Talk 15:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually I don't think it should be used for the first category, abandoned or closed would be a better term, since decommission doesn't mean to close anything, it would misleading to use it in that way. I do agree that the fourth category would be where decommission would be best used and is most consistent with the definition. --Holderca1 ^talk 15:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

"decommission doesn't mean to close anything"? What dictionary do you use? --NE2 16:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I am unable to find a definition for decommission that means "to close"; it's always "withdraw from active service" or something along those lines. In the case of highways, decommissioned refers to the route number, not the highway itself, and almost all of these articles seem to be referring to the route number, not the highways themselves, as the route number changes. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 18:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

We should be writing about the highway; if we're writing about the route number we're not doing it right. --NE2 18:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Kind of hard to write about the one without the other. A large portion of many state highway articles concerns the route designations. It makes sense to have a consistent style (or styles -- if there is significant documented local variation in usage). While I personally don't see why decommission has caused such an issue, I don't have a problem with using other terms -- so long as they are at least as clear as "decommissioned" and are not so awfully misguided as "deleted". older ≠ wiser 18:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, "decommissioned road", referring to a road that's now a trail. We even have a definition from a probably reliable source. --NE2 19:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

We aren't talking about a decommissioned road, we're talking about a decommissioned highway designation. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 19:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

No, we're talking about a decommissioned highway. --NE2 19:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

While napping I had a chance to think, and the issue is that when you say "Route 66", you mean both the physical road and the designation: "Route 66 is paved with concrete", "Route 66 was eaten by Godzilla". (No, my dream did not involve Godzilla eating Route 66. :)) So when we say "Route 66 was decomissioned", that would also logically apply to the roadway. Now, you could say "the Route 66 designation was decommissioned" and most people would probably "get it", but it still might be confusing exactly what happened: was it renumbered, downgraded in "status", or downgraded in maintenance? Was State Route 69 (Utah) decommissioned in 1993, or was it simply renumbered? --NE2 23:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You might have something there NE2, Thats would be a lot less confusing and as long as , in that same paragraph you explain exactly what happened to the designation, there would be little or no confusion or cause for concern.Seddon69 (talk) 10:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Only problem is that you can't decommission a designation, it doesn't make any sense. When you say you decommission something, you are removing its status, not the object itself. A road's status is its designation. --Holderca1 ^talk 16:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No thats incorrect, when you decommission something it is possible to remove the object. See this link here. Thats the problem, it can be used in multiple ways about the same thing. IOts trying to decide how to make it clear wht the usage is. Seddon69 (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I never said it wasn't possible, of course it is possible, when you decommission a ship, it is possible for to be sent off to be dismantled and sent to scrap. But to say decommission always results in the object itself being removed is wrong, which is what I was trying to say. Proper usage of the term would be, "Route 5 was decommissioned and abandoned", "Route 5 was decommissioned and demolished", "Route 5 was decommissioned and turned over to the city for maintenance", "Route 5 was decommissioned and became a county road." Actually, you can't really use just the word decommission to describe what happens to a road, maybe we don't need to use it at all. All of the above can be more concise without it. "Route 5 was abandoned", "Route 5 was demolished", "Route 5 was turned over to the city for maintenance", "Route 5 became a county road." Just like you can't use decommission alone when you refer to ships, you can't do it with highways either. So perhaps as a compromise, lets just do away with using it all together. Just saying "Route 5 was decommissioned doesn't really tell you anything. I still stand by that the word isn't a neologism, it is applying the dictionary definition to a highway, but being concise trumps everything anyway. No need to add extra fluff to the articles. I think in my efforts to back up that it wasn't a neologism blinded me to that fact. --Holderca1 ^talk 18:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What evidence do people require for:

• the use of the word "decommission" specifically for the removal of the road itself?
• the use of the word "decommission" merely for the removal of its status as a state/US/County highway etc?

In my opinion i would say that for the latter one, use of the term needs to be found before 1984. This would disprove that it is a neogolism created due to route 66 being "decommissioned." Seddon69 (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

To use it, we need a clear definition in a reliable source. --NE2 19:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If the road was completely removed, not just renumbered, closed, had its status changed, might simply removed or the more descriptive demolished (or a synonym like razed) be more appropriate? The American Heritage Dictionary defines "decommission" as "To withdraw (a ship, for example) from active service." Speaking as someone who is unfamiliar with the inner workings of the highway system like this, the best way to go, when in doubt, would be to use the most descriptive phrasing possible. That is, if there could be any confusion about what the term means, use a more descriptive term. If "decommissioned" might be too vague for a status/number change, just use a more descriptive, wordier term. Its much better to avoid confusion than save a little space. Mr.Z-man 20:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The definition as it applies to highways is the exact same as it applies to ships. Take a look at the template at the bottom of ship decommissioning. Just as a ship can be practically used following decommissioning, so can a highway. I think people just misunderstand the term decommission in general, not just as it pertains to highways. For those that think that decommissioning a highway means to abandon it, close it, demolish it, etc... What do you think it means to decommission a ship?? Sometimes it does mean to dismantle it and send the remnants off for recycling or scrap just as sometimes when you decommission a highway it it torn up. Just as a ship can be decommissioned and then be used as part of the reserve fleet, a state highway can be decommissioned and still be used as city street. --Holderca1 ^talk 21:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This might be an interesting article here. We arnt the only people that are having a problem with the term decommissioned. In regards to the National Forest Service, their official definition, taken from another source is as follows:

• Road Closure – an impediment to unauthorized travel would be placed or replaced at the entrance to a road. This may include a range of removable impediments for future use from a locked gate to berm placement.

• Road Decommissioning – removal of gravel surface, culvert removal, scarification of road surface, pulling back unstable fill slopes, berm placement (gates or debris, boulder or root wad piling), planting on disturbed soils and removing the road from the system.

I have also emailed the US Department for Transport asking for their official definition. I would suggest that this definition is the one used on wikipedia. Seddon69 (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Those who agree with this

• Most definitely. There is no reason to use "decommissioned" when better wording/phrasing is available. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 00:04, 18 November 2007 (GMT)
• I could live with this. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• A sound idea on all levels. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 00:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• It's good to see this in clear, well thought out writing. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 00:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I think that this is exactly what is needed. In effect, we're diambiguating "decommissioned" into distinctly different sub-categories. --Athol Mullen (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• I'd like to make sure I understand this - the only time you're suggesting to use "decommissioned" is when the road was actually closed? I think that's essentially what I've been proposing almost from the start :) I'm not sure however that using "decommissioned" in that case is a good idea - it's correct but will be misleading for the roadgeeks that are familiar with its expanded use. If you read "Route 5 was decommissioned" you won't be sure whether it was closed or just changed in designation. I do suggest that if we make a guideline, we don't say "use these words" but "these words or their synonyms work" or even "these words don't work". Multiplex could be worked into it, and maybe we should come to a consensus on when to use freeway/expressway/etc. --NE2 03:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Concerned about the last bit. The West Coast definition of a freeway and an expressway are different from the East Coast definition... --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually…that's only CA, and it's defined in state law. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 03:50, 18 November 2007 (GMT)
      • Eh... no. Expressway --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually a number of other states use it, including Oklahoma. This is something to discuss later though; I suspect the final wording will specify "at-grade expressway" or something similar, but let's put it off for now. --NE2 03:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Also…didn't we rid "multiplex" a long time ago? 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 03:57, 18 November 2007 (GMT)
          • I assume NE2 means putting "don';t use multiplex" in the guideline. But let's just get teh decom'd in there and passed, then worry about the other stuff later. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes this is what you have said before NE2. In fact this is what lots of people have said before. I did this as someone who has knowledge of the dispute but is not involved in Highways or in USRD. That way i could not have a predetermined bias. In regards to the road geeks, the usage of the term decommissioned has such a wide meaning anyway that its confusing to the rest of the world. To many states use to many different words to describe things so i think that in this case terminology should be used that is accurate and understandable to the rest of the world. We will come to infoboxes and other things later (although i see no problem with the current method) and also other words than are a problem can be delt with at a later date like Rschen7754 suggested. Lets do it one step at a time.Seddon69 (talk) 08:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• clear as mud to me 8) master son^{T - C} 05:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Unsure. I have a question here. NE2's main problem with the term decommissioned is that it is a neologism. And when others give examples of usage, NE2 points to that nice long linked phrase, "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term.". But, what about everything else, such as deleted, et cetera? If this question can be answered, then I'll probably be able to completely determine my feelings. That having been said, I still think common sense should apply here. --Son (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Generally speaking, if the term being used is the same as its dictionary definition (even if the definition doesn't specifically say highways), it isn't a neologism and doesn't need sourced. So terms such as abandoned or demolished wouldn't need a sourced defintion when used. But terms such as deleted or cancelled are used in ways that are inconsistent with their dictionary definition and would need to be sourced if used. --Holderca1 ^talk 21:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Holderca1

Okay, after putting too much thought into this, my thoughts differ enough from those above that I am adding a section. Too many are confusing decommission with closing permanantly or destroying when that is not what it means. It is certainly possible for that to happen as a result of the decommissioning, but that is what happens after it was decommissioned. I like to use the older form of decommissioning, decommissioning of ships. Nuclear reactor decommissioning has muddied the waters a bit and is much more recent use of the term. When a ship of the Navy is decommissioned, it is effectively retired from active service. This doesn't mean it is permanently closed. It could then become part of the reserve fleet, a static museum display, etc... The same is true of highways. So I propose that if the word decommission is used in reference to highways, it has to be accompanied by what happened, simply saying a route is decommissioned doesn't tell the whole story. But, to keep things concise, we don't really need to use it at all. See these examples:

• for highways that are no longer in use but the roadbed is still in place, use abondoned: "Route 5 was abandoned"
• for highways that were torn up, destroyed, demolished, use demolished: "Route 5 was demolished"
• for highways that are now city streets, use turned over (be sure to say who it was turned over to): "Route 5 was turned over to the town of Anytown"
• for highways that were renumbered, use renumbered: "Route 5 was renumbered as Route 25"
• for highways that were downgraded, i.e. US Route to a state highway, use redesignated or downgraded: "US Route 5 was redesignated as State Route 5" or "US Route 5 was downgraded to State Route 5"
• for highway that were realigned, use realigned but depending on what happened to the old segment, one of the above may need to be used as well: "Route 5 was realigned to the north and the old alignment became Business Route 5" or "Route 5 was realigned to the north and the old alignment was turned over to the city"

I think I hit on all the possibilities, but I think this should be a good compromise. --Holderca1 ^talk 18:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that basically we just need to ignore whether or not decommissioned is a neologism because its an argument that is never gonna get any closer to being decided. I agree with what you have said with the stating of precisely what happened to. For the time being i think the term decommission needs to be avoided as much as possible due to the confusing nature and to use the following examples above for each case of road until an official definition of the term from the department of transport can be obtained. This is to allow some sort of continuity in the articles and for them to be understandable in an everyday context.Seddon69 (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Those who agree with this

• Support. I think this is probably as good as it will get. Seddon69 (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• I agree. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 23:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support, except that we shouldn't limit ourselves to any one term for each case; redesignated works for a renumbering, for instance. Basically describe what happened without confusing terminology. --NE2 01:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree completely. --Holderca1 ^talk 03:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Can people clarify whether they still think [6] is a bad edit? --NE2 06:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
    • master son^{T - C} 13:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)it's perfectly legit - the highway still exists - and why are we including blank fields in the first place? master son^{T - C} 13:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• NE2 stole all of my words. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 03:30, 20 November 2007 (GMT)
• Full support. --Son (talk) 04:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• agreed master son^{T - C} 13:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• This doesn't seem much different than Seddon's section above, but, anyway... Basically my thoughts are the same as NE2's in that we should have no limit to the terms that can be used if an alternate term can sufficiently describe what happened to the designation. Other than that, support. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Rschen7754 (T C) 01:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this pretty much can be considered as a consensus. I think we can inform the Mediation Cabal that the issue has been dealt with and that we can now go on to create a MoS for highways and include a section on this subject. --Seddon69 (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll let this sit a day or 2 more to make sure there is no opposition, but this is a good conclusion. Mr.Z-man 23:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

As an overview i can say that pretty much this is what has been decided:

• The word 'decommissioned' or any other single term is not appropriate in many different uses as this is confusing.
• The word 'decommissioned' or any other single term can be replaced with multiple, more accurate and therefore less confusing terms. e.g. renumbered, redesignated
• That a Highways Manual of Style needs to be written to assist in editors in using easy to understand and correct terminology.

I think that has been a pretty quick and successful end to what has been a very long discussion Seddon69 (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like a little more confirmation that edits like [7] are fine; I don't want to start making changes and then get right back where we started. --NE2 13:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That particular one was edited correctly. I would have to see some others (which i don't have time to at the moment) master son^{T - C} 16:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

For future reference this guideline should probably be recorded somewhere that can be easily referenced. Mr.Z-man —Preceding comment was added at 00:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Its something that is gonna be worked on in time. Along getting more involvement from UKRD Seddon69 (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Are these articles about interchanges or something more?

Category:North-South Expressway Interchanges contains a lot of badly written articles that seem to me to be about interchanges. I'd appreciate if somebody else could look at them and see if they agree. --NE2 09:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Manual of Style

Ok, the next step is to decide whether to create a manual of style of Highways or not. If we do it needs to have cooperation from the three main roads projects, US Roads, UK Roads and Canada Roads. Do you think it needs to happen? Seddon69 19:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I would put the decommissioned stuff in there and mark it as a guideline. Then I would go back and possibly add the rest of the stuff, as this discussion could take a long time. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If this MOS entry were to be expanded besides the neologisms, then it'd have to be lightweight and flexible for all highways articles. But back to the original focus of this, it could be fairly easy to get a word usage MOS posted. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 20:25, 01 December 2007 (GMT)

I think that it would be good to get a MoS for roads and highways in general, starting with what's already been hammered out. Over time, we can expand it as needed. The talk page for that MoS would obviously become the focal point for such discussion. --Athol Mullen 02:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, this already seems to exist in narrow form as WP:ELG; it would just need to be expanded to be less exit-specific. That said, I have to note that "cooperation with MOS" is conspicuously absent from this discussion's "it needs to have cooperation from..." list, and that conflict in this regard has already been taking place (as Rschen7754 can well attest). It is good that a notice about this discussion was at least posted to WT:MOS. MOS regulars are increasingly concerned about the fragmentation of the MOS all over the place, and the "this is part of the MOS" claims that topical projects are making for their article-writing and nomenclature quasi-guidelines that no one outside of the project that created them has ever even noticed existed, much less reviewed in depth for consistency with the site-wide style guidelines. So, let's try not going that route. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Decommissioned doesn't apply to exit lists. The exit list guide is only intended for the formatting exit lists, which has to be unified and precise to avoid misinterpretation. Think of it like a map legend. That said, perhaps we could see about making a Wikipedia:Manual of Style (highways) page, which would include links to WP:USSH and WP:ELG as subtopics. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It is apparent that you are not aware of the gravity of this issue, the conflict that it took to achieve this resolution, or of the necessity to include this in a highway-specific MOS guideline separate from ELG, for exit lists do not relate to "decommissioned." --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. IMO, Whether or not this specifically go by the name of part of the WT:MOS, something needs to exist. There are many things that are in and have been in contention, and when a consensus is reached it needs to be recorded in one place not strewn about everywhere. There are thousands of articles that exist under Highways and many mroe that have yet to be written. There needs to be basic guidelines about what should and should not be put in an article. If it isnt wanted in the complete MOS then so be it but this needs to exist in some form for the sake of this project and the many projects and articles associated with it. Seddon69 (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have any complaints about me doing a draft copy of a decommissioned guideline for now? Seddon69 (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No complaints here; we need something to get the ball rolling. That's how WP:ELG was started. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 02:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Didn't know about that one. Definitely a candidate for merging into an overall highway MoS. --Athol Mullen (talk) 09:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

See the comments above. In my view, the essence of the highway MOS needs to be developed before any merge is considered. That said, I don't think it's a good idea to merge, especially since ELG is an established page. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 14:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hm, while I was waiting in line at the bookstore, I saw a thesaurus and got to thinking. Perhaps we could make a highways thesaurus/usage guide that provides alternatives for many terms. I know by the time I get to the end of a route description I've gotten tired of using "intersected", "crosses", and "meets", so it'd be useful for sparking up prose, and we could include the whole "DO NOT ENTER USE DECOMMISSIONED" thing in with it, listing the alternatives below. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

New interproject task force

It has come up of a possibility of a task force for both Canada Roads and here for the territories. This task force would include:

1. Guam
2. American Samoa
3. Puerto Rico
4. U.S. Virgin Islands
5. Johnston Atoll (1 road surprisingly)
6. Wake Island
7. Northern Mariana Islands (225 miles of road)
8. Nunavut
9. Northwest Territories
10. Yukon Territory
11. Midway Atoll (20 miles of road)

In short, this would be the first interproject task force, and would cover twice the area than induvidual ones. Tell me what you think.^Mitch32^contribs 21:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Iono, the nature of the Canadian Territories is pretty different than the US Territories. (Arctic compared to tropic, almost no roads compared to lots of roads, etc.,). I'm not sure how this would work, really. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 22:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The basics is that we merge territories from both countries into this new idea. ^Mitch32^contribs 23:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The general purpose I see behind this is that the territories spoken of here have amount of roads (though I would exclude Puerto Rico from it since it has more roads than maybe 3 or 4 of the others combined) so regardless of location, its about combining small scopes into one. — master son^{T - C} 23:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The same could be said for the U.S. Virgin Islands - in 3 islands there's at least 50 roads.^Mitch32^contribs 23:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd say exclude Puerto Rico. It has unsigned US Interstate Highways. --Son (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that additional projects like this aren't really needed unless there are multiple editors actively editing the articles that such a project would cover. An additional layer of bureaucracy isn't really necessary if only 1 or 2 people are working on these articles. --Polaron | Talk 02:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Roads and Non Breaking Spaces

After looking at some of the GAN nominations that are to do with roads i noticed that when you have say NY 35 that most do not have non-breaking spaces if they are not wikilinked. I feel that its something that needs to be looked at. This is from a recommendation of MOSNUM:

“ In compound items in which numerical and non-numerical elements are separated by a space, a non-breaking space (or hard space) is recommended to avoid the displacement of those elements at the end of a line. ”

I realise that this is a recommendation but its something that is now being picked up a lot more on in GAN and definitely at FAC.Seddon69 (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

My personal feeling is that it's a valid recommendation for the upper-tier articles but it's too minor a detail to fix in the lower-tier ones that really need expansion more than anything else. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 16:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: IMO, the issue can be handled if/when an article is sent to a process (GA/A/FA) that looks for MOS compliance. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 16:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, I would see any occurrence of these being corrected - ideally. In reality, for things like these, concentration on B class articles for this is what we would need to do. Also GAs and As should be reviewed often, and any FA that has these problems (well, they would have to be reviewed to prevent delisting - should that be the only problem ;) ) Stubs and starts have more pressing issues, such as completeness.  — master son^{T - C} 17:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination backlog

There's still a significant backlog of highway articles at wp:good article nominations. We do not have enough regular reviewers to deal with all the nominations received, and unfortunately certain topics seem to suffer more than others. The good news is that the review process is relatively simple and any registered user is more than welcome to participate. If you'd like to help out, simply pick an article you haven't contributed to from the list and see if it meets every good article criteria. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the good article nominations talk page or even directly on my talk page. --jwanders^Talk 21:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Highways at Commons

Apparently Commons has WikiProjects. I've been thinking back to the superseded shield situation on Commons, and concluded that it would be better for Wikimedia as a whole to have a centralised place to discuss and set standards for highway images, particularly shields and maps. While on the subject of maps, the map for I-5 is used on 10 wikis, including the Deutsch Wikipedia. The current maps have no standard, and by consultation with the community over there, there can be a true consensus on how maps on Wikimedia should look. Because of this, I propose that a Highways WikiProject be created over at Commons to coordinate discussion efforts on shields and maps at the very least. However, as this proposal has the ability to drive users here crazy, I would like to hear a myriad of opinions (from all road WikiProjects; not just US) to see if this is feasible. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 03:52, 05 March 2008 (GMT)

We do have standards for maps. --Holderca1 ^talk 04:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Template revision assistance for highway segment names

Discussion about a possible Jctint template revision started for segments of highways with name designations. Query/advice requested. SriMesh | talk 04:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see my question

...at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (U.S. state and territory highways), that's the page I have watchlisted. I'm asking if anyone objects to upgrading that page from a style guideline to a naming convention. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Roaddis

If you are interested in roaddis pages, please contribute to a conversation about them here. Neelix (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to expand ELG's scope to non-freeways

A proposal has been made to consider expanding ELG to cover non-freeway junction lists. Please voice your opinions about the idea and how it should be implemented there. Thanks. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD for Roadgeek

Roadgeek has been proposed for deletion for the third or fourth time. The article is not great, but it seems to me to be encyclopedic and not suitable for deletion as WP:OR or WP:DICDEF. Please take a look at the article, improve it where you can (a better name for the hobby or interest being described would be good as would references for roads of specific interest), and weigh in at the AfD if you have a comment or position to state.--Hjal (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 762 articles are assigned to this project, of which 118, or 15.5%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place the following template on your project page:

{{User:WolterBot/Cleanup listing subscription|banner=HighwayProject}}

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Coordinates for linear features

I have started a page, to give guidance on adding coordinates to articles about linear features such as roads and rivers. I intend to use it to document current practise, and develop polices for future use. Please feel free to add to it, or to discuss the matter on its talk page. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Help!

(Note: I am the reviewer) I come bearing a plea of help from someone who nominated an article for GA. They have school, and asked me to come here to ask you guys for help....so here it is. The GA Review is here, please come over and help if you can. Cheers! —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 05:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Semi-highway dispute

Greetings, a user left a note on my talk page asking for assistance in a dispute on the Semi-highway talk page. The discussion concerns whether the concept exists. I do not know much about this subject; therefore, I am posting here in order to, hopefully, attract other editors to that discussion. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 23:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

How do I officially request a third opinion from this group on the above article?Synchronism (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This project is mainly a shell project. You could try soliciting opinions from WP:USRD or WP:UKRD... --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You can also post the article at Third Opinion. They usually provide a quick, neutral third viewpoint. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This looks identical to a two-lane freeway, which often is built for the purpose of dualling later. --NE2 19:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Category rename

If anyone has an interest, look at a rename proposal for Category:Two-lane freeways. It needs some additional comments. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Roads

The World Roads Portal is at Peer Review, if any editors know of any articles, images, news items or DYKs which could be added to the Portal, please add them directly to the portal or contact ....SriMesh | talk 19:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

RDT

I have been adding "RDT" to applicable templates to help distinguish them from other templates and now more as a norm to show they are RDTs (or Route Diagram Templates). Although i did not propose this, i carried it out being bold and thinking it was uncontroversial. Similar suffixes to the same types of templates have been added (not by me and even some with the suffix RDT not by me either) such as "map", "route map" and "route diagram". As recently this has been questioned, could i ask for people's opinions at Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template#Suffices. Simply south (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

A discussion regarding the primary source or secondary source classification of highway maps

Wikipedia talk:No original research#Regarding maps being "primary sources" according to this policy --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The thread was archived here. --Alpertron (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Argentine national roads

Hello folks. I have written articles for all current national roads and most old national roads in Argentina for the Wikipedia in Spanish. At this moment there are two featured articles and three good articles. I think an interesting subproject here would be to translate all these articles to English language, because most of the articles do not exist in this Wikipedia. You can find the Wikipedia in Spanish category here (for current roads) and here (for old roads). Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I composed a list from those categories. I'll take a stab at translating some too.Synchronism (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Great, I have no time to perform the translations, because in my free time I edit on the Spanish Wikipedia. Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Mexican Federal Highway 9

Mexican Federal Highway 9 was tagged for CSD, which was declined. The person who tagged it for such has asked at WT:CSD why it doesn't fit the criteria for A3. If you are interested in this article/adding input please feel free to drop by.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Important poll at WT:ELG

There is a discussion and an important poll at WT:ELG regarding standards for whether major intersections tables for at-grade roads should follow ELG standards and whether or not colors should be allowed in exit lists. We could use some votes from members of this project. Dough4872 (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TOTSO --NE2 03:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Sharing the best practice

Check out Template:Road marker . thanks to Certes --naveenpf (talk) 07:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

New infobox for road junctions

I created the template {{Infobox road junction}} for articles about interchanges and intersections, since I felt that {{Infobox road}} was inadequate for those articles. It still needs to be touched up a bit before it can be used in any articles, so I was hoping to get some help here, if possible. Thanks. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Testing it at Talk:South Bay Interchange, it "absorbs" the old infobox I put separately at the bottom for some reason. I put in dummy text and it still does it. I duped the dummy text and old infobox to show how I intended it to be displayed below yours. Needed: state project linkage, ability to footnote? I like it, although I probably prefer having the map directly below the image. I assume the "photo" and "map" will have caption parameters as well? I made up my "type", I really have no idea what this monster is if anyone wants to fill that in correctly. Also, this was a Big Dig project component, if there is a way to add a "Other info" or "Notes" parameter I think that might be useful. Sswonk (talk) 22:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The infobox was inserted into Mid-County Interchange and for some reason appears at the bottom of the article rather than the top. Dough4872 (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed; the end of the infobox's table was commented out for some reason. – TMF 10:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Exit 0 deletion discussion

I was not the one who marked this, but there's currently a AfD discussion for Exit 0. --Tckma (talk) 13:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming of Government Departments MoS

Naming conventions regarding Department of Highways... discussion started here. Please help with protocol. Thank you.

Requests for input on "motorway" article names and primary topics

Several users have recently been attempting to move motorway pages without any consensus. The pages in question are:

• M1 motorway (consensus reached - no move)
• M2 motorway (consensus reached (ish) - move)
• M3 motorway Discussion in process
• M4 motorway Discussion in progress

In an attempt to generate consensus on these moves, I invite the worldwide roads community to comment :) The appropriate discussions are/were (for reference) at:

• Talk:M1 motorway#Requested_move
• Talk:M2 motorway_(Great_Britain)#Requested move
• Talk:M3 motorway#Requested move
• Talk:M4 motorway#Unwarranted move

To stop these from escalating into British vs Irish debates, a wider audience is required to assist. Logic dictates that M5 motorway and M6 motorway are next on their list. Thanks for your time! Jeni ^(talk) 19:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Reminds me of Great Northern Railway and Great Western Railway. --NE2 07:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

TFD

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 November 15#Template:Jcon --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Motorways, Freeways, Expressways, Roads etc

This has been a contentious article for some years. May I suggest that as a solution the article List of OECD countries by road network size be the anchor article for these topics. I have added the OECD definitions for motorway and for road to that article. Specific articles on motorways, freeways, expressways, roads and so on should refer back to the OECD definitions (or quote them) and discuss whether the class or type of road in question is totally compliant with either of these definitions, or, if only partially compliant, its degree of compliance. Martinvl (talk) 12:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyright concerns related to your project

This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Interchanges

Are interchanges notable? Look at Bandar Utama Interchange and the related series of articles. I think these many some how be related to the above copyright issue. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

2009 U.S. MUTCD

The 2009 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices is now out, so many article references which cite it will have to be relinked. Letting a bot do this is not likely going to work, since there are new sections in the MUTCD (IOW automatically replacing "2003" with "2009" in URLs may not work as planned). Mapsax (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Infobox image question

Not sure if people watch the userbox page, so I'm linking it here - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways/Userbox#Image? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Road template mod discussion

just to let anyone know who might be interested: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads#infobox_road_option_to_allow_user_to_specify_shield_size stmrlbs|talk 01:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Exit list guide discussion

All highway editors are requested to voice concerns that they may have with WP:ELG, the MOS exit list guide, so that it may be amended and used for exit lists in all countries. Please see WT:ELG#International changes for discussion and to propose changes. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll on ELG revision

There is now a straw poll at WT:ELG to decide on the proposed revision and renaming of WP:ELG. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Member Questions

How can I become a member of this project? (Tatiraju.rishabh (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatiraju.rishabh (talk • contribs) 16:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Shields on dab pages

One editor (see [8]) seems to want to remove shields from all of the dab pages. This seems to stem from a discussion which had only two comments (Wikipedia talk:MOSICON#Routes/Highways); however, I don't agree with the take given in that discussion. Thoughts? – TMF 03:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Related discussion

Members of this project may be interested in Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(icons)#Routes.2FHighways) Gnevin (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Missing highway-related topics

Can anybody take a look at this list of highways-related topics? - Skysmith (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

What value does the browse box add for highway articles?

Discussion at Template talk:Infobox road#Why previous and next routes?Dave (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Alarming addition?

Just discovered that someone was constructing navigational templates on each major "stop" on a road! See Template:D 400 highway. This seems like, truly a bad idea with potential clutter of navigational road templates without end. Student7 (talk) 14:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that should be TFDed. I'll nom it. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 15:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Traffic - Seven Corners

There is an intersection (and an article) on Seven Corners, Virginia. There are five roads which intersect with bumper-to-bumper traffic during the day. Mostly four lane each road or more. Some of the highways split to eight lanes, with a split median of southbounders going through and southbounders turning off (for example, with one of the roads). Not a trivial problem, nor is it unusual. The article itself really needs enhancing with that information. Right now, it only discusses the surrounding "community."

This is about the worst intersection I have ever seen, yet it is handled amazingly well all with stoplights. Somewhere, a traffic "expert" ought to explain how, superficially with maybe a more esoteric article somewhere else which addresses problems of this nature.

I went to the article Talk:Traffic which has this as it's governing Project. What I am looking for is help with the vocabulary in constructing the explanation of the "grid" such as it is. Right now, if I tried, I would confuse the most tolerant reader. So examples of complex intersection handling would be appreciated. Student7 (talk) 11:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed infobox

I proposed a new infobox on Wikiproject History for historical trails and roads (i.e. truly historical like the Appian Way or the Chisolm Trail; not simply modern highways that have been decommissioned). If you have a thought on this please comment there.

--Mcorazao (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Road tax rename

FYI, Road tax has been nominated for renaming. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 13:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

If any editors have some spare time...

List of numbered roads in Kawartha Lakes needs reviews at it's featured list candidacy. The nomination has sat dormant for a while, so if any editors have a few moments to spare it would be much appreciated. Thank you, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Captain scarlet/France motorway routebox

FYI, a few articles are using a cross-namespace nonstandard infobox... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Captain_scarlet/France_motorway_routebox

I don't think it's a good idea to use a template from userspace in article content.

76.66.193.224 (talk) 09:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Pomte/Template:SK hwy tiny shield & User:Pomte/Template:SK hwy tiny shield

FYI, some articles are using templates sitting in userspace. I don't think it's a good idea to use userspace material in articlespace.

76.66.193.224 (talk) 09:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Quebec Autoroute shields are wrong

The autoroute shields used on the articles, and residing on Commons are wrong. They have a red rectangle at the top of the shield, but the real shield has a representation of a viaduct and a divided roadway beneath it in white in the red rectangle.

See File:Quebec Autoroute 30.svg and http://www.mtq.gouv.qc.ca/portal/page/portal/Librairie/Images/Symboles/ecussons/r30.gif

76.66.193.224 (talk) 10:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

tables

Could tables like the one here be added to pages such as this one or this one? Griffinofwales (talk) 23:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Portal: U.S. Roads

P:USRD has been renominated at for featured status at WP:FPOC, with the nomination here. Any comments are appreciated. Imzadi 1979 → 00:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Road banner 1

FYI, Template:Road banner 1 was nominated for dleetion. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Geocoding of highways

I'm working with the WP:COORD project, which has as its aim the geocoding of every geographically locatable feature in Wikipedia. I've recently had objections to adding {{coord missing}} to highways, on the grounds that a single point does not correctly identify a linear feature and is thus misleading.

From my personal viewpoint, I think that even a single location point is better than no location point at all: as Voltaire said, the best is sometimes the enemy of the good; although a single point is not adequate, it's much better than no point, and I believe that the presence of even a single point should drive the addition of multiple points later on. (See Nirvana fallacy and Worse is better for similar arguments.) Nevertheless, it's recognised that this is a problem: see WP:LINEAR for more discussion of this.

What would satisfy participants here? A single representative point on the road that unambiguously lies on that road and no other, perhaps in the middle of the road's length, or near one end, perhaps the end that is nearest the largest conurbation? Or the starting and ending points for the road, where the road is a single linear feature? In that case, would you like the endpoints in an infobox? Or something else entirely?

I'd be very happy to try to accomodate anything reasonably practical. For example, if two points were required, we could drive the process forward at WP:COORD, in the way that we have driven similar geocoding efforts before. For example, we could have a variant of the template such as {{coord missing|Region|linear=yes}}, that would generate a suitable set of category memberships, and perhaps a special-purpose template for coding linear features. In addition, a bot could scan for road articles that only have a single coordinate, and mark these articles for two-point location.-- The Anome (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say a two point system is a minimal requirement. However, roads can often veer off somewhere and then turn around and come back the way they came. Unlike a river, there could be several important points along the wayward trail. The second problem is that there could be a hundred different ways of getting from point A (the start of a given road) to point B (the end of that same road) without even taking the focused road. In some cases, these routes are shorter or more direct than the focused road. In still other cases, there may be Road A and Road B that take two different ways but begin and end at the same coordinates as one another.

All in all, its a very confusing situation that would probably be far easier to handle if wikipedia could settle down with openstreetmap so a link could be used instead of having to supply coordinates so that people can use any of their favourite 20 map sites. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The approach that some subprojects have taken is to add the coordinates of all the major intersections in the table at the bottom of the article. Personally, my objection to tagging articles in that manner is that they just take up so much space in the article, yet for very little benefit in reading the article. I know that the WP:UKRD articles in the UK that have been done this way use footnotes in the table, with the coordinates in a second list below the table to minimize the space taken up in the junction list table itself. If there were a version of the {{coord}} template that used a smaller display link than the full coordinates, then I'd be more willing to add them directly to the junction list. I can't support adding only a single point at all. At a minimum, I'd say that the endpoints and the midpoint would be necessary, unless all of the major intersections are being tagged.

The problem for me though is a matter of output. The output of the template is just too big. If {{coord}} had a sister template that output the little globe icon without the link trailing it, then I could put that on every junction in the list without cluttering the display of the list. Then I'd use {{GeoGroupTemplate}} to aggregate all of the points into a linked map. The globe icons would still have a link to the coordinates, but visually would take up much less space. I tried to propose this idea at the coord template talk page in May, but no one got what I was saying, and I gave up. In summary, for me, the best place to add the coordinates would be in the junction list, for every major junction. But if you look at a junction list like the one on M-28 (Michigan highway), in 290 miles there's already a lot of information there. I think it we tried to shoehorn in more (the coordinates) it would just clutter it. If we used footnote links, and put the coordinates in the footnotes, like is started on the M6 motorway article, then we could almost double the length of the section by the time all of the junctions are tagged. Until there's some solution, I won't be adding any geocoding, and will strip it out of articles unless they're very short (i.e. a bystander can see both ends of the road at once.) Imzadi 1979 → 20:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I'm completely against using coordinates for road articles (save for things like articles on interchanges), largely for the reasons Floydian stated above. I equate this to a recent request to add a photo parameter to {{infobox road}}, which I'm opposed to as well. In both cases, I believe that one point on a route is not an accurate representation or indicator of the entire road. Even if one specific point is chosen for all of the coordinates - south/west terminus, midpoint, whatever - the issue still remains. Supplying an OSM relation as Floydian suggested is a much better option. Also, many upper-tier road articles have maps that show where the road is, which readers can then use to find the road on their favorite mapping service if desired. – TMF 20:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I would be OK with a single co-ordinate in the upper right corner, as most articles about a city or feature currently have. That single co-ordinate would be where Milepost 0 is or would be located. However, as others have stated, some people and projects have been known to go to excess with details like co-ordinates and graphical shields, and I can see co-ordinates getting out of hand. As such, I'm OK with a single co-ordinate, but hesitant. I would support a dual co-ordinate system where the endpoints are listed. However, that would mean that the co-ordinates would have to go in the infobox, which is already too bloated in many articles. Dave (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I know that Google Maps (possibly others) links to Wikipedia articles and photos that are geocoded to a specific set of coordinates. Providing only a single set of coordinates for a MP 0 doesn't work for me on several levels. 1) It ignores the other end of the road. 2) It links the highway article on Google in that one location. 3) I don't know about other states, but Michigan doesn't really milepost its roads. Only the freeways and US 2 have actual mileposts. Choosing the "standard" south or west terminus as the MP 0 is actually a bit too arbitrary in that respect without proof that the DOT actually logs the highway that way. 4) I'm not convinced that article readers are benefitted by displaying the coordinates in the article. They are only benefitted by the tags and links generated, which I don't think are reliant on cluttering the text with the numbers. Imzadi 1979 → 21:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I am also against the idea of using coordinates for roads, as they are linear objects and not fixed to one specific latitude and longitude. Dough4872 15:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! That's a lot for me to respond to, so I'll get back to you as soon as I can come up with a coherent response that addresses all your comments. -- The Anome (talk) 22:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Most UK roads already use {{coord}}, generally at the rough midpoint of the road, per previous advice. Jeni ^(talk) 02:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I support the publication of a single midpoint coord for a road, combined with a scale or dim argument to size the map to show the extent of the road. It seems to me to be eminently useful to be able to provide users with a means of locating the road on a map.

Of the options open to us:

• No coordinates - provides no support to users, requires them to click through to other articles to find coords which will point them towards the road.
• Midpoint and deliberate sizing of the map - provides a handy link to a view of the whole road, and provides the ability to drill down into the map to see and follow the road.
• Multiple coordinates for start, mid, end, other features - desirable, but a) much more work so perhaps a secondary objective and b) fails to employ the de facto standard for geocodes in wikipedia, being the top right side coordinate.

The vast majority of UK roads are so geocoded; by way of random examples, A487 road, A4130 road, A4113 road. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Then the de facto needs to change, unfortunately, because the majority do not support it here. This is wikipedia's fault for making it standard to use a vertex to represent many things that don't exist at a point. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Also... It doesn't appear as if you really ever edit road articles. You are basing your support on your desire to geocode everything, not on your knowledge of roads and what an article on them can usefully contain. It seems very out of place for you to come and add your support to something when you don't even touch the subject in question. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Please cite a Wikipedia policy to support that viewpoint. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't need a policy, we are the collective of editors of the articles in question, and generally the only editors of those topics. If you try to force something that none of us who actually edit these articles agree to, it just ain't going to happen. Bringing a bunch of people from the wikiproject that deals with geocoding to say "I support this because we are adding these to all articles concerning a place" doesn't add anything to the argument. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

So; no such policy; whereas there is a policy, WP:OWN, against such a position. Nobody is trying to force anything. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 01:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a question of a policy existing, nor of ownership of articles. It is in the concept of introducing something new to an article (bold), having it not meet the approval of the majority of editors, it was reverted, now it's being discussed. The concept of making an argument that is useful in lifting your position above the other instead of arguing the system. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

right. And how, exactly, do your comments about "It doesn't appear as if you really ever edit road articles" and "we are the collective of editors of the articles in question, and generally the only editors of those topics" lift your position above the other? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 01:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

From a WP:GEO perspective, there is value in providing coordinates for roads and other linear features. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates/Linear for some old draft recommendations. It's true that a road is not a point, but neither are cities, rivers, buildings, etc -- in fact most of the article topics that we geocode. There are usually many points along a road that are useful to have geocoded: both endpoints (unless it's a loop) and possibly also the major junctions along its route. It's could be misleading to provide title coordinates for a road, since title coordinates are often assumed to locate a key or representative location in the subject. However inline coordinates seem quite appropriates for all articles about roads. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem that I have is not the tagging of coordinates, it's a matter of output. I'd happily add tags for all the major junctions in a junction list (although other project members wouldn't be so accommodating) but adding all of those coordinates would clutter an already full table of information. I've previously proposed an idea I had. There would be a template that would only add the globe icon, and not the full coordinates wikilinked. Then I could add those geotags, and add {{kml}} to the end of the article. The net effect is that the article gets tagged, the article isn't cluttered, and there's a simple way for a reader to access the output generated by all the tags. I could add all of that now, but having sets of coordinates in the article will just clutter the table. That's my objection. Even if we only tagged the two termini, the best location for that is either the infobox (already full of information as well) or the junction list.

As for the other types of tagged articles, at least a building is in a single location. Cities are in a single location, although a larger location. A road though, is several feet in width, but miles in overall length. Recently we've had a discussion about adding photos to {{infobox road}}. Several of us have objected because a photo only captures one location, but a map or the graphic of the road marker better represents the whole roadway. I guess it is similar thinking about geotagging roads. Imzadi 1979 → 03:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't give two hoots if you guys in the US and Canada geocode your articles or not, that's your choice. I'm just pointing out that we do it in the UK and have done for a while now. Now, the impression I am getting from Floydian is that he would like to remove all our work from the articles. I'm sure you know that disruptive behaviour such as mass removal of content is not appreciated on Wikipedia, and will not be attempted? Jeni ^(talk) 09:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If consensus is to remove them, then that's the action that will be carried out. You can keep them in the UK if you'd like, I'm not banging on that door at least. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 13:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

{I'm not really clear on why we are geocoding anything. What is the encyclopedic point? I don't want to go there or to aim a ICBM at the place. I just want information about it. It's latitude/longitude is fairly useless and clutters up the article with information that nobody but the coord-aficionados really want IMO). Student7 (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Geocoding gives users two-click access (via GeoHack) to dozens of external sites that (may) have further information about a given vicinity. In particular, it points the user to mapping resources, including scalable maps and satellite imagery; helps locate photos on Flikr, Commons, and similar sites; and even provides links to special-interest information such as geocaches, prehistoric sites. --Stepheng3 (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's the thing, if you use the midpoint formula on U.S. Route 66, you're going to get a dot on Adrian, Texas. Clicking a coord to find out more information about Adrian, Texas is all well and good, but it totally misses the point.

If you pro-coordinate people are so confident that they'll improve the articles, you could add them yourself. The U.S. only has 13,784 articles. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to add coordinates to articles, as I'm sure most of the volunteers at Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates; that's what we've signed up for, and we have hundreds of thousands of articles tagged already. However, it's not going to happen overnight. All I ask is that editors not delete the {{Coord missing}} tags from articles about geographic features such as highways. {{Coord missing}} and its associated categories are part of our system for managing the coordinate-adding workload. --Stepheng3 (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

But, you'll need to come up with a non-cluttering way to add the coordinates that addresses the fact that these are linear features. A midpoint, as Scott said, especially on the longer roads, is pretty useless. Unlike the UK, we have highways that are thousands of miles in length, not tens or hundreds of miles. Imzadi 1979 → 20:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem of clicking on the mid-point of a road and getting a map of city is easily resolved by providing an appropriate scale along with the coordinates. In the case of Route 66, the appropriate encoding would be something like 35°16′18″N 102°39′21″W which should give you maps etc. of the western U.S. --Stepheng3 (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think there are a few of us that agree with what I'm about to say. Namely, that we've already stated our objections and concerns. For those that want to add these, they'll need to solve them in a way that addresses them, and for a few of us, we don't want to see the linked numbers cluttering the articles. P.S. your coding didn't work for me. When I clicked on the globe, it was zoomed in to Adrian, TX, and it didn't give the whole region as described. Using the two-click method to leave the page did show the correct zoom level Plus, another shortcoming: where's the subject road when zoomed out properly? The Mapping Task Force of USRD already makes maps for the infoboxes of the articles, but your coords template seems quite superfluous. Address these concerns, then come back with a solid proposal. Imzadi 1979 → 21:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

[9] - WP:USRD has discussed the issue before, complete with our own cover of Bohemian Rhapsody. --Rschen7754 22:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

On the USRD discussion from 2008, I stated that I'd like to see a map of all coordinates in action. After finally seeing one, I wouldn't mind having roads geotagged, but it would have to be done correctly. Both end points (unless a route is incredibly short) and the midpoint would be needed. If the route is divided into discontinuous sections, each section's endpoints would have to be tagged. Any major direction changes in a route (like when a N/S route turns into an E/W) would also have to be tagged. I wouldn't be against going through some articles and placing a note where the route should be tagged, but I can't see myself actually doing the work of geotagging. –Fredddie™ 18:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The maps produced by the Mapping Task Force are impressive; they provide an excellent overview of the route. What's missing is a way to zoom in and pan along the route to see what the road goes around and what it crosses over, where it climbs and descends. That's one of the services that a GeoHack link provides.

I hear people saying that a blue icon and a string of digits is regarded as "clutter". For me, the benefits of a visible tag outweigh the cost. One editor's clutter is another editor's treasure. --Stepheng3 (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

If it was just the blue icon it would be fine. The coordinates are meaningless in this context. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind if it was required that coordinates are specified as an inline reference (display=inline in {{Coord}}) and then placed in a separate section for coordinates. –Fredddie™ 01:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Any solution requiring us to geotag every listing in the Major intersections table is not practical. --Rschen7754 05:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. I've already addressed how I'd like to see it implemented, and I've done so as a trial. –Fredddie™ 06:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

What criteria are you using? --Rschen7754 06:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Read right below where you mentioned Bohemian Rhapsody: end points and a midpoint. That route is lucky enough to have an intersection really close to its midpoint. –Fredddie™ 06:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to be late to this discussion. I've done some geocoding of roads, and my usual practice is to add four things to an article: (1) two inline {{coord}} templates for the start and end points, either where they are given in an infobox or, for articles without infoboxes, where they are mentioned in the text, (2) a title {{coord}} template giving the coordinates of a point on the road near its midpoint but not too close to any potentially confusing intersections, with a "dim" parameter that makes the Google map of a scale that shows the whole extent of the road, and (3) a {{GeoGroupTemplate}} template so that users can access a single map showing all three points (example with infobox; example without infobox). If a road is short and its whole extent is unmistakably apparent in an appropriately scaled and labeled aerial map, I'll sometimes just go with midpoint coordinates and a suitable "dim" parameter (example). This is the best procedure I've been able to come up with, and it seems to me to work pretty well in the sense of providing readers with useful and unambiguous information; but if anyone can suggest a better way of doing things, I'd be interested to hear it. Deor (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Open nomination reminders

The following items have open nominations:

• Capitol Loop at Featured Article Candidates
• Portal:U.S. Roads at Featured Portal Candidates
• Eisenhower speech, October 9, 1954 at Featured Sound Candidates

Please comment or review these items if you're interested. Imzadi 1979 → 00:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highways numbered 500 – TMF 15:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Road article massively out of date

• Autopista AP-41 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spain#Attention needed for motorway for details. Uncle G (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Diamond grinding of pavement

Would this wikiProject like to adopt the article on diamond grinding of pavement? Its a pavement preservation technique used on concrete and asphalt road surfaces. Yaris678 (talk) 08:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Most of the project aren't engineers. We mostly focus on the routing and history of highways. That isn't to say that there aren't others in the various projects into the engineering aspects. We'll have to see what others can contribute, but I'm out of my expertise on this subject. Imzadi 1979 → 10:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably more appropriate for the civil engineering wikiproject. They'd cover anything to do with construction techniques or materials. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)