Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Interstate 37

The above review has been inactive for 30 days, and this is the required notification of that effect, per WP:HWY/ACR. Interested editors are encouraged to enter "Keep" or "Remove" declarations, or continue working on the article to ensure that it will remain at A-Class standards. If no attempts are made to work on the article, and a net 3 Remove declarations have not been entered, the article will remain at A-Class. --Rschen7754 23:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

GAR notification

New Jersey Route 18, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Rschen7754 22:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Rschen7754 04:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Semicolon usage

I can't remember where I read it, but the other day I read that we should not be using semicolons to create fake headers. Typically, we use them in RCS lists or in related route sections. The problem is that a semicolon at the beginning of a line is wikicode for a list header. If the next line is not a list item, it creates invalid HTML5 code. Instead, we should be using third- or fourth-level headers (equal signs). I realize this is not the best solution, but it is possible to truncate the table of contents so it does not show anything below the second or third level.

I'm not saying we should rush out to fix these right this second, but if you come across them, I urge you to fix them. –Fredddie™ 01:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Infobox road proposal

There is a proposal to use Wikidata for displaying a map in Infobox road, only if both the map_custom= and map= field are blank. Your input is welcomed at Template talk:Infobox road. --Rschen7754 02:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Renaming of some Miami road articles

G'day. I have put forward a motion to rename eight articles, primarily so that their names are in line with the standards set forth at WP:USSH. I am seeking discussion regarding the renaming. The articles in question and their proposed names are:

• Bird Road → Florida State Road 976
• Coral Reef Drive → Florida State Road 992
• Coral Way (street) → Florida State Road 972
• Flagler Street → Florida State Road 968
• Galloway Road → Florida State Road 973
• Kendall Drive → Florida State Road 94
• Le Jeune Road → Florida State Road 953
• Sunset Drive → Florida State Road 986

The thread for discussion may be found on WP:RM at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#South Florida (Miami) State Road article naming.

Your thoughts and input into the matter would be greatly appreciated. -DyluckTRocket (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

West Coast Electric Highway

Not sure of the proper capitalization (so feel free to fix it), but would a network of charging stations for electric vehicles be within this project's scope?

• map
• Oregon's status and plans
• Washington's stations

I asked at WT:HWY#West Coast Electric Highway, but someone there thought that since its scope is U.S., I should ask here. —EncMstr (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I skimmed the linked pages, did not do a thorough read. However, here are my observations as to the relevant questions to determine how much coverage should be given in wikipedia articles.

• There does not appear to be an official or proper name for this project as the two states linked do not have consistent names for the project. (The one page linked to Washington DOT alternates between "West Coast Green Highway" and "West Coast Electric Highway" in the same page, for example).
• No new highways are being constructed, this is a public-private, partnership to have strategically placed rapid chargers such that the I-5 corridor (and selected connecting highways) are guaranteed to be operable by electric vehicles.
• I did not see an answer regarding, are there plans to sign these routes separately? (I.E. will Oregon introduce special I-5 shields with "EV safe" or something?)
• There is no mention (as I wouldn't expect there to be) on the contingency plans for the private half of the partnership should the stations prove unprofitable.
• Both states claim stimulus funds were used for the public half of the partnership.

As such, certainly it would be appropriate to update the Oregon and Washington state detail articles of Interstate 5 to mention this project, possible the main I-5 article too. However, my opinion would be to hold off to see if this proposal gains traction with other states or is just a fad before creating a separate article. It would be nice to have a crystal ball to look 30 years into the future to see if electric cars are still limited to urban areas or if a system like this, to make them usable in rural America, takes hold. Dave (talk) 01:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC) (who, until the Loneliest Road in America has rapid chargers will not be able to use an electric vehicle)

List of divided U.S. Routes

I have been editing the List of divided U.S. Routes page, but I wonder how accurate the information is that is on the external page I have been using. Since I am not good at research, I was wondering if someone could help out, please. Thank you very much. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

That page is a WP:SPS and is not considered a reliable source. I would suggest using different sources such as old maps or legislation. Dough4872 02:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Let me clarify something. We hold several of our roadgeek colleagues in esteem for the work they do to maintain their websites. We are not saying that the information they present is unreliable, per se, just that under Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, as we use the term, the websites are not typically regarded as reliable. USRD actually tends to be a bit stricter about this than other groups of editors though. The websites are self-published, and most do not have some evidence of "editorial oversight", meaning that there isn't someone else fact-checking and verifying the content before it is published by the writer. In that regard, these websites are considered the same as most blogs. If the authors were regarded as "highway historians" by others, there could be some exceptions granted, but that's rarely the case. As for the Michigan Highways website, I can usually verify the information there with old Michigan maps, and then use those as the footnotes. http://news.google.com and other sites like http://www.newspaperarchive.com can be useful for searching for old newspaper articles as well. Imzadi 1979 → 02:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Check your local library as well, or any university libraries nearby. --Rschen7754 02:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Or send an email to your state DOT's librarian. It's amazing what they'll help you find. –Fredddie™ 03:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

GAR notification

Schuylkill Expressway, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Rschen7754 04:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Rschen7754 04:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

World Digital Library

A few days ago, I was sent an invitation to join the World Digital Library by User:SarahStierch‎‎. I didn't see any resources for USRD on their site when I looked, but she said she would give me a heads up if anything fit, although there might be some resources that you guys could use. Hopefully, it can be a good resource for editing. Just thought I should let you guys know. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Farm to Market Roads

I'm sure we have discussed this before, but I would like to get a framework started for cleaning up the Texas FM/RM articles that are permastubs. I have a few ideas to bounce off:

1. We should dissuade people from creating more FM articles (FM refers to FM and RM articles equally)
2. FMs should be merged into by-county lists using the WP:USRD/RCS format, unless it's decided to use the new list format. Farm to Market Roads (Pecos County, Texas), for example. We have List of Farm to Market Roads in Texas, which I would keep. We can use it link to the specific county lists instead of to the county articles.
3. FMs that go into multiple counties would be listed wherever mile zero is. We would use {{Main}} or another template to point readers on the other counties to the first county.
4. FMs should only be split out iff passing GAN is achievable in a reasonable and prudent fashion.
5. I'm not sure what to do with articles like this: List of highways in Travis County, Texas.

Feel free to add on to this list if you think I've missed something. –Fredddie™ 04:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

For the List of Highways in County lists, we could include the FMs as a "see also".

Perhaps this proposal should include Spur and Loop highways too (and maybe other minor types), not just FMs, although that might get a bit unwieldy. Maybe we should make 254 "List of highways in X county" lists and merge all the FMs/RMs/spurs/loops/whatever else to those? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Addressing Fredddie's ideas:

1. I agree we should dissuade people from creating more FM articles. This ties into #4.
2. I disagree with merging into by-county lists. I think we should work around the already existing regions in List of Farm to Market Roads in Texas. I think there are several examples of FM roads that cross county lines, but not too many. I think most of them remain within one county. I would guess no FM roads cross region boundaries. Note that I have nothing solid to back these hypotheses, so I propose we survey to find whether the statements hold water.
3. If we do not create county lists of FM roads, then this point is moot.
4. I agree with this, but interpretations will vary. We need objective or less subjective criteria.
5. I thought lists of multiple types of highways in counties were deprecated unless it was talking about only county systems of roads. In any case, I am opposed to county list articles. I prefer the bare bones lists be in navboxen, but I know some people do not like using navboxen because they mess with "what links here."

Here is my mostly uneducated proposal for what to do with the lists. We use the guidelines for state route lists we put together in the last few months to create FM tables for each region. All we need for each route are the highway name and number, length, endpoints, and (maybe) the counties through which the highway passes. If the permastubs only have this information or this information plus some unsubstantial stuff, we redirect the permastub to the appropriate region list. If we discover there are RM roads that cross region boundaries, we will handle exceptions on a case-by-base basis unless we discover a large number. I am also thinking about creating "less than one mile" list articles for FM roads, and I know such short roads exist, but I want for us to solve this problem before we delve into that.  VC  15:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

If we go with the new list format and a <1-mile list is created, should we include the <1-mile FMs in the regional lists? I could go either way. The only issue I foresee with the new list format is if an FM crosses a county line, someone will want to only include FM X's length in County Y in the Y table. Using the RCS format would prevent this issue. –Fredddie™ 22:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I did some more surveying and I discovered two things:

• The regions into which the lists of FM roads are split are not based on anything organized by TXDOT, and I am not sure what the source for the organization was, if it was not in fact arbitrary. TxDOT splits the state into 25 districts.
• There are approximately 3300 FM roads (including FM, RM, and UR roads), according to the TxDOT route lookup tool.

We could still organize the routes by region/district, but I do not think the current model makes sense. We should use an official source to do a geographical split. The main alternative is to split by numbers.  VC  23:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer to split by number simply because it will be the most objective and least arbitrary. –Fredddie™ 01:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Splitting them numerically makes the most sense. TCN7JM 01:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I am kind of mixed of covering the FM/RM roads in lists. Some of these roads are several miles long and can have a decent article written on them. I would advocate covering routes less than one mile in a list though. Dough4872 02:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Despite being several miles in length, most of them only pass through unincorporated areas. Can Farm to Market Road 2119 realistically be expanded at all? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Not really. To be completely honest, I couldn't even find the road on Google Maps until I clicked the link at the bottom of the page. I think most, if not all of them should be split out into lists, really. TCN7JM 06:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

There are 389 articles in Category:Farm to Market Roads in Texas. In the assessment charts, 48 articles are stubs, 44 are start, and 116 are C. There may be a lot of articles without a USRD assessment; instead, they may have a WP Texas or WPUS one. About 12 percent of all possible FM road articles have been expanded. I am conflicted because although a lot of these articles have a low ceiling—a three-sentence Route description and a two-sentence History—that is the case for thousands of non-Texas road articles for short routes that connect the edge of nowhere with the middle of nowhere. I do not think we should automatically dismiss a class of 3300 articles as not suitable for their own articles without provable notability just because all of those articles are about a class of routes in one state.  VC  12:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The difference here is that intrinsically there is no difference between a short useless primary highway in most states, like Oklahoma State Highway 79, and a long, important one, like Oklahoma State Highway 51. One is much shorter and less important than the other, but the state hasn't made a distinction between them, so how can we collapse OK-79 to a list? We could do it by a "list of routes shorter than X miles", but that is seen as arbitrary. We can do "list of minor state highways", but that's subjective. But with FMs, TxDOT has made the distinction for us by putting the road in the FM/RM class. We have the editorial leeway to look at the entire class and say "These are generally useless", and then break out individual entries as needed.

Speaking as someone who has used several FMs, they are pretty much the same as Missouri lettered routes and about as deserving of articles. They spur off to random farm clusters and rural areas and often don't even intersect with another highway that isn't the "parent" or another FM. FM 2119 given as an example above is out of the ordinary, meant to illustrate that even with a 40 mile length it might still not be deserving of an article. More typical FMs would be things like FM 2465, FM 2875, FM 1033, FM 2532, etc. These are all currently redlinks, which is another problem—while the articles we might have now are mostly Cs, there are a whole lot of far less notable redlink FMs that could be created, and we don't want to have to deal with that mess blowing up should we get some FM-obsessed lunatic show up on the project one day. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Very good points, particularly TxDOT inadvertantly providing us cover to do this. I am on board for RCS-type lists.  VC  18:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Two questions now. What nomenclature do we want to use for these lists? And how many entries or what number ranges should each list have? –Fredddie™ 05:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Be careful about a mass deletion. I know of at least one FM , FM 1960 that is a major artery in the Houston metro area. I suspect it started as a humble farm access road as most other FM's still are, but became important with suburban sprawl explosion of the area, partiularly the relocation of the primary Houston airport from Hobby Airport to IAH. Dave (talk) 05:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

If we are to do lists, I would suggest doing RCS lists by number range, similar to the less than one mile lists in MD. What range is used depends on how many routes there are. I would say we can do it by 100s if every number is used. More notable routes or routes with a lot to say about them may retain their own articles. Dough4872 14:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm ok with a list by numbers, however I dislike "highways less than one mile" as criteria for defining what belongs in a list verses an article for two reasons. First, it's an arbitrary place to make that line. More importantly length is a valid factor in determining notability at the national level, however, At a local level, a 300 ft long road could be quite notable, while a 50 mile stretch of empty porkbarrel funding may not be notable. Dave (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Dave, we don't want to get rid of the articles that are about actual notable routes, such as FM 1960. We're trying to get rid of the permastubs. –Fredddie™ 20:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Farm to Market Roads should be the nomenclature (for instance, List of Farm to Market Roads in Texas (600–699)) because their numbers overwhelmingly dominate the numbers of Urban Roads and Ranch to Market Roads. I like splitting by hundreds, starting with x00 and ending with x99. Some of the 36 list articles will be sparse now because only 12 percent of FM roads have articles, but they will fill up or can be filled up over time. Redirects will be a huge responsibility for this effort.  VC  18:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Bumping thread. –Fredddie™ 11:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

We should get to work on these, but I don't want to be the only one doing it. –Fredddie™ 11:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Should we do these in sandboxes before we release them into the wild? Release them one at a time or wait until all of them are done? How about you start a sign-up list and people can claim which sets they intend to work on.  VC  20:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. Now that I figured out what we were going to do (I originally went by county), Here is a list of the lists. Just sign your nick after a link to claim one. –Fredddie™ 03:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Some more questions before we really get going making these: –Fredddie™ 03:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

1. Infobox: yes or no? (If yes, Infobox road or Infobox state highway system?)
2. Boilerplate lead paragraph?
3. What kind of inter-list navigation do we want? Navbox? Categories only?

My thoughts:

1. Yes, and use ISHS.
2. Probably.
3. I say either a navbox, or tweak the browselinks in the infobox to display links to the lists.

Imzadi 1979 → 04:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

For #3, I suggest a navbox of the lists of highways in Texas similar to Template:Roads in Maryland.  VC  00:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I completely missed this discussion, and I'm completely confused on what is being done in the sandbox. Can someone sum this up for me? And BTW, the sandbox needs to add the FM roads 4000 (just designated in last TXDOT mtg), and FM 7550. And are we including the Ranch to Market Roads, which are the same system as the FM roads?25or6to4 (talk) 04:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

We are trying to lessen the wikiworkload by creating lists of FM/RM roads (grouped by hundreds). Once they're done, we'll redirect the stubs and starts to the lists. Should put a huge dent into Texas's wikiwork score. The sandbox is just for people to sign up so we know who is creating the lists.–Fredddie™ 19:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Are we just listing current highways or former highways as well? 25or6to4 (talk) 06:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no problems listing former highways. –Fredddie™ 16:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

"Hidden" Designations

Hello! I have an inquiry about hidden designations. At first, I was thinking that I should just leave them off, but now I'm considering adding them to articles that have them. Some states like Florida and Georgia have hidden state designations for major roads. For example, Interstate 75 has the hidden designation of Florida State Road 93 and Georgia State Route 401.

My question is: If I were to include hidden designations, using I-75 in Florida as an example, should I write it as I-75 / SR 93 or I-75 (SR 93)?

Thanks in advance!

BryanWeather (talk) 04:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

My $.02, unsigned designations should generally not be listed in the exit list. The reason is that this could add confusion for people who attempt to use them for actual navigation. However, certainly the wikipedia articles should mention any unsigned designations in text and redirects should be created. Of course there will always be special cases and exceptions, such as the designation was at one time signed, and may appear on older maps with that designation. Dave (talk) 04:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea of using the name parameter to indicate an unsigned route designation. It still helps to mention what the unsigned designation for an Interstate or U.S. route is but it is not necessary to include a shield that is not used. Dough4872 04:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Dave on this one. If the signs don't mention it, the exit lists for intersecting roads shouldn't either. The article on I-75 in FL should mention that it's SR 93 and SR 93A, but that's clutter for other articles to mention. I've used the name parameter to indicate a designation that is no longer signed in the field. I-296 hasn't been signed on the freeway and most maps since 1979, but it is signed on some current maps, so it's semi-hidden. Imzadi 1979 → 04:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Dough's suggestion: I've typically used parenthesis in an exit list to indicate a signed designation that is not mentioned on the exit list. For example, I'd list "Main Street (SR-123)" when the exit signage only mentions the street name, but once on Main street SR-123 shields are present. Dave (talk) 04:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I presume that designations that should be signed, but aren't by either inadvertent omission or DOT policy, should still be included? I'm thinking of OK-66, which is a fully signed route that simply disappears as it enters the Oklahoma City freeway system, then pops back out on the other side of the city. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I would think that in such cases, the designation would appear in current maps, hopefully even the state's official highway map, providing a source that it is intended to be signed. In an ideal world, we wouldn't be relying on "eyewitness testimony" to determine if a route is signed in the first place. Sadly, only some states have published documentation that goes to that level of detail. In your specific example, assuming no official source exists to state one way or the other, I'd vote for a "special case" exemption given US-66's fame. The one thing to be careful of is states where the state highways do not have concurrences. I'm thinking of Utah State Route 30 as an example. Occasionally maps show it with concurrences, but the official log on UDOT's website is clear, it has 3 separate segments, and does in fact disappear in spots.Dave (talk) 06:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

In the past, I have used the name parameter to include a link to the hidden designation, such as US 72 (SR-2), but I am now inclined to not do that. Now I am inclined to only list the routes that are signed at an intersection. –Fredddie™ 23:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Georgia state map link change

It appears that GDOT has changed the links for their state maps. It used to be in the format "http://www.dot.ga.gov/maps/Documents/StateMaps/year.pdf". Now, it is in the format "http://www.dot.ga.gov/informationcenter/maps/Documents/StateMaps/year.pdf". It is my opinion that the articles that use the current format should have their links changed to the new format. I am just informing anyone willing to do some changes and willing to find out what gives with GDOT. Thank you for your help. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). –Fredddie™ 23:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Infobox troubles

Rhode Island Route 78's infobox is displaying scrunched up to one side for me, so I assume it is like this for other people. I am by no means a technical genius, so all of my ideas to fix it have failed. I would appreciate it if someone with more technical skills could give it a look. Thanks! "Pepper" @ 13:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed. It needed a <br /> after the Connecticut browse links. –Fredddie™ 16:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks! "Pepper" @ 16:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Infobox switching to Wikidata for maps

This is a notice that the |map= parameter in {{infobox road}} is soon becoming obsolete. The parameter will be supported by Wikidata projectwide in the near future. This has been tested and proven to work, but the parameter is only supported by Wikidata on articles pertaining to roads in Arizona, California, Delaware, North Dakota, and South Dakota, as of June 2.

This works by using the map property on Wikidata. To complete the example above, here is the item for CA 78 on Wikidata. Notice how in the "road map" property is File:California State Route 78.svg, which is the map that infobox road now links to, to use as the map in the infobox. If you have any questions, I'm willing to answer them. TCN7JM 06:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Location help

I'm likely going to need help from those who have a better idea on location in Colorado. I have a photo to upload but the location of it on I-70 West is some what unnamed (39.702176°N 105.330284°W / 39.702176; -105.330284) as it doesn't fall in Golden, CO nor Evergreen, CO. Bidgee (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Unincorporated places are common in many western U.S. states. The best way to handle it is probably to say "north of Evergreen" or "southwest of Golden". Alternately you can state the name of the county it's in. (Some states have townships as the next level below a county, but in western states these are typically used for surveying purposes only and have no other administrative function, so they are not recognized by most readers.) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, rather interesting though! Only time I've seen unincorporated is with local government areas in Australia. Thank you for your feedback. :) Bidgee (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I've uploaded over 10 photographs of I-70, may need further categorisation and possible renames with some. Bidgee (talk) 12:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Map update

File:Intrastate Interstate Highways.svg needs to be updated. I-49 is no longer an intrastate Interstate, and when the map is updated, it probably should be revised to current coloration standards. Anyone up for the job? Imzadi 1979 → 16:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it's been out of date (missing I-99) from its inception. -- 76.121.137.86 (talk) 02:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox road junction to use Wikidata for maps

Please see Template talk:Infobox road junction. --Rschen7754 21:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

GAR notification

Interstate 295 (Delaware–New Jersey), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Rschen7754 04:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It might be better to start one section on this page for all the GARs you're doing, instead of substing the standard template over and over. The template is a little stilted for this application. (After all, it's your project too...) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I suppose, but it is easier for me as I have to notify the nominators too... --Rschen7754 08:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Rschen7754 02:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

GAR notification

Pennsylvania Route 21, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Rschen7754 07:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Rschen7754 22:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

GAR notification - Interstate 95 in Pennsylvania

Interstate 95 in Pennsylvania, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Rschen7754 22:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Ridge Route

This is a courtesy notice that Ridge Route has been nominated at WP:HWY/ACR for discussion and collaboration on how to bring it in line with current expectations of a Featured Article. Your participation would be appreciated. Imzadi 1979 → 15:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion?

User:Jj98 nominated Interstate 3, Interstate 14, and Interstate 66 (west) for deletion. Should they actually be deleted? Thanks for your help. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 08:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I got here too late to chime in at the AFD's, but let me say I can't believe I-66 West was closed as speedy keep. Name me one thing in that article that isn't rampant speculation/roadgeek fantasy. OK, I'll cede one point, West Virginia is indeed a US state, aside from that.... Dave (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I-80 -- Why NOT Oming?

Why is there no longer an Interstate 80 in Wyoming article? It redirects to the appropriate section of the main I-80 article, and it appears at some point in the redirect page history there was actually an exit list and map, though the article content was admittedly lacking. I see nothing about this on the talk pages. --Tckma (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Generally state-detail articles should not exist until there is substantial content to split the article. --Rschen7754 20:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

With that said, given the route of I-80 across Wyoming was generally derived from the route of U.S. Route 30, which was directly derived from the route of the Lincoln Highway which was derived from the routes of the First Transcontinental Railroad, California Trail and the Pony Express, there's no reason why an excellent FA couldn't be cranked out for the Wyoming portion. It's just nobody's gotten around to doing it. Dave (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's the I-80 WY article's RD: Nothing, mountains, nothing, nothing, nothing, oh hey city, nothing, Nebraska. –Fredddie™ 22:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

You forgot {{cn}}. Dave (talk) 02:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

PS, this from a guy in Iowa? ;) Dave (talk) 02:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Like –Fredddie™ 02:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

OK on a more serious note, yes, this is a case where the history section would be interesting but the route description, 'eh, not so much. Wouldn't be the first. 02:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Upcoming GAR - United States Numbered Highways

The final substandard GA from 2008 or earlier is United States Numbered Highways. Ordinarily I would do the standard week before demoting, but this is a GA that we probably want to keep. So instead I'm going to post this notice, and wait two weeks, and then send it to GAR with the standard 1 week delay if the article isn't improved by then. The main issue is the self-published sources, like always. --Rschen7754 10:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, following that will be the first round of the 2009 FA/A/GAs, so if you have any on the list at User:Rschen7754/USRD GA audit you may want to fix them! --Rschen7754 10:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Reassessment request; Florida State Road 65

I just did a major expansion on the article about Florida State Road 65, and while there's clearly no way in hell it could possibly get GA status, can somebody reassess that article? I figure it has to rate a start at this point. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 22:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

That is what reassess=yes is for... --Rschen7754 22:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, I never knew I could do that. Thanks for the tip. -------User:DanTD (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Expand June Hill Robertson McCarroll for a DYK

Physician June Hill Robertson McCarroll, responsible for the first painted stripes on highways, could be expanded into a DYK, if someone has time. Djembayz (talk) 13:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Her claim to being the first is muddy. First in California, yes, but maybe not the first in the US. Kenneth Ingalls Sawyer also painted a rural highway centerline on what is now County Road 492 in Marquette County, Michigan, in 1917. (At the time, CR 492 was part of Trunk Line 15 or M-15.) That claim has been recognized by the FHWA as the first rural highway centerline in the US. The first centerline was painted by Edward Hines in the Detroit area in 1911 on a city street though, so neither McCarroll or Sawyer was the first in the US overall. Imzadi 1979 → 15:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor is coming!

Wikipedia:VisualEditor is coming Monday, although you can try it now by enabling it in preferences. Overall it's not as difficult as we had feared it would be, though the standard edit window is still available. A few notes specific to this project:

• Sort keys for categories are still available, just tucked away under page settings.
• Infobox road is functional, though we will be adding what is known as TemplateData to make editing more smooth.
• Reference editing is a bit clunky, requiring the opening of two windows - I think I'll still be using the old window for that.
• No way to insert nonbreaking spaces.
• Most RJLs can be edited in the template editor, though it is a little awkward with a useless Content pane in between templates.
  • But nested templates cannot be edited with the interface, such as {{Jct}}.
  • I ran into an error where the table did not show up on California State Route 52. Not sure what happened.
  • Very long RJLs such as Interstate 5 in California do load, but are so slow as to be unworkable.
• VisualEditor does not handle hardcoded RJL tables very well, so that's another reason to keep converting them!
• Overall although it's been criticized for being slow, it's a lot faster than having to reload the page from scratch every time - editing a lot of our FAs has become very slow due to the large templates, and this seems to run a lot faster in comparison.
• Most other templates have no issues, and the common ones like Jctint/top/btm, LegendRJL, Attached KML and Infobox road will hopefully have TemplateData by Monday to make things more usable.

If anyone else has comments or questions, feel free to post here. --Rschen7754 02:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

How will this affect editors like me? What will be the biggest changes that I will see? Also, will we be able to keep the current editing box enabled permanently (if we choose that route)? Thanks. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor must be enabled manually, so you will not see any major changes unless you enable it yourself in your Preferences. It is not required, however, and the classic editing format can still be used without any difficulty. TCN7JM 16:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I think come Monday, you will have to turn of off if you don't want to use it. –Fredddie™ 16:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I could have sworn that that was only for new accounts. TCN7JM 16:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Fredddie is correct. --Rschen7754 19:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

HKRD

There's a new WikiProject, WikiProject Hong Kong Roads. Help is appreciated.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 01:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

1930s maps of Pennsylvania

Greetings, all! It's been a long while since I've posted anything here! I recently acquired three maps of Pennsylvania, from 1932, 1933 and 1934. The 1932 map is a state Department of Highways map; 1933 map is a Texaco road map; 1934 is an Esso road map. I was considering uploading some images of each map into Commons, but I wasn't sure what the permissions were for maps this old. I did update the map database. --hmich176 13:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, since they were published after 1923, they are under copyright and would be quickly deleted. –Fredddie™ 18:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

If you have them though, PA is in desperate need of some better history sources because PennDOT sucks at this kind of thing. (Really, they do, the library at PennDOT told Jeff Kitsko himself that "Have you heard of this site called PAhighways.org?" to the man who runs the site.) They don't have much in an archive really, like a small couple shelves from what I heard. Mitch32^{(Wikipedia's worst Reform Luddite.)} 21:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do have them. That's rather funny that Jeff was told that. I've been told similarly about a Facebook group I started about the history of Hersheypark. Some people I've talked to refer me to that; then I politely tell them I made it! That aside, does the copyright issue include the state tourist map from 32? --hmich176 07:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

All maps >1923 are unpostable. However, sourcing is helpful. Mitch32^{(Wikipedia's worst Reform Luddite.)} 19:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that's not true. Michigan didn't assert copyright on its state maps until 1958, so their maps from 1923 until 1957 are in the public domain. If these 1930s maps from Pennsylvania don't bear a copyright notice, then there is no copyright issue. Additionally, even if they do bear the notice, the state or oil companies may not have renewed the copyright registration, at which point the maps may have then lapsed into the PD. Even so, it is helpful to identify additional resources for use, even if the maps can't be posted online. Imzadi 1979 → 19:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Eh, I would be on the side of caution and not upload them directly. I agree with the idea that they shouldn't be if its the case, but I'd rather not get crap for it later. Mitch32^{(Wikipedia's worst Reform Luddite.)} 21:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to move MTF and STF to Commons

I have discussed this in the IRC channel on numerous occasions, but I would like to discuss it in depth here. I would like to propose the following:

1. Move WP:USRD/MTF and WP:USRD/S in their entireties to Commons with the following exceptions:
2. Retain any pages that relate to tracking categories (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Maps task force/number)
3. Retain KML-specific pages and create a KML department WP:USRD/KML

Here are the main reasons why I would like to do this.

1. This project can focus on creating and polishing content.
2. We already upload everything (or we should) to Commons. This would simply move the framework of teaching users how to create files to where the files go.
3. Pages on Commons will (eventually) be translated to many languages. Those who do not speak English but know how to use Inkscape or GIS software will benefit.
4. Better coordination among the various wikis. WP:USRD/Embassy seems to be growing by the week.
5. There are some users who just don't like this wiki, which is not necessarily our fault. This would allow the users who don't like ENWP to create files for us without having to come here.
6. We can be a model for other coordinated projects.

Clearly I think this is a good, strategic idea that will benefit the project in the long run. I want to know what everybody thinks of doing this. –Fredddie™ 19:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

My concern is that we might achieve some push-back on our map standards if we transfer them over there. I don't know if there is precedent for a WikiProject there doing such a thing. Another thing is that there are some people who just don't like that wiki; the Commons brand has been taking a beating lately over all the porn stuff, and Commons in general has been a target of Wikipediocracy as of late. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Another thought—even if we do go ahead and move these to Commons, I think the KML pages should go to Wikidata instead. Since KMLs are data, Wikidata will be a better place for them in the long run. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I have a concern related to one of Scott's concerns, and it is over our ability to control what gets deleted and what does not at Commons. Would we have a mechanism to have an old or substandard map deleted when an updated or improved map is created? Otherwise, I like the overall idea and Scott's idea to move the KML data to WikiData. We should have a transition plan in place that includes maintaining presences in both Wikipedia and Commons for a certain period of time in case the move to Commons does not work and to get people used to the new process.  VC  02:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, for all practical purposes, we have that problem already, since we already upload to Commons. It is not as much of an issue with maps as it is for shields because we don't have to keep everything at a consistent naming scheme for maps. Further, with Wikidata tracking the maps if we need to we can just switch the map claim to the new map and the old map can be forgotten. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, consensus seems to be against me here. Would it be OK to just copy it over and retain everything here instead? We would still need a crosswiki admin action because of the CC-BY license. –Fredddie™ 01:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Interstate 88 (east)

There is a discussion relating to moving that article, which could affect all similar Interstates. --Rschen7754 21:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Already effectively opposed this. There's no reason to do it if the difference is already mentioned at the top of the article.Mitch32^{(Wikipedia's worst Reform Luddite.)} 21:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I concur. I don't think there's an issue with WP:NATURAL. --hmich176 08:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

There appears to still be no consensus on this. I have posted another notice at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (U.S. state and territory highways) as well. Listroiderbob^talk_edits^more 01:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Portal

It is July 1 UTC and no one has suggested any ideas for a SA, SP, or DYK hooks for P:USRD. This is a Featured Portal and we need to keep it updated in order to ensure it maintains its status. I would like some ideas for the portal for this month instead of me having to pull stuff, as I have done most of the time for the past several months. If we do not want to update the portal every month, we should possibly consider just having the portal randomly display items every time it is loaded. Thoughts? Dough4872 00:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

You do know that we coded the portal so that it would carry over the previous month's content as a fallback, right? I think that the only time when the coding requires advance updates is April 1. A slight delay of a day isn't going to impact the Featured status, which only requires delisting if several months without updates pass.

Also, you'll get more assistance if you remind people ahead of the end of a month instead of after the start of a new one. In other words, ping us a few days out with a polite request, and you'll get a better response than a dire warning and threats about the status of the portal after the month has changed over. Imzadi 1979 → 19:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll try digging up some stuff (at least for DYK), but no guarantee on the speed. "Pepper" @ 19:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Once upon a time, we had a plan whereby we'd schedule the content a month in advance. That way, during July we'd discuss and pick the selected article for September, and then in August, someone could copy edit the blurb down before it ran.

This also helps deal with the size of the blurb, because too often in a rush to get something put up at the end of the month, whole leads have been pasted into place; a blurb on the Main Page is actually much shorter than the lead. When I nominated Michigan State Trunkline Highway System for TFA, I had to take a machete to the lead to get it down to size. A good SA blurb should be only one paragraph of about 200–250 words in length.

So unless there's objection, I'm going to put us back on that schedule, so this month we need to nominate and discuss the SA, SP and DYKs for both August and September. Imzadi 1979 → 20:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

What if we tried promoting the idea of having articles up for relevant anniversaries? I'm not saying that every month would have to be an anniversary, but if we get a few more nominations out of the concept... --Rschen7754 22:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with that but I think the articles you're thinking of have already been the selected article. Some editors don't use much editorial discretion when choosing the SA. –Fredddie™ 01:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for comments

There is an RfC which may interest this project. It can be found here, and your comments are welcome. Regards, TCN7JM 03:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC).

Talkback

Hello, WikiProject U.S. Roads. You have new messages at Talk:Bannered routes of U.S. Route 501.
Message added 05:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

US-66

Generally, articles on decommissioned roads write the route description and junction list from the last revision before decommissioning. For US-66, this would be 1985. However, at that point, US-66 had been moved onto the Interstates for much of its length, and a good deal of it had already been removed from the system. I'd like to propose that the US-66 TF offer guidance stating that US-66 articles generally be written (in r/ds, junction lists, maps, etc.) to describe the highway as it existed in 1956, before the Interstate System was created. Thoughts? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm all for it, but I'd like to have a few things clarified. –Fredddie™ 00:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

1. In what tense would the articles be rewritten?
2. Would we need a hatnote saying they're written for that period?
3. Have "period pieces" been accepted in other parts of the wiki?

Typically I would say that the last version of a decommissioned highway should be what is reflected in the infobox, route description, and junction list. However, due to the significant history and cultural impact of US 66, I say that the infobox, route description, and junction list should reflect the maximum length of the highway for just that highway. Dough4872 00:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd think the article would be written in past tense. Also, I would personally include a hatnote. Otherwise, I support this proposal. TCN7JM 00:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I started a discussion at the US 66 task force talk. Unfortunately, that was before the latest posts here.  VC  00:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Similar could be said for U.S. Route 80 in California, which had several routings - what gets used? --Rschen7754 07:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Farm-to-market roads in Texas

On what reasonable basis are the individual roads here notable? The nearest analogy I can make is routine short streets in cities, which we do not include. The sources in both are map references and official government statements that are by their nature non-selective. Have any ever been listed at AfD for a community decision? I'd like to see previous discussions before I consider whether to do some test nominations. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Rather than delete them, as a project, we've been planning on merging them to a combined list. The exact details of how that is going to be done have yet to be hammered out; there was a discussion recently, but I think everyone's gotten distracted by other things and it may have slid off into an archive. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

They're still state highways, no matter their "lesser" status compared to others in Texas. To fulfill our general purposes, as expressed in the first of the five pillars, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." Gazetteers contain entries on roads, and we've generally drawn the line at state-maintained highways for a certain level of presumptive notability. Before you think that is an automatic pass for inclusion, understand that we'd rather apply some reasoning toward the workload of maintaining the articles on the state highways in the US; to that end, we do merge articles together where there are appropriate cases. In this case, as Scott mentions, there is a general plan to merge them together into aggregated lists rather than leave them as separate articles in the long term. Imzadi 1979 → 06:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we're planning on merging them into lists, but it would be greatly appreciated if you didn't AFD them, since it would create a lot of unnecessary chaos. --Rschen7754 07:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Here is the archived discussion we had a few months ago where we resolved to create lists for the FM roads: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 20#Farm to Market Roads.  VC  13:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested moves relevant to USRD

Since apparently notifying WikiProjects of goings-on went out of style at some point, there are requested moves relevant to USRD at the following pages:

• Talk:Virginia State Route 66
• Talk:Florida State Road 997

Please put off your content work for long enough to visit these pages, instead using your editing time to contribute to one of these fine squabbles. Thanks! —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, please pay attention to Article Alerts as both of these were listed there as well. –Fredddie™ 18:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

LegendRJL change

A proposal is underway to modify LegendRJL to allow an Australia specific (at this stage) colour to denote when a shield start/stops or joins/leaves on a roadway. Any input from editors is appreciated. -- Nbound (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment: Tagging and assessing files for USRD

What do you guys think should be the Project's standard for tagging/assessing files (on their talk pages, obviously)? I am referring to photos, maps, shields, markers, etc. Should they be assessed for USRD, the state in which they exist, and/or some other Projects, if any at all? Please state here what USRD's stance on this should be. Thank you. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 07:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• There is little point in tagging them since they are generally hosted on Commons, not here. If we need to find them, we can use the categories on Commons to track them down. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Currently, I only tag photos used in articles showing the actual roadway, but not maps or other graphic media. I tag them the same way I would an article: for the appropriate state(s) and type(s) of highway represented in the photo. It is useful to track selected pictures for P:USRD, for instance. There would be the benefit that if we tag our media, even the ones hosted on Commons, we could receive notifications of future deletion discussions by bot. Also, if someone were deleted off commons, as has happened with maps before, those of use who monitor the assessment log would see the removal.

  NB: we should not be discussing assessing (or tagging) items for other projects here, because this isn't the discussion forum for independently run projects. Imzadi 1979 → 08:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Kwinana Freeway

Hi! If someone would like to do a review for this 2 month old ACR, that would be great! --Rschen7754 08:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

State highway markers and licensing

It's generally assumed that all of the states' highway marker designs are in the public domain. However, the license tags are actually mostly incorrect in how these are tagged. In most cases, the Wikimedian that recreated the marker in digital form has "released" the file into the public domain, but that's not strictly correct because that person didn't have an ownership stake in the design to release it; the appropriate state would have the original ownership. Please help the project to research each state's specific status so we can update the licensing at commons:COM:USRD/L. Imzadi 1979 → 23:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Florida State Road 9B

The route description of Florida State Road 9B is written from north to south. I added the {{USRD-wrongdir}} template to it. User:The Bushranger removed it. The post is at Talk:Florida State Road 9B#Mileposts and route description direction. If you guys could post on the issue, that would be great. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Road junction lists#Key ordering

An unofficial request for comments has been started here to determine the ordering of the statements in the key at the bottom of the table. Your comments would be appreciated. TCN7JM 09:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Louisiana "right sizing"

Further reading: La DOTD - Road Transfer Program

The last few days I've noticed that some Louisiana articles are mentioning that they will be decommissioned soon as part of a program by the DOTD to trim down their road network. (see link above) This would be a good opportunity to organize what we should do as a project. We still need to make a set of black-and-white shields; do we only make the ones that survive the purge? How do we identify the routes that are getting the axe so we can verify that the articles are updated at the right time? –Fredddie™ 19:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

La DOTD has uploaded a set of maps by both parish and maintenance district to show which highways are eligible for transfer to local control. Routes highlighted in red are to be retained; those in green may be transferred. The aim is to reduce the size of the state highway system from 16,600 miles to around 12,000 to bring down the percentage of state-owned public road mileage closer to the national average. However, this will likely take many years since it is voluntary on the part of the local governments and since the deal involves DOTD handing over each road in tip-top shape.

The shield situation in the field is kind of a mess. Some of the 9 districts appear to have changed over many or all of their shields to the black-and-white version while others have changed hardly any. There are very few new shields in the New Orleans area, for example. If I can identify the districts that contain mostly new shields, I would vote to update the shields on those articles whether they survive the "right-sizing" or not. The others might have to be on a case-by-case basis unless their districts carry out comprehensive replacement projects. Britinvasion64 (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Alligator Alley merge proposal

See Talk:Interstate 75 in Florida. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Montana Highway 87/GA1

This article was given a really bad GA review, but if a few editors could make actual suggestions to improve the article to the real GA standard, it would be much appreciated. --Rschen7754 21:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done TCN7JM 22:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:California State Route 47#Split Alameda Street into its own article?

Your input is requested on the above. --Rschen7754 01:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Rschen7754/USRD GA audit reminder

This is a reminder that I will be resuming the GA audit soon, when I'm back from vacation. If you can fix any of the above articles, it would be appreciated! --Rschen7754 01:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Baltimore–Washington Parkway

Hello. I have filed the above ACR because of concerns regarding the article. --Rschen7754 01:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Indiana infobox double link

(Thought about posting this at Template talk:Infobox state highway system but the comment is state-specific) In the Indiana roads infobox, the links section lists "Indiana State Road" as the header, which links to the article title "List of Indiana State Roads"; however, that's a redirect to the List of State Roads in Indiana article, which is already linked from "State" under the header. I assume that a better link for the "Indiana State Road" text would be List of numbered roads in Indiana, which isn't linked at all. I did observe the code to see if I might be able to fix it, but all I got was "|links=IN" with no indication how to get to the subcode, which I wouldn't really feel comfortable editing anyway. Mapsax (talk) 00:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

All of those links are contained in {{infobox road/browselinks/USA}} for each state, type, etc. In theory, Indiana should have a separate article created on its highway system that would take the place of the top link in that section of the infoboxes. Imzadi 1979 → 00:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't List of numbered roads in Indiana fit that bill? Mapsax (talk) 12:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

At some point... for Minnesota, until there is an article on that state's highway system, the wording on the first line in bold is not linked, but the lists for the Interstates, US Highways and state highways are linked on the second line. I've done the same for Indiana now, and I would encourage the transformation of the numbered roads list into a proper article on the state highway system in Indiana. Your edit omitted the word "state", yet CRs in IN get a different set of links completely, and the state links don't appear. Imzadi 1979 → 19:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by that last sentence starting with the word "yet"...my edit omitted the word "state" because the page includes the description of county road systems, which wouldn't need their own link. I don't think that the page should entirely dismiss non-state roads in the state due to the large variation in the county road systems (read: "notable", though not notable enough for their own list); plus, there's the problem with business routes – they're not on the state system but they represent child routings of routes that are. Perhaps we should keep the page and expand it, with one obvious change: the name, since there isn't an actual list there. In the meantime, though, there's unique information in that article that readers of the template can't reach, assuming that they don't already know about the article, because there's no link. Mapsax (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

New templates

Hi all, I've created three new templates: {{traffic volume top}}, {{traffic volume row}}, and {{traffic volume bottom}}, that can be used for creating tables of traffic volume data, as seen in the new A-Class article Kwinana Freeway and relatively new GA Tonkin Highway (which were previously hardcoded). I've written the documentation and WP:TemplateData. These have been coded using parser functions, but I imagine the logic can be executed using a WP:Lua module (I haven't yet learned to code in Lua). - Evad37 (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Cross-posted to WikiProject Highways and other road wikiprojects. Please reply at WT:HWY#New_templates

I think we should utilize this new set of templates, but I think we should set up some guidance for how to use them. I'm not suggesting that this be added to WP:USRD/STDS, more like if we use them, this is how. I was thinking that dividing the length of the route by 50 would give us a decent number of data locations. That way, a 300-mile route would get 6 table entries. –Fredddie™ 02:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I think a lot depends on the data set from the respective DOT. At a minimum, on shorter highways the highest and lowest or only count should be displayed, and then some sort of regularly spaced distribution using Fredddie's 50-mile rule works for me, if an article uses a table at all. Imzadi 1979 → 02:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I suggest only creating a table when there are three or more worthwhile datapoints. If you want to talk about minimum AADT and maximum AADT, it is less complicated to just state it in the prose. I generally disagree with the 50-mile rule because using six data points on a 20-mile freeway (I have CA 52 in mind) is more illustrative than six data points on a 300-mile cross-state two-lane road.  VC  03:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree with what you're saying, I'm merely trying to avoid a similar situation to why we implemented the 10 junction limit in the infobox. –Fredddie™ 03:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

An interesting discussion

I was pinged to a talk page thread on Google Maps links, but others may find it of interest as well. Imzadi 1979 → 17:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

US 89T

See U.S. Route 89T. I hacked that together in a few minutes. It needs some standardization and reference work. Raymie (t • c) 05:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I added an infobox as well as cleaned up and completed the references before merging it over to U.S. Route 89 in Arizona. However, is it being signed US 89T or Temp US 89? We'll need confirmation to get the shield sorted out for the infobox. Imzadi 1979 → 05:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Probably 89T. ADOT's own maps use that style, and I'm not seeing any Temp US 89 in the media. ADOT seems to prefer suffixes. We have US/AZ 89A, AZ 180A and once had AZ 89L (Loop) in this area, which was on the books until 2005. We have a Spur route in western Arizona that is signed as AZ 95s (small S). Raymie (t • c) 17:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion

See Talk:Will Rogers Turnpike. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

GAN bot down

This is a courtesy notification that User:GA bot is down. The WP:GAN page must be manually updated when a GAN status changes. I will be watching the Transport section of the page more carefully, but if you could be updating the page as well when you nominate or review or pass an article, that would be appreciated! --Rschen7754 06:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Any ETA of it being fixed? -DyluckTRocket (talk) 03:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Negative. The operator is on wikibreak and shut down his bots for the duration of that break. Someone else may step forward to provide a new bot, or not. Imzadi 1979 → 03:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Legoktm is now running the script, so hopefully the issue is resolved. --Rschen7754 17:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Old exit numbers columns in Georgia's interstate highways

Go to Talk:Interstate 75 in Georgia. I would like to know if old exit numbers are appropriate in Georgia's interstate highway articles (see that talk page for the reason; I'm re-posting it here to make it easier for someone who doesn't have Interstate 75 in Georgia on their watchlist to know about.) Georgia guy (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Common name vs Highway number name (Miami problem) at WT:USSH

So, I go away for a little while to work on some other personal projects and as I return, I see that I may have kicked over a few buckets and stirred a hornet's nest in regards to the issue I had with article titles for Florida State Roads in the Miami area. Both my submission to rename the named roads to their SR counterparts and the counter-submission to rename (some) SR roads to their named counterparts failed because no consensus could be reached as to an appropriate title for either group of articles. Having looked at most of these articles in depth over the previous months, I can tell that there is definitely no conformity with which title type is appropriate, and both arguments for either side seem equally valid:

1. The common-name title should prevail as the use of common names is a policy (WP:COMMONNAME) supported by a guideline (WP:OFFICIALNAMES), and would support the recognisablity and naturalness of the article title criteria (WP:CRITERIA).
2. The numbered highway-name should prevail as the numbered highway gives the road notability (WP:N), complies with WP:USSH, and meets the consistency, conciseness and precision of the article title criteria (WP:CRITERIA).

I understand that there are a few solutions for this, but nothing that would currently align with policies and guidelines in toto. Any changes would create precedents not just for Florida roads but also throughout the entire WikiProject. Therefore, I've opened a Request for Comment on WT:USSH here with what I hope would make a suitable compromise. Your input would be greatly appreciated, especially as there are a lot of editors here far more experienced and knowledgeable than I am. I would also really appreciate making other WikiProjects aware that you think would be appropriate. -DyluckTRocket (talk) 07:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Bumping because this discussion is still going on.  VC  22:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I have made some clarifications to the proposed guideline. Please (re-)state whether or not you support it here -DyluckTRocket (talk) 01:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion is now closed. -DyluckTRocket (talk) 14:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

GAR notification

New Jersey Route 124, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Rschen7754 06:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Several county route shields deleted?

Several county route shields on pages such as List of county routes in Cumberland County, New Jersey have turned to red links. Tinton5 (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any redlinked graphics on that page. Perhaps the server was being slow at recaching graphics when you looked at the page last? Imzadi 1979 → 19:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Most, if not all, of the NJ county road shields were moved to the agreed-upon "<county> County <number>.svg" nomenclature a little over a week ago. If CommonsDelinker doesn't fix the redirects, a null edit or cache purge will fix the redlinks. –Fredddie™ 20:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I also noticed script errors: such as Palisade Avenue (Hudson Palisades) Tinton5 (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The state wasn't defined, which cause the error. I've added a fix for that, and upgraded some other items there. Imzadi 1979 → 19:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• List of county routes in Atlantic County, New Jersey seems to have red links. Maybe it is the server. Thanks for your help. Tinton5 (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I just purged the page, and all of them appear. Imzadi 1979 → 21:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Baltimore–Washington Parkway

Per the requirements at WP:HWY/ACR, this notice is being left to inform you that this candidate for demotion from ACR has gone 30 days without any activity. If there is no clear consensus (3 votes) to keep or demote after 7 days, and no attempt to continue work, the review will be closed as keep. --Rschen7754 10:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Announcements template

I would like to propose a change to our announcements template {{USRD Announcements}} that is featured on most of our user or talk pages in some fashion. I have rewritten the template completely using {{Navbox}} as the base. As a result, the backend code is easier to understand and the output is more accessible because we can use horizontal and vertical lists to their full potential. The example can be found at {{USRD Announcements/Shell/Sandbox}} and a filled-out comparison of the two versions at {{USRD Announcements/Sandbox}}. –Fredddie™ 05:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Support - I really like the new look, and the points you bring up about using lists more efficiently seem like a good reason to switch. (Besides, old one's been around far too long.) TCN7JM 06:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Support - I second this. I find it provides more information more concisely - A Good Thing. -DyluckTRocket (talk) 06:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Support - Much needed improvement. -happy5214 09:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support—looks good to me. It's like your living room, sometimes it's nice to get a fresh coat of paint in there. Imzadi 1979 → 09:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Support: The rounded corners, large font, and horizontal orientation grab my attention. It looks so much better. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 11:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I like it. Still has the highway sign colors and looks like a virtual notepad. Dough4872 00:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

State Route 623 article

Should I start an article on State Route 623 (Ashland Road) in Virginia, or is it "not important enough to include in the encyclopedia", like it said in the new-user orientation page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philroc (talk • contribs) 00:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

As a Virginia secondary state highway, it is generally not considered notable enough for its own article. TCN7JM 00:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Adding to that, I should also say that if the road has another claim that makes it notable and has multiple reliable sources to prove this, the road could probably have an article. TCN7JM 00:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

SR 623 does not look notable enough for its own article. It is just a two-lane road through a rural area. It can remain in the List of secondary state highways in Virginia.  VC  02:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

What about the fact that it ends in Ashland? Philroc (talk) 10:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that shows it ends in Ashland?  VC  17:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, VDOT's traffic log for 2012 shows that SR 623 ends at an intersection with US 1, which is in Ashland. Philroc (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Technically not in the town of Ashland, but close enough. But how does that make the route any more notable?  VC  19:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Ashland is a major town. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philroc (talk • contribs) 20:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I think my colleagues have explained the typical standard as well, but I just wanted to explain a bit of the reasoning behind it - usually with short roads and/or roads that are minor, if we have a separate article, we usually have problems down the road. If there's not that much information out there, then there just isn't much that can be done with the article. In the past, we have had editors from outside the roads subject area come by and make attempts to delete such articles as well. I hope this helps. --Rschen7754 20:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

@Philroc:, why don't you create your article in a sandbox User:Philroc/State Route 623? After we see what you can do, we'll be able to tell if it meets WP:GNG and WP:USRD/STDS and all that fun stuff. –Fredddie™ 20:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) (from AURD) - It might be worth seeing what you can find about the road's history, if there is nothing interesting, then chances are that it's not notable. If the article would be essentially what can be seen on a map (and its not notable in some other way), then theres no point writing up a full article -- Nbound (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Well then, what articles should I make or edit? I mean, I want to jump right in since I just joined this Wikiproject. Can you recommend some stuff I can do? Philroc (talk) 22:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Update or correct existing articles. Bring lower quality articles (Stub, Start, C) upto higher quality standards (B, GA, A, FA). If there is a major new road you are interested in, it may not be covered yet. Lots of articles still need maps, others need various housekeeping. Im sure the USRD guys can think of examples from most or all of the categories, and could give you an example shortly. (alternatively jump on the IRC channel (WP:HWY/IRC for instructions) and then you can discuss what kind of articles you are interested in, or get other kinds of help, in real time) -- Nbound (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Since you're in Virginia, here is a list of Start-Class articles that could be worked on. Find something you're comfortable with doing, and do it! –Fredddie™ 22:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

@Philroc: I see that you created the article a while ago. I cleaned up the formatting, fixed the infobox and categorized it. I also fixed the title so that it's in the correctly named location of Virginia State Route 623 (Goochland and Hanover counties). That said, if you don't expand the article beyond a single sentence, I will redirect it and merge it into the list. That said, someone else may propose that the article be deleted as lacking content, much context and any citations. (No, an infobox doesn't as content; we require there to be actual writing.) Imzadi 1979 → 01:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979 Well, Viridiscalculus suggested I shouldn't make the article, so you can just delete it right now if you want to. Philroc (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I also agree that it would be more beneficial to work on more major roads, such as those in the primary highway system. Those are considered notable almost no matter what. TCN7JM 12:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

@Philroc: we normally don't just delete stuff like this though. There is a list to merge it into, however it's still only a single sentence of prose for the article. If you aren't going to expand it out to a full article (with multiple sections and a junction list table), can you at least expand it out to a full paragraph that could be merged to the list? Imzadi 1979 → 21:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Ive done some expansion using the information from the infobox, though it could probably do with some more from someone with local knowledge. I wasnt sure if there was an actual gap in the route, or if it was a concurrency instead, so again leaving that for a local. -- Nbound (talk) 02:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Shorter, less important roads like 623 are usually easiest to write and work on, but think of what a reader would expect us to have full coverage over—that would be the major highways like the Interstates and US routes. Therefore, it makes sense to focus your energy on those first. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion is similar to what Scott is saying. Find something of a short-to-medium length and get your feet wet in expanding and editing the article. Ask questions, make mistakes and learn how these articles are built. Once you have a feel for it, you can move up to tackle the more important and longer highways. However, don't stick to the short stuff and forget to move up. Imzadi 1979 → 09:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

@Nbound Hey, I'm the perfect guy for that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philroc (talk • contribs) 12:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

US distance conversions

Would be interested on input for a rough standard on distance conversions for roads articles.

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_Roads#US_distance_conversions

-- Nbound (talk) 03:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Some further context of the point of the discussion is given at the UKRD post - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Roads#Distances_conversions_.28Imperial_.3C-.3E_Metric.29 -- Nbound (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the right place to put this particular opinion of mine or not, seeing as I'm more heavily involved in USRD than AURD. With that said, one of the things that I find annoying is that I can't {{convert}} prosaic measurements. I'm likely to want to say "about half a mile/about a quarter of a mile..." or "about a half-mile/about a quarter-mile..." or just plain "around one/a mile" in route descriptions and the like where appropriate because I find that's good prose; that is to say, those measurements read more naturally than "0.5 miles (0.80 km)" does. It also has the benefit of not bogging the route description down in too much technical detail (I leave the RJL to do the more precise measurements). The problem is that I then need to put in the metric conversion for us folk who've moved beyond sticks and stones to measure things ( :P ) and then it seems I'd get in trouble for not using {{convert}}, despite supplying (400m)/(800m)/(1.2km)/(1.6km) depending what quarter-mile it is. Is there something that can be done to remedy this, or should I just go with the technical measurement no matter what? -DyluckTRocket (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Does {{convert/spell}} not do what you need? --Rschen7754 20:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Egad, I didn't even know there was that as I've only ever seen {{convert}} used. That's a big help. Thanks! -DyluckTRocket (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A couple of random thoughts here. One is that there is {{convert/spell}} which spells out the input. Second is that there is the ability in both templates to use fractions. So you can get something like "about one-quarter mile (0.40 km) down the road..." using {{convert/spell|1/4|mi|km}}. Lastly, I will use straight text and manually supply a conversion. One example was the sentence "One section that was less than a mile (about 1.3 km) was given the M-554 designation" in the M-553 (Michigan highway) article lead where I used a generalized approximation for the length of M-554 (0.852 miles, 1.371 km) and rounded off the metric. There's nothing wrong with that. Imzadi 1979 → 20:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

WT:HWY#Sections

There is a discussion at the above page related to what additional sections (beyond the standard route description, history, junction list) can or must be included on a road article. --Rschen7754 05:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I-94 in Michigan

Interstate 94 in Michigan needs more info on the route's history. I know that the Detroit Industrial Expressway portion had very outdated exits that were largely rebuilt, including the M-39/Southfield Road exit. Any suggestions on where to find more sources? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 10:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I was working on a full overhaul of that article before I started back to college. However, another editor kept intentionally edit conflicting with me even with {{in-use}} posted on the article, so I erased my work and moved on. At some point, I will return to researching the article through my newspaper archive sources, but college is my priority. Imzadi 1979 → 10:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Talk:Ohio State Route 367#Merge – The article is entirely redundant to SR 708 and the article clearly explains it. Mitch32^{(Wikipedia's worst Reform Luddite.)} 20:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Now closed, but could someone do the honors? --Rschen7754 05:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

GA nominee

The article I wrote - Virginia State Route 7 Business (Purcellville) - has been nominated for GA status - by me. Philroc (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

We have Article Alerts for a reason. You don't have to list them here. –Fredddie™ 17:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

@Philroc: You realize that one section is entirely unsourced, right? --Rschen7754 17:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, adding sources right away. Philroc (talk) 17:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Participants list updates

I'd like to propose removing the "Admin?" column from Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Participants. There's already a list of admins at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Embassy, and personally I find it a bit offputting for newer editors to have to write "No" when they join the project. Being an admin in USRD does not formally or informally give you any additional standing in the project, anyway, and most of our primary members are not admins. Any objections, or other ideas on improving the list? --Rschen7754 02:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I say go for it. There are other, better ways to be identified as a sysop than a WikiProject list. While we're discussing participant lists, I would like to propose removing participant lists from any page that isn't USRD/Participants. With the work I've been doing at WP:USRD/S and MTF, I don't feel the participant lists there are accurately defining who has been doing the work. –Fredddie™ 02:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I suppose that we would need to redirect people needing help to this page then... which, by the way, the shields and maps task forces still have talk pages. Should those be redirected here? --Rschen7754 08:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Removed the admin column. Ping on the rest. --Rschen7754 05:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

GAR notification

New Jersey Route 15, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Rschen7754 23:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for a shields request page on WP:HWY

There is a discussion on WT:HWY regarding a proposal for a shields request page on WP:HWY - Evad37 (talk) 03:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

{{Jct}} discussion at Talk:California State Route 1

There are concerns regarding the execution time for the above template. Your comments are invited. --Rschen7754 08:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

U.S. Route 1 in Florida has a similar problem. —DyluckTRocket (talk) 11:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion

See Talk:Interstate 95 in Maryland#Merge discussion 2013. Dough4872 02:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Precision discussion

Please see Talk:Brockway Mountain Drive where there are concerns about using three decimal places in lengths. --Rschen7754 18:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

GAR notification

New Jersey Route 158, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Rschen7754 04:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed demotion of WikiProject New York State routes

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

---

I propose that Wikipedia:WikiProject New York State routes be demoted to a task force of USRD as there is no talk page activity for the subproject and there have been only minor edits by a couple editors. [1] Dough4872 03:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk page activity means jack. There are many WikiProjects outside of us that have little to no activity and still stand as a project. If using that as a precedent, then there is a serious problem. I admit I have the ability to only write en masse in spurts but I refuse to allow this to occur and you should not be shocked in the bit that I oppose. If it means stepping up activity, then I will. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 03:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

One person does not make a subproject. There is no reason why NYSR can't be a task force of USRD. The articles won't change, the standards will generally remain the same, all that will change will be the title of the subproject page and the fact that the talk page will redirect here. Based on the inactivity of the talk page there, editors with questions about New York road articles can get more and quicker feedback here. Dough4872 03:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Support With all due respect to Mitchazenia and his hard work, one editor does not a project make. In addition to this, I have seen the "separation" of the projects used as a license to practice WP:OWN, and has chased at least one newer editor away from the New York roads articles entirely: [2] This is completely unhealthy, and really needs to be put to an end.

There were four primary rationales used at the last discussion. One was the number of active editors: at the time, there were four active editors, and 2 semi-active editors. But since then, two of the active editors have gone semi-active, and the other two primarily edit in areas outside NYSR. The second was the "complete set of resources." Nothing in this proposal would diminish the utility of those resources, and thus this is a complete tangent. The third was that "New York [is] one of the most productive states in the nation, whether you go by raw article production or by the average article quality." However, Michigan does not have a separate state highway WikiProject anymore, and it still is more productive, in both raw numbers of FAs and GAs and in average article quality (see WP:USRD/A/S). The last argument was that there are different standards for New York. But it amounts to personal preference, in the end; also see the WP:OWN concerns above.

Even with all those arguments, I supported the merging of New York into USRD in early 2012, because I found them to be quite weak, and I of course support it now. Inactive WikiProjects are confusing to the new editors, and if we want to attract new editors, we should address these issues: the sooner, the better. --Rschen7754 03:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support—there would be only three visible effects of this.
  1. The pages would be retitled from "WikiProject New York State routes/" to "WikiProject U.S. Roads/New York/".
  2. The pages would eventually be restyled to use the USRD navbox and standardized task force header.
  3. The talk page would be archived and redirected to the main USRD talk page, with the archives searchable from there.
• None of the previously stated reasons would be impacted. All of the "complete set of references" would remain intact in their new location. As for the argument that NY is special based on article quality, sorry, but that is false. The inactivity level has allowed other states to increase the distance between them and NY on the leaderboard, and NY if falling further behind in total FA- and A-Class assessments. Imzadi 1979 → 04:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

There's been no reason for FA and A class articles because this project (USRD) kept hawking the idea of lower class articles being improved and that's all I've done is improve lower class articles. The hypocrisy there is obvious. I oppose any addition of the task force header and will redirect on sight. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 13:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support–If I may say so, as one of the newer contributors to WP:USRD without entirely knowing its history or having "lived through it", as well as being based internationally from the focus of the articles, I fail to see why NYSR should be in its own silo with its own article standards as compared to the other 49 states and the territories. Isn't New York one of These United States, after all? In addition, I've viewed when I eventually come to edit New York articles with trepidation, as I find the division confusing and the special treatment of its articles intimidating. I believe that a total integration of NY with the rest of the project would address these issues. —DyluckTRocket (talk) 11:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Also I am going to add, if anyone makes a decision in my opposition. I demand letting me make the conversion myself and only myself so nothing gets to be more drama. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 13:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I support you leading the integration process if consensus is to reorganize NYSR as a task force of USRD.  VC  01:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I second what VC is saying. –Fredddie™ 02:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support. There was never a rational reason for the third largest state in the US to be separate from the US road project, only political ones. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support for all the reasons above, but I urge not being hasty and I strongly urge not snow closing. Let's give some time for NY editors, if they're out there, to chime in. –Fredddie™ 01:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support - the difference is mostly semantical and of pride, and I see no reason why everyone can't work together just the same while bringing what, in this instance, appears to be the lone star state seceding. Any style or content contradictions in-so-far as guidelines go between the two projects can surely be ironed out, grandfathered in, or simply left to the direction of the individual state task force. For what it's worth, I also support allowing Mitchazenia to perform the transition as well as a minimum of 14 days to discuss this issue to provide ample opportunity for less-active editors to chime in. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 03:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I just want to add. I talked to Rschen7754 last night about a compromise I made last night and this seems really obvious now. The way I wrote it:

1. USRD gets the merge they want.
2. I will convert all the pages myself, and that seems to be accepted already as alright.
3. The NYSR navbox that currently sits to the right side of the bar will stand along with the USRD one which can either be below or on top because I don't think tis fair to anyone reading the page that with all these subpages, it should be present. Good place of reference.

I don't know how User:TwinsMetsFan will react, if he does, but this forced editing is starting to seriously take a toll on my health because I am paranoid of this discussion. Rather than continue to make things worse, I contrived this. I hope its supported. I will ask that the non-written agreement to not review my GANs stay in place though, because really, I like outside reviews.Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 17:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

That seems fine; we would need an administrator to move the page together with the subpages, anyway. --Rschen7754 18:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Template:Navbox Pennsylvania State Routes

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

---

Hi, I tried to get a bot request for adding this template to Pennsylvania State Routes about a year ago, but was told to bring it up on WT:WikiProject Pennsylvania. I did this and no one responded for 10 months. So now I'm here, and does anyone agree that it seems like a pretty reasonable thing to have as a navigational template? --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 20:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh boy that's a lot of links. With the template as it is (all of the routes are in one large grouping), I don't think I can support it. –Fredddie™ 20:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. Note that such templates have been sent to TFD in the past: WP:USRD/P. --Rschen7754 20:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, and if I saw this deployed on articles, I would immediately nominate it for deletion. I suggest that you tag it for a CSD G7 as an author request. Imzadi 1979 → 21:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no need for that navbox as we have a list article and categories to cover that need. I would suggest that it be deleted. Dough4872 00:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Um, don't we have a template for interstate highways? And U.S. highways? --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 00:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Well yes, but those have a lot fewer items. WP:NENAN. --Rschen7754 00:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Also note the I and US templates only include the primary (1 and 2 digit) highways as they are generally the most important. Dough4872 00:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

@Rschen7754: This template is not small. There is only one navbox, not many. It is not redundant to other navboxes. Therefore, I fail to see how WP:NENAN applies. @Dough4872: There is no easy way to divide state highways into "important" and "unimportant" ones. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 01:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Pennsylvania has several hundred state highways, listing all of them in a navbox is too clunky. The list articles or categories work fine. Dough4872 01:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The navbox (1 screen) is far more compact that the list (10 screens and also a mess) or the category (4 screens). --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 01:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

As Rschen said, WP:NENAN. That seems to apply here. Dough4872 01:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The exact problem is that it is too big, and too difficult to navigate. I fail to see why Pennsylvania should have a navbox, while Virginia's (among others) got deleted. --Rschen7754 04:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Considering there is one naming convention for all non-quadrant routes, couldn't the reader just copy and paste "Pennsylvania Route" and add number? This navbox is way too obnoxious and really, unnecessary. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 22:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

A side issue to a navbox this large is it renders useless the Related Changes page for each of those articles. Outside of both of them being Pennsylvania state routes, I don't know if PA 3 and PA 999 really have that much in common. –Fredddie™ 22:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

PA 3 and PA 999 don't have much in common other than both being state highways in the Keystone State. Linking them together in a navbox will pollute the "What links here" and "Recent changes" tools, rending them both useless, and that's part of why we've traditionally supported the use of the categories and list articles to link all of the highways in a state together. The other reason is the sheer size of the boxes taking up so much space at the bottom of the articles. Imzadi 1979 → 23:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

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

List of state highways in Texas

Can someone fix List of state highways in Texas? It seems like it may need to be split, the blurb at the bottom of the HTML source is reporting

NewPP limit report
CPU time usage: 124.868 seconds
Real time usage: 125.534 seconds
Preprocessor visited node count: 1003253/1000000
Preprocessor generated node count: 88288/1500000
Post‐expand include size: 794785/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 254657/2048000 bytes
Highest expansion depth: 23/40
Expensive parser function count: 367/500

so, the preprocessor visited node count has maxed out, and over 2 minutes of CPU time is about as high as it gets. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

If the list is too long and needs to be split, we could easily split current and former routes. Dough4872 02:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

We're working on optimizing a lot of our templates now, but with only a few editors doing it, it's taking a while. Template:Jct currently has the priority. --Rschen7754 02:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Interstate 516 redirects

I was wondering: Since Interstate 516 is known as the W.F. Lynes Parkway (and Lynes Parkway on overhead signs), could I make redirects from both of those names to the Interstate? I didn't want to make them and have them deleted afterward, so I brought my idea here for discussion. Thank you in advance. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in making the redirects as it is a plausible search term. Dough4872 01:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I went ahead and made the redirects. Also, could some of the more "seasoned" editors take a look at the I-516 page and bring it up to USRD standards? I did a lot of work, but there is a lot more that needs to be done. The only other thing that I know needs to be added is the "History" section. If I should add it, it could take a long while, since I have to go back to the 1920 GDOT map to start (SR 21's route). Thanks. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 03:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I seriously would recommend that you handle writing the History section. Most other editors are busy with their writing and research projects in their respective states. I did remove the entries for "Unnamed bridge" from the exit list. If the river is not a significant political boundary (I'm thinking a state line here) or the bridge lacks its own article, why bother including it? Imzadi 1979 → 04:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I expanded the article and reassessed it as a C-class article. Let me know what you think of it. If you can find anything that needs corrected, let me know. Or do it yourself and show me how you found out. I am kind of proud of expanding the article. It has been a long-time goal of mine. I just don't have a lot of computing power on my current laptop, so the computers at work did the trick. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 08:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I included a few useless unnamed bridges in the ON 17 intersection list... but only because they were the only thing in either direction for the next 100 mi. Sometimes they have a place haha. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 13:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Amen, Floydian, but Georgia is not that remote. I think every bridge and body of water should have a name and a Wikipedia page, so this kind of thing would be an issue. However, that hasn't happened. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 22:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

But unless or until the bridge is notable enough for its own article, it's a violation of MOS:RJL to include it. That guideline specifically says "major bridges" and "major bodies of water", and without an article, I don't think an unnamed bridge meets that requirement. Imzadi 1979 → 23:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I generally only include bridges in a junction list if the bridge has an article AND it spans a significant body of water. Dough4872 00:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Here are my rules of thumb on when to include a bridge or body of water:

• It's the state-line or terminus of the highway. In that case, if the bridge itself isn't notable, I use "Michigan–Wisconsin state line" or similar in place of the bridge name.
• The bridge itself has its own article, and it's a major structure, like the Mackinac Bridge or even the Cut River Bridge. Minor bridges on the NHRP need not apply.
• The body of water of water is a major crossing. Note: most rivers have an article. Things like the Straits of Mackinac, the St. Marys River, the Portage Canal, which separates the northern 2/3 of the Keweenaw Peninsula from the mainland, or the DeTour Passage, which separates the UP from Drummond Island are major crossings; the Carp River in Marquette County, Michigan, is not.
• The crossing involves a dedicated toll, especially on an otherwise toll-free highway.

In most cases, if the bridge is notable and a major span, it crosses a major body of water, and vice versa. In other words, most of the appropriate entries will involve one or more of my "rules of thumb". Imzadi 1979 → 01:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Tennessee State Route 431

Hi, I was told by an Administrator that someone on here could help. I recently added a section to the article, Tennessee State Route 22 about the freeway portion's exit list and i was wondering Why on the junctions/exits with Tennessee State Route 431 it wasn't showing the article for Tennessee 431? If you go to Tennessee State Route 22 you will see and understand what i am talking about. ACase0000 (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank for reporting this. {{Jct}} has undergone a partial rewrite, and apparently the Tennessee secondary route type was left out. This has been fixed. However, the linked article's exit list is not up to project standards. The relevant standard can be seen at MOS:RJL. Again, thanks for bringing this to our attention. -happy5214 15:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, the table should incorporate the full length of the highway, not just the freeway section. Imzadi 1979 → 17:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

One day, but a start to the junction list is always a good addition :) - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and you are welcome!!! Imzadi1979,--> The freeway portion is going to be an Interstate route that is why i added the section. ACase0000 (talk) 04:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

@ACase0000: yes, but we do full junction lists on the entire length of a highway, not just sections that are being built as a freeway (Interstate or not). It's fine to start with the freeway exits first, but the table should be expanded out at some point. For an example, take a look at U.S. Route 131, which has significant sections of freeway and non-freeway facilities, including a segment that is concurrent with the unsigned I-296. Imzadi 1979 → 06:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979: Can a new section be started or a new article about the Freeway portion which would be best? ACase0000 (talk) 06:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

There's some great advice at WP:USRD/STDS on how to organize the article. The Tennessee State Route 22 article should cover the full length of the highway in each of the "Big Three" sections ("Route description", "History", and the junction/exit list). If there are enough reliable sources (news articles, state DOT press releases/documents/maps, etc), there's no reason why an Interstate 169 article can't also be created, even if it duplicates this one somewhat. The difference is a matter of emphasis and detail, just like with Interstate 194 (Michigan) and M-66 (Michigan highway). Imzadi 1979 → 07:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot to mention, the TN-22 article should have a "Future" section with the details about future changes to the highway added there, so long as they can be verified with reliable sources. We can't have a future section that's based on "roadgeek" speculation and "what-ifs"; we have to be able to confirm the content there in news articles, DOT or other government press releases/documents/maps, etc. Imzadi 1979 → 07:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

OKay Thanks!!! ACase0000 (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Tennessee State Route 476

Page has issues 2 places it says state route 477 and it has no sources or references and Plus it has false location Tennessee State Route 476 is a highway in Franklin County, Tennessee not a road to Cummins Falls in Putnam County, Tennessee and it needs to be revirted back to the way it was before 3 edits on October 5 and 6 2013 to the way it was when User:Imzadi1979 edited on June 2 2013 see in History. ACase0000 (talk) 04:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

So....fix it. I did a little research into SR-476 and I agree with your assessment. –Fredddie™ 05:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Videos?

I am considering creating a article on Tennessee State Route 75 and i was wondering if i could use a video on that highways construction project from TDOT's website? ACase0000 (talk) 05:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Videos are a great addition, but like photographs, they have to be properly licensed. Works of state government agencies are not automatically in the public domain like they are for the federal government, so you'd need to get permission from TDOT. Commons:OTRS explains how to log permissions with our OTRS system. Imzadi 1979 → 05:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Barring that, you could use the video as an external reference. –Fredddie™ 05:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok thank you both, Imzadi1979 and Fredddie. Fredddie you suggest using it as an external link? ACase0000 (talk) 07:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

U.S. Route 17 Alternate (South Carolina)

An editor posted a concern on the Talk:U.S. Route 17 Alternate (South Carolina) page. Is this true? I have driven it and both US&nsbp;17 Alternate and US 521 end at the same point. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Since I have recently updated that article, I can confirm that the endpoints are not the same. A quick look on Google's Street view can confirm this or a look-up on SCDOT's city map. FYI, it's always been seperated at the northern terminus, don't trust your own memory... I don't trust mine. :p --WashuOtaku (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Utah Exit List Guides

FYI, There has been a rash of (mostly anonymous and unknown) editors changing the Exit List Guides for Utah highway articles, and these getting reverted by established editors from the USRD project. Here is one sample [3] FYI, the anonymous and newbies may be correct. What is going on is, until recently, UDOT had the practice of using generic freeway signage for a "ranch exit" for any freeway exit out in the boonies that lead to an unnumbered dirt road, relying solely on the exit number for differentiation, as there could be a dozen or more "Ranch Exits" on a given rural freeway. However, in the latest round of re-signing, they are following the practice more common for western states of assigning these exits unique names. The official highway logs have finally been updated to reflect this, in some cases, such as in the above example [4]. Dave (talk) 07:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. It sure looked like vandalism, but it appears to not be the case. --Rschen7754 07:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised that never made it into a Jeff Foxworthy routine, "If the exit sign to your house says Ranch Exit, you might be ...." To more serious subjects, in the above example of I-70 it's mixed. Per that official mileage log, only about half the former "Ranch exits" have been given names, however, my recollection is they've all been given names. Dave (talk) 07:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You know you're an old-timer when you still call them "exit list guides". –Fredddie™ 03:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Designation talk at Talk:Ohio State Route 844

Just in case it might interest some.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 17:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Added maps of Pennsylvania

Hey, I just wanted to let you guys know that I recently acquired a few more maps of Pennsylvania. I've updated WP:USRD/MDB. --hmich176 11:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

GAR notification

Connecticut Route 361, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Rschen7754 21:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

North Carolina Road Project

Since North Carolina is one of the less thought of states can I make a North Carolina Road Project (NCRP) to help build a road program of North Carolina?--Ncchild (talk) 02:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:USRD/NC exists. –Fredddie™ 03:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

In the past, individual states used to have their own subprojects with USRD serving as the parent project. However, in the past couple of years it has been decided to consolidate all the subprojects into one USRD as most project editors work across multiple states and the same standards apply nationwide. As mentioned by Fredddie, NC has a task force page of USRD to list standards specific to the state. Dough4872 03:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Per the above, no. USRD members want to help all editors interested in highways and major roads anywhere in the US, including NC. Imzadi 1979 → 03:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Ventura Freeway#Popular culture

There is a discussion regarding including information sourced to only SPS. --Rschen7754 06:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Tennessee State Route 93

Hi I need some help i can't figure out why the Junction list in article Tennessee State Route 93 is showing up in the References Section and not the Junction list section? can someone help? ACase0000 (talk) 07:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed, you were missing {{Jctbtm}}, which closes the table. - Evad37 [talk] 07:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh Thanks Evad37. ACase0000 (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:Jcttop with no location

This doesn't work:

The entire route is in none, Montezuma County.

mi	km	Destinations	Notes

Alternately, it might make more sense to use location=unincorporated to output "The entire route is in unincorporated Montezuma County." --NE2 19:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

In the interim, you can also use {{Jcttop|state=CO|location=Montezuma County|nocty=yes}}, which results in

The entire route is in Montezuma County.

mi	km	Destinations	Notes

-- Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Usually what I do is just leave the location column showing with all blank cells. Somewhat ugly, but gets the point across. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

ACR backlog

If you have some time, there are several A-Class nominations at WP:HWY/ACR that need reviews! --Rschen7754 03:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

List of numbered highways in Georgia

On my sandbox, I've begun to reformat the List of numbered highways in Georgia (U.S. state) page. The title of that page suggests that it should include Interstate and U.S. highways, as well as the state routes. Is that true? Or should the page be moved to "List of state routes in Georgia (U.S. state)"? If the page should include Interstate and U.S. highways, should the Category:Interstate Highways in Georgia (U.S. state) and Category:U.S. Highways in Georgia (U.S. state) categories be added to it (after the revision is done)? Honestly, what do you guys think about my sandbox? Other than the plethora of redlinks (redirects need to be made), are there any other suggestions that you have? Thanks for your help. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of what you decide, this page should be using the {{Routelist row}} series of templates. –Fredddie™ 22:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the series of templates Fredddie mentioned should be used instead of hardcoding the table. Otherwise, I think Georgia has enough Interstate and U.S. highways to warrant their own lists, but I would keep them in the main numbered highways list until/unless you can add sufficient information for each highway in the list. A good page to model your Interstate Highway list off of would be List of Interstate Highways in Texas (which is, to my knowledge, our only Featured List). TCN7JM 00:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I understand that that template should be used. What is the proper way to use it, though? I have never used it before. I don't want to mess anything up with the page. I should start "reformatting" my sandbox with the templates now, rather than later. Thanks for your help. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 06:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I have been making more changes to my sandbox, but I got a "Script error" on one route. Is that my fault, or is that a problem with Lua (or something else)? Thanks. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 02:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like you can't put an inline reference in any of the date columns. –Fredddie™ 02:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

What in the world? How can the dates be cited (like normal pages)? There is a separate "length_mi" and "length_ref" in the {{Routelist row}}, but there is not a separate parameter to cite the dates. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 03:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Just relax. –Fredddie™ 03:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Normally, in Featured Lists, many of them use a "Refs" column to hold all of the references for an individual line in a table, like List of state highways in Marquette County, Michigan does. The templates do not currently support such a thing, and they might have to be changed when the first list article using these templates is taken to FLC. Imzadi 1979 → 03:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

These templates are fairly new and haven't gotten much use. If there's a feature that's missing (like a ref fields for the dates, which I agree is something we need) just ask for it at Template talk:Routelist row and me or Happy can add it. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I have the "Cite error: The named reference GDOT_1961 was invoked but never defined" and "Cite error: The named reference GDOT_1963 was invoked but never defined" on my sandbox page, but I can't find the problem. I even looked at the Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text page, but I can't find it. Can someone help me? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 09:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

This means that you have called a reference like so: <ref name="GDOT_1963"/> but never actually defined what the reference is supposed to contain (<ref name="GDOT_1963">{{cite map|publisher= ... }}</ref>). Change one of the invocations of the ref to include the text that you want the ref to display and the error will go away. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's related to the date issue above.

1. The only places those references are defined is a date parameter.
2. The date parameters are processing the date information, meaning they aren't just blindly repeating the content in the proper space, but rather using the date content to create the year for display and sorting purposes.
3. Since that means you can't insert a reference without breaking the processing, you're getting Script error in the table where the referenced dates would show up.
4. Since that date isn't showing up, when you try to reuse the footnote, you're getting the reference errors.

The way to fix this is related to the date and reference issue mentioned above, and it will require a change to the templates, and then your sandbox, to fix. Imzadi 1979 → 09:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why your asking, I just made them myself for South Carolina (US Highway & Interstate) and North Carolina (Interstate only... for now). Here's an example: List of U.S. Highways in South Carolina. Granted, the Carolinas isn't as difficult as Georgia. :p --WashuOtaku (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Scott, I have the reference defined, but for some reason (date reason or otherwise), it is still giving me the error. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 09:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

How do I list routes like Georgia State Route 28 and Georgia State Route 177, that have 2 segments? Also, if a current route used to be longer, how do I mention that in the list? I can't think of a specific example. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 10:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

For examples of how other "split" highways have been handled, Interstate 710 (California), Utah State Route 30. Dave (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

As for highways that used to be longer, U.S. Route 66. ;) 17:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Dave, I think that you misunderstood. I am trying to revamp the page that shows the list of state highways in Georgia. If you take a look at my sandbox (linked above), you will see the beginning of what I am trying to do. I need to know how to enter multiple segment roads on a list like this. Should I make a redirect to each segment and link to each one? Or is there another way to correctly do this? Thanks to whomever can help. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 01:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

See the example for SH-15 on WP:USRD/STDS/L. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

As I "feared", my sandbox got hit with this error page: "Wikimedia Foundation

Error

Our servers are currently experiencing a technical problem. This is probably temporary and should be fixed soon. Please try again in a few minutes.

The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organisation which hosts some of the most popular sites on the Internet, including Wikipedia. It has a constant need to purchase new hardware. If you would like to help, please donate. If you report this error to the Wikimedia System Administrators, please include the details below. Request: POST http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Morriswa/sandbox&action=submit, from 208.80.154.8 via cp1055 frontend ([10.2.2.25]:80), Varnish XID 1962194889 Forwarded for: 63.239.65.11, 208.80.154.8 Error: 503, Service Unavailable at Tue, 12 Nov 2013 02:06:36 GMT

Your cache administrator is nobody." Why are long pages or pages with lots of templates getting this error page popping up? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 02:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The long and short of it is kinda simple. For some more complex templates (like jct), they take a bit longer for the servers to render the preview. When the template is repeated multiple times, the servers time out, not on saving the edit but generating the preview to display after the edit is saved. The routelist templates use the same infrastructure as jct, so they have the same complexity issues. In short: your edits should be saved, but the server exceeds its time limit to regenerate the page you see after it's saved. Imzadi 1979 → 02:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Supposedly, there "used" to be "another" I-475 (and possibly I-675) in Georgia. Do you guys know if that is true or erroneous information? I'm about to get off work, so I can't do much of the research right now, but I was just wondering if you guys knew for sure. Thanks. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 11:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I had found out that there may have been a former business route of US 25 in Augusta, Georgia. On my other sandbox page, how do I get the template to correctly show the link? With the code as it currently is, it is trying to link to U.S. Route 25 Business (Augusta 1961–1969, Georgia). It should link to U.S. Route 25 Business (Augusta, Georgia 1961–1969). Yes, I do know that both are red links; the redirects (and appropriate sections haven't been made, yet. How do I get the {{routelist row}} template to display the link the way it should be? Thanks. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 06:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Some of the U.S. Highways article pages have the link for the Georgia Data Clearinghouse. I was wondering, how do I use the site to get the mileage of each highway in the state of Georgia? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 08:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Also can the {{Routelist row}} template be able to display former "U.S. Route ### City" or "U.S. Route ### Temporary"? I just tried on my sandbox2, but it didn't work. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 09:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Are there good pages to emulate when I start the List of Interstate Highways in Georgia and List of U.S. Highways in Georgia pages? Also, is there any kind of route log for U.S. Highways, like the one FHWA keeps on Interstate Highways? Thanks. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 04:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

List of Interstate Highways in Texas is a Featured List, but note that it isn't using the new standardized templates. AASHTO has a log of sorts, but the last time I went to load it the other day, it wouldn't work. I'll try again to locate it and post when I have some luck. Imzadi 1979 → 04:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

http://nchrp20-7-228.com is a rough draft log from AASHTO. Note that it runs US Highways in the reverse direction of their standard mileposts, the log mixes in business routes, and the log rounds to the nearest mile. Imzadi 1979 → 04:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Imzadi, for trying to help me with this big project. All three Georgia lists, including the state highways, need lots more help, but I would like to get this stuff done. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Let me know if you'd like me to do one of these for Georgia next (since GDOT has a good selection of official maps available): Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Missouri/All-time list --NE2 05:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd like for you to do one of the lists, please. Remember, I have been editing my sandbox2 for Interstate and U.S. highways (page nearly complete) and my User:Morriswa/sandbox for the Georgia State Routes. Thanks. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 06:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

And done. Keep in mind the notes at the top. --NE2 17:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The business route rows are somewhat overdone and redundant. All you really need for each is the length and city, and I don't think the length needs to be sortable, since these are basically part of the 'parent'. I'd put a line in notes, something like:

• business routes: Attapulgus (3.473 miles (5.589 km)), Bainbridge (3.064 miles (4.931 km)), Blakely (4.315 miles (6.944 km))

--NE2 06:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

cite map change coming

I started two discussion threads related to {{cite map}}, and the one will be of good use to this project given our reliance on citing maps. In Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 3#citing maps in books or journals, I asked for a way to cite a specific map in an atlas. Specifically, I use the Michigan map in The Road Atlas by Rand McNally frequently enough to indicate some details omitted from the standard MDOT paper map. A new pair of parameters, |map= and |mapurl= are being added. After the change, it will be possible to cite:

Rand McNally (2013). "Michigan". The Road Atlas (Map). 1 in=3 mi. Cartography by Rand McNally (2013 Walmart ed.). pp. 50–51, Lansing inset. ISBN 0-528-00626-6. 

I'm hoping there's a way to shift the location where "(Map)" appears to stay with the map title. Also, if the map appears in a journal, we can cite:

Colorado State Highway Department (July 1923). "New Map Showing the 8,880 Miles Which Comprise Colorado's Primary Highway System". Colorado Highways (Map). Scale not given. Cartography by CSHD. pp. 12–13. OCLC 11880590. http://books.google.com/books?id=czs5AQAAMAAJ&pg=RA10-PA12. Retrieved November 18, 2013. 

Note that the volume and issue number aren't currently showing up at the moment in that second example, but that should be added before long. I also asked for the edition to be shifted so it isn't separated from the titles by any scale, series or cartographer information at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 3#Editions in cite map, but that will require a migration to the Lua module that hasn't been done for cite map yet. Imzadi 1979 → 14:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

An update: the initial change has been made. Adding |map= to {{cite map}} will specify the name of a map in a larger publication like an atlas, the name of which can be separately supplied with |title= to appear in italics as normal. Additionally, |mapurl= can be supplied if that map is available online. For the meantime, |volume= and |issue= for periodical publications like a journal cannot be used, and the "(Map)." and edition information have not been moved in their display order yet. Both of these quirks will be fixed with the template is converted over to full Lua, which will also add error checking for date formatting and verification that ISBN or ISSN numbers are valid among other things. Imzadi 1979 → 21:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Route couplets

I found a discussion from a while back mentioning what to do with Ohio's auxiliary routes, among them "directional alternates", the "other" direction where a route splits into two distinct roads, though that discussion didn't really lead anywhere specifically regarding those. (I know that all DOTs have ways of dealing with these, but the terms are so varied that an archive search for any and all would be impractical; if anyone knows of an appropriate relevant discussion, please point me to it.) I would say that listing them as auxiliary routes on their own is misleading since they're as much a part of the mainline in the field as the other direction is. I bring this up because of this edit. Mapsax (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

My opinion on things like this is that it's not worth mentioning since it's just a trick the DOT uses to facilitate accounting. From a road user's point of view, 2-D is unimportant and they will find no reference to it on maps and signs. Use whichever one is eastbound or northbound for mileages, and ignore the other one, other than a description of the one-way couplet in the route description. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Help

I recently started the WikiProject:Russia Roads to help extended Roads to different countries. It look HORRIBLE. Does anyone have any help for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncchild (talk • contribs) 21:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Step 1 to forming a new WikiProject: have a group of people interested in the topic area. Step 2, if you have that group, then start the project, create the assessment banner template, etc.. You've done this backwards, and at the moment I am very tempted to have it deleted. There is a process to creating these things through the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council or through discussions to split a topic area from an existing WikiProject. You didn't consult WP:HWY first, nor did you go through the Council, so this should go. (Also, you created the page at the wrong location, making it in the mainspace along with our articles.) Imzadi 1979 → 21:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Illinois State Toll Highway Authority

I have opened a review of the article's GA status at Talk:Illinois State Toll Highway Authority/GA2. Imzadi 1979 → 00:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

California State Route 11

An IP keeps adding content that should be going in Interstate 110 (California), in my opinion. What are others' thoughts about this? --Rschen7754 10:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Since the hatnote points to the article about the former SR 11, there's no need to cover that content there. If there weren't another article about that subject already, I would agree with covering the former iteration of the SR 11 designation in the current iteration's article, but that's not the case here. Imzadi 1979 → 17:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I think a sentence or two in the history section is appropriate. It is possible that someone sees an old map of LA and google's "SR-11" and lands on this page. The hatnote may not have enough context to resolve the confusion. For example something like, "This is the second highway in California assigned with the 11 designation, the first was in the Los Angeles area and has since been renumbered Route 110." is fine. However, we should avoid going into details on a tangential subject. We just need enough info to direct the person where they need to go. I'm struggling with a similar issue in copy-editing what is now the first two paragraphs of the history section of the article for Western Pacific Railroad, a non-roads example of the same problem. As such I think this does merit a wide discussion on how to handle stuff like this. Dave (talk) 18:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I've adjusted the hatnote. --Rschen7754 06:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Scenic Tennessee State Route 73

State Route 73 Scenic
Location	East Tennessee

Hi I recently created a page on Tennessee State Route 73, i am going to add a section on it in the page about the separate scenic route but i can't figure out how to make the "SCENIC" sign appear above the route sign in the Infobox small i was going to use. Can someone help? -- ACase0000 (talk) 07:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

You have to use |subtype=Scenic, but it wasn't set up until now, so it wouldn't have worked anyway. And yes, they should be green like that. –Fredddie™ 14:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Is it even important to even post the Scenic sign in the infobox? I mean, you can simply write a section explaining its scenic and why it is; not to mention scenic routes don't always overlap the entire route (not familiar with SR-73 though). --WashuOtaku (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Good point. This is a short connector road into Great Smoky Mountains NP, so it's not signed as SR-73 past the park entrance. Nevertheless, the infobox functionality for scenic state highways didn't exist at all. –Fredddie™ 16:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I createed a section in the article i wasn't wanting it in the main Inbox, but thank you for your help. Freddie and WashuOtaku go to the article now now and see what i was wanting and did i copied what you did here with |subtype=Scenic. Again thanks for helping. -- ACase0000 (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I rated the page and will be watching to see if it can go up another rate.--Ncchild (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

It's probably not true in Tennessee, but there are a few scenic routes in Mississippi that have different routings from the "parents". For example: http://www.state-ends.com/mississippi/ms304s.html --NE2 15:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on date of route designation

Opinions needed. User talk:Detcin#Indiana 931 creation Mapsax (talk) 13:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Bike Route Jct Codes for NC

I was wondering if the junction coding could incorporate the Bicycle Routes for North Carolina? There are nine official state bike routes, which are marked on roads and mapped on state county maps. The goal is not to incorporate them in the regular highway pages, that wouldn't be helpful, but to make their own junction lists for their own page(s) and to list them on county pages. Would that something you all would be interested in allowing/setting up? --WashuOtaku (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not see the harm in putting bike routes into {{jct}} for use in bike route articles. We can also set them up for other states while were at it. Dough4872 03:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest putting a request in on Template talk:Jct so it doesn't get forgotten. One thing to note is that jct is undergoing an overhaul to convert it to use Lua, so any implementation of this may be delayed until after that conversion is done. (It could also be swept into the conversion, I can't say.) Imzadi 1979 → 03:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox road small

If you are using the {{Infobox road small}}, and the route travels through 2 or more states, how is that correctly indicated in the template? Thanks. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

What article is this for? Dough4872 03:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly the same way you would for {{Infobox road}}. –Fredddie™ 03:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Why wouldn't |location=Wisconsin–Michigan to produce "Location: Wisconsin–Michigan" or something similar work? Imzadi 1979 → 03:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I found your concern in Bannered routes of U.S. Route 3 and I fixed it. For multi-state routes, use "country=USA" instead of the "state=" parameter. Dough4872 03:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Fucking bureaucracy

Anyone want to deal with this?

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ohio_State_Route_326&oldid=583792930&diff=prev
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ohio_State_Route_596&oldid=583792907&diff=prev
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ohio_State_Route_156&oldid=583792838&diff=prev

Maybe if I say "State Route 326 is a state route" it can be speedy deleted? --NE2 15:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted 596 and 156 as blatant hoaxes. Leaving 326 for now, since it is technically correct (326 did become 283, just not the 283 described in the article). —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, no. 223 → 283 → 326 was a short connection near Toledo. It was renumbered 283 in 1930-1931 because of the creation of US 223, but then for an unknown reason it became 326 in 1931-1932, and was only a state highway until 1933-1934. The current 283 was numbered in 1931-1932 to replace 6 due to the arrival of US 6. --NE2 04:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

INDOT map template problem

It appears that entries using Template:INDOT map in the State Highway Commission era have the pipelink elements switched. Example, look for the red links: U.S. Route 50 in Indiana#References Mapsax (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Imzadi 1979 → 20:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Tennessee State Route 73

Hi i need some help with the Junction list on Tennessee State Route 73 i couldn't figure out how to to put list the scenic route's junction so I just did a different way but i do not know if it is acceptable. --ACase0000 (talk) 05:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I've switched it to use {{jct}}, and then set it up for all but the banner plate. @Fredddie: can you get the banner working? Imzadi 1979 → 06:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok Thanks. ACase0000 (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

This is above my pay grade, sadly. –Fredddie™ 03:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Before I add this myself, I need something cleared up. I looked at Google Street View, and it appears that the Scenic plate is white-on-green, not green-on-white. Which one is it? -happy5214 06:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that too, but if you look at the intersection from southbound US 321 (the T-intersection 180 degrees from the view), you'll see the scenic banner and a scenic highway logo, which is green on white. The standard drawing for the scenic logo banner specifies green on white. So that's what I went with. –Fredddie™ 18:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

But there is one Problem in the Junction list it is signed in the wrong designation it is Secondary not Primary. ACase0000 (talk) 06:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

If it is wrong, then fix it.  VC  00:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

@VC i can't because it hasn't been made for Secondary routes yet. ACase0000 (talk) 05:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done, done, and done. -happy5214 08:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

GAR notification

New Jersey Route 31, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Rschen7754 21:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Tennessee State Route 126

Where do i go to have a highway shield created, There is a short Primary designation that was just recently signed to Tennessee State Route 126 and i can't find a Primary shield for it. Just to mention i just created the article. ACase0000 (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Go to WP:USRD/S/R - this is the USRD Shields Department request page. -- LJ ↗ 08:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The shield has been created, twice, so it's a moot point anyway –Fredddie™ 09:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!! I couldn't find it and it wouldn't show up. Thanks again!! ACase0000 (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Standardizing abbreviation formatting

Let me start out by saying that right now is a prime opportunity to have this discussion because the backend coding to some of our most-used templates is being updated. Any changes in abbreviation can be bundled in the implementation of a consolidated template module. I also want to add that various style guides, like The AP Stylebook have a standardized house style for such things, so there is no reason USRD can't implement one itself for its own articles/templates. Other wikiprojects are free to implement or ignore any changes we make out of this discussion.

There are currently three ways to abbreviate the highway known as U.S. Route 62, and all three versions are in use in the infobox in U.S. Route 62 in Arkansas. The inconsistency in the abbreviations in that infobox occurs because the state-line connections to the Oklahoma and Missouri segments are shown, and each is following the format used in the specific states. That highway in Arkansas is abbreviated "U.S. 62", in Missouri it is "US 62" and in Oklahoma it is "US-62".

Because this is a matter of typography that does not alter meaning, any convention we use is arbitrary, so it does not matter what each state DOT does. It is because we have followed state DOT practices in assigning these abbreviation conventions by state that we have created the very inconsistency that shows up in cases like the Arkansas article above. In short, USRD can use a single consistent format to eliminate this inconsistency. For many states, nothing would change in my proposal. In others, a set of AWB runs after any template changes are made, and editors will adapt to the new standard. Our articles will look more polished and consistent as a whole genre.

My proposal is simple:

• For all highway abbreviations that use a single letter followed by a number, that letter will be separated from the number by a hyphen.
• If the abbreviation uses two letters, a non-breaking space separates the two elements.
• In the few cases of three or more letters in the abbreviation, those would be handled on a case-by-case basis.
  • Wisconsin could use STH-# and CTH-X, and Puerto Rican Interstates can be PRI-#.
  • Wisconsin could use WIS #, Michigan could use FFH #, and Arkansas can have Hwy. #.
• In the unique case of Arkansas's "U.S.", the periods would be dropped, but other abbreviations using a period to indicate a word was shortened, like "Highway" → "Hwy." or "Business" → "Bus.", we would retain the period if in mixed case. "Wisconsin" → "WIS" or "Business" → "BUS" would not need a period introduced. (The Chicago Manual of Style, 16th edition, no longer recommends that US use periods, so at some point in the next several years expect Wikipedia to standardize on dropping them entirely in the MOS.)
• For Michigan, the abbreviations would be I-75, US 23, M-28, H-58, CR 492, FFH 13, Co. Rd. JA, for example.

Note, The AP Stylebook standardizes on "U.S. 41", which is why that appears in my local newspapers, and MDOT uses "US-41", but our Michigan articles have used "US 41" for years without issue, all because this is a matter of typography that is pretty much independently decided by our editors. TxDOT uses "IH #" for their Interstates, yet {{jct}} uses "I-#" and has for a long time, again as a matter of national consistency. We should not feel beholden to any practice by the AP, a state DOT, AASHTO, or FHWA for a matter of typography. We would not change the letters currently used in the abbreviations, rather we would just standardize punctuation so that one infobox does not have two or three variations on what is otherwise the same abbreviation. Imzadi 1979 → 14:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Support

1. As proposer. Imzadi 1979 → 15:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
2. 'We still need a smaller scale SRNC for a few states personally, but otherwise. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 15:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
3. I'm always in support of anything to improve consistency between articles. The proposal lines up with what is generally the norm for Canadian articles (w.r.t. abbreviations for our own road names), but having a standard to use "US 61" over "U.S. 61" would be a step forward. The actual abbreviations can be adjusted or modified as this is unraveled, but otherwise what I see above seems correct. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 00:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
4. Makes sense to me. (See comment below.) Britinvasion64 (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
5. The inconsistency within the project in abbreviations never really made much sense to me. Contrary to WashuOtako's comment, I think standardizing abbreviations would cause less confusion because all states would be using the same thing, and we wouldn't have to differentiate between states. I myself was tripped up by this very issue of inconsistency at least once in the past (there's a thread somewhere deep in my talk archives but I'm too lazy to look it up). TCN7JM 22:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
6. provided that this only matters for the infobox and exit list (which primarily relies on the template jct to generate this text). I don't see the need to do mass changes in the prose of an article, nor to ding an article for using US-2 instead of US 2 in prose. However in the infobox this does look odd (for routes that touch a state line where the adjoining state uses a different convention), and this has come up at article reviews. Dave (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
7. I agree with the proposal in principle, but there are some details with which I don't agree. For instance:
   • Banners (including interstate business loops) should go after the route, full stop. If we're going to talk seriously about standardization, we cannot have a system where one or two states use "ALT US ##", for instance, and call that standardized.
   • County Ro(ads|utes) should always be abbreviated "CR" not "Co. Rd." Our readers don't care about the nuances that set them apart. –Fredddie™ 00:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
8. Weak support. I would encourage the opposers to look at this from a more encyclopedia-wide perspective; a consistent style helps readers. With that being said, this is weak because I think that we have higher priorities to worry about now. --Rschen7754 07:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Each state has their own rules how highways are marked, signed and generally viewed in their own state. Using a standardize system would only confuse those in states that don't align to it. The current system appears to be doing fine. --WashuOtaku (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Sigh. No reason to change, and Business should never be abbreviated BUS or Bus without a period. --NE2 21:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
3. We should used the abbreviations that are officially used by each state, whether it be US X, U.S. X, or US-X. Dough4872 01:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Coming from the perspective of a non-article writer, and being the one that would have to implement any template/module changes, I really don't care. Honestly, how much would the average reader even notice either way? I have no problem with the proposal, but I see no real point to it either. -happy5214 11:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments

I agree with this standardization process. I want to remark on the two aspects on which I feel most strongly or on which I am unsure of the scope of this discussion, and which may or may not have been addressed above.

• I am strongly in favor of replacing generic abbreviations like SR (for State Route) with state-specific abbreviations. From what I have seen in the above proposal, the only change up for review is whether all states will be SR X or SR-X. Could we expand the scope to encompass the state-specific discussion or are we only discussing national conventions here?
• My favored convention is abbreviating generics like Highway, Business, and Alternate in tables or infoboxes and spelling them out in prose. Are we discussing abbreviating only in tables or infoboxes, which are situations where the templates come into play, or also in prose?  VC  15:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • For the moment, I'm not suggesting touching those other conventions, because I think they're a bit more contentious than standardizing how existing abbreviations are punctuated. I actually oppose switching away from the generic abbreviations in some cases.
  • Since these are the abbreviations used in prose, I'm discussing both prose and tables/infoboxes. In Michigan, what internal MDOT documents and press releases calls the "M-28 Business Route" is more commonly known as "Business M-28" because of the sign order and currently abbreviated "BUS M-28" in running prose on subsequent usages. Should someone desire to keep spelling it out, I don't see why that is a problem though. Imzadi 1979 → 16:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
• (copying comment from above section, which should only be used to !vote not comment, to reply here) Each state has their own rules how highways are marked, signed and generally viewed in their own state. Using a standardize system would only confuse those in states that don't align to it. The current system appears to be doing fine. --WashuOtaku (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • No, the current system is not doing fine, and each state doesn't have "[its] own rules" when they have to comply with the federal MUTCD in how they mark and sign their roads. Unfortunately, the MUTCD is silent on written publications, and I think you're missing the point of the proposal. We, as in Wikipedia and USRD specifically, are a written publication. Newspapers have to follow The AP Stylebook, and regardless of what SCDOT or MDOT or AASHTO says, that style guide says that the highway running through my hometown has to be abbreviated "U.S. 41" using periods and a space. MDOT uses "US-41" with a hyphen, and my hometown's DPW has street signs bearing "U.S.-41". The Chicago Manual of Style, 16th edition, instructs publishers and writers using it to abbreviate it "US 41". We're talking about a simple typographic choice that is already arbitrary and inconsistent outside of Wikipedia, and currently inconsistent within Wikipedia. I can't get the various publishers and government departments together to agree to one standard, but we can impose one on our publication. At the same time, we can craft simple rules for applying our standard for USRD articles to more than just US Highways. Imzadi 1979 → 21:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
    • I say "when in Rome..." and leave it the way it is. The Carolinas use "US 25" while Tennessee uses "US-25," there is no confusion here because that is what the states use with their DOTs and local publications. Trying to create uniformity is simply ignoring the fact that each state runs their own DOT and the articles should reflect that. Also the fact if you all do go on with this proposal, it will look counter to what all articles that were written up to this point and a major campaign would be needed to convert every article outside the templates to that standard, something I would not take part in. --WashuOtaku (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
      • And a few AWB runs by interested editors would update the articles. Remember, this is the "United States Numbered Highway System" as administered through a joint effort between AASHTO and its member DOTs, so it's not purely a single state thing as you are implying. However, we are an independent publication, not an arm of a government agency. Just as the AP is free to standardize to one abbreviation format, and the Chicago Manual of Style is free to the same in a related, but different way, so too can we standardize our publication, which is Wikipedia. The lack of standardization where it pops up on national-level and state-line cases makes our articles look sloppy and unprofessional. Imzadi 1979 → 22:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
        • Isn't that really your bias? You are one of the few contributors that literally edits in every state, the embodiment of this project. However, the overall majority are local area contributors (if by state or region) and rarely go out of their comfort zone to edit an highway article in another area. I don't see sloppy or unprofessional in my little area of the world nor do I hear these complaints. Why should I have to use standard for alternate routes when North Carolina uses both signage of "US 74A" and "US 74 Alternate" for different alternate routes in the state; pretending they didn't do that is even more foolish then simply showing how that North Carolina can't decide which standard to use for themselves. Keeping it local helps contributors write these articles, forcing a standard to an area that doesn't use that would be a bigger disservice to those that read the articles to get familiar with that road and/or area. --WashuOtaku (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
          • Please re-read the proposal again. It does not address that situation. It specifically is addressing the fact that we have one state using "U.S. 62" in the templates while its neighboring states use "US 62" or "US-62". The proposal would switch {{jct}}, and all of the other templates that use its backend code, to standardize on the "US 62" format. The A vs. Alternate stuff is not addressed, by design. The only thing this deals with is the punctuation on the intitial alphabetical portion to remove the periods and to standardize on when to use hyphens and when to use spaces between that initial portion and the number. Anything related to the banner vs. suffix or the order of a banner preceding or following the combined letters-numbers construction is untouched. Imzadi 1979 → 23:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
            • That clears some confusion up, but who am I to say that using a hyphen is wrong, that is what Tennessee (as do a few other states) use. And granted the "U.S. 62" format is different from most, but if that is how state does it there then I don't see why force them to a different format otherwise. Again, I'm fine as is. --WashuOtaku (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Also, what do we do on the national articles like U.S. Route 62? Do we use all three abbreviation formats, "U.S. 62" in the Arkansas sections, "US 61" in the Missouri sections and "US-62" in the Oklahoma sections and make the article writer(s) look like a middle school student(s)? Imzadi 1979 → 21:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I also think consistency works best in this particular case. Louisiana DOTD has used LA 10 on signage, La 10 on legal documents, SR 10 on computerized maps, etc. They obviously don't think one is more right or wrong than another. Sticking with LA 10 for article purposes makes sense to me. Britinvasion64 (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
• Can we split the difference? I think what would work best is to use this proposed standard format in the national articles, let each state continue to use its preferred abbreviation style in the state articles, and clear up any per-page inconsistency by going with the native abbreviations on all links (i.e. the link to the AR page from U.S. Route 62 in Oklahoma would be displayed as US-62, but then the link back to OK on the AR page would be "U.S. 62" to match the other links on the AR page). —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • As for splitting the difference, the templates can't do that without adding additional layers of complexity we're already trying to remove to get their parsing time down to avoid server timeouts. Imzadi 1979 → 22:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
• To be honest, I think "US XX" is correct for the aforementioned routes in Arkansas anyway. "U.S." is less common, and ultimately everyone, including AHTD and newspapers, actually call it "Highway 62". Brandonrush Woo pig sooie 22:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • In Wisconsin, non-Interstates are all "Highway" followed by the number (for US or state) or letter (for county), and in Illinois, they'd call them all "Route" followed by a number for non-Interstates. In that concept, Arkansas is not unusual, but we've made a habit of distinguishing the highway types because we should have articles about all different kinds of highways and routes with the same numbers. Imzadi 1979 → 22:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

New Mexico resources

NM RGIS now offers online a sorely needed collection of historic NMDOT road maps. The site also has shapefiles for map making and KML. I've posted links on the New Mexico Task Force page. Fortguy (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Nice find! –Fredddie™ 23:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Only up to 1973, unfortunately. Note that the "1900" map is actually from the mid-1910s, so the oldest map is 1912 (still very early for a state highway system).

There may be other states listed on http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5112 that don't have links here. --NE2 14:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

2014 goals

It's that time of year again... Go! --Rschen7754 06:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe a stub drive or destub a certain amount of states. Could also do another wikiwork goal. Dough4872 03:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm of two minds on this one. On the one hand, we should finish what we set out to do from 2012 and 2013. On the other hand, perhaps it's time for a change, since we don't really seem to be interested in those goals anyway. --Rschen7754 11:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The issue with the stub or WikiWork goals is simple: we're getting new editors that haven't bought into the goals, or they don't know about them to buy into them. There are states that still don't have an article created for every current highway designation, so new editors are creating new articles to contribute to the project. Most of those are stubs, increasing the workload for the project. I think we need to take a hiatus from stub reduction goals because, as a project, we are still better than we were several years ago with the proportion of stubs to non-stubs.

Instead, for 2014, we should pick a couple of interstate highways and push to improve the various state-detail articles. Something like the I-70 FT idea. If we picked several different ones, both Interstates and US Highways, then new editors can jump in along the way. Once the various state-level articles are improved, even if they aren't all sent to GAN, the national-level article can be improved by summarizing content into it from the subarticles.

For examples, we should look at US 66, I-70, I-75, I-15, I-10, etc. The idea behind my quick picks is to have topics that spread out over various corners of the country so that anyone can jump in. That means picking a variety of odd and even numbers. Imzadi 1979 → 17:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

We could do something like set a goal to take the main article for all of the 0/5 Interstates and/or all of the 0/1 US routes to GA. Every state has several of those, and almost all of them pass through at least one state with an interested editor. A WikiWork goal paired with this would work because as we improve articles to GA, it would improve the WikiWork.

Another idea is to work on converting all route lists to the new standard format, with an eye to bringing at least one to FLC by December 31, 2014. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

+1 on the FLC goal. That is something that is able to be done for almost every state. If we are to do another WikiWork goal, which seems to be something people are mainly okay with (to be honest, I'm actually mainly indifferent about this goal), which WikiWork would we shoot for? Considering we started the year with 4.555 and are aiming for 4.400, something it doesn't seem we're going to achieve, would we try for something a little bit higher? The first values that come to my mind are 4.350 and 4.250? TCN7JM 23:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if the 0/5 Interstates or 0/1 USH would be doable - I-95, anyone? I-80?

The FLC one sounds good. --Rschen7754 00:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea of getting GT/FT for certain routes, the ideas we have at WP:USRD/FT are a start but we can add more ideas there too. Also, I agree that we should try to standardize the route lists for all states. Dough4872 01:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but my idea wasn't necessarily to try for GTs/FTs. If newer or less-experienced editors can push subarticles to B-Class, someone else can summarize those into the national-level article to make an article that can be polished into a GA. Also, a GT/FT would require the auxiliary routes. My idea is to stimulate some activity that editors of all levels could participate in. Imzadi 1979 → 01:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, a stub drive would be a good idea if we want to encourage all editors to improve articles. Maybe instead of wording it as a stub drive, word it as a push to get as many articles as possible to B class. I think putting a lot of the focus on Interstate and U.S. Routes is a good idea. I would like to see the articles for these highways more complete, with all state-detail articles created where possible. Dough4872 01:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that a stub drive would be a great idea. I also agree that all state-detail articles for each Interstate and U.S Routes should be made. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 02:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I think we need to have realistic goals and not the same ones every year. Creating all the state-detail articles is a waste of time since some routes shouldn't be split. And I can't speak for everyone, but I'm tired of stub drives. Plus, those of us who have been around for awhile have taken the USRD Hippocratic Oath, that is, "Do no harm to the WikiWork." If that's not a thing, it should be. I think the FLC goal has merit, but I think it should be reasonable like 12 for the year. –Fredddie™ 03:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

U.S. Route 66

The elephant in the room, though, is US 66. It's by far our most viewed article, so it should get the most attention from us. We have to do something; Hell, even planning is progress. –Fredddie™ 03:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree, that's why I listed US 66 first, and I don't think every s-d article needs to be created. As for FLCs, I think we will have a case where once one list using the new standards is promoted, and any updates to the standards are made based upon it, we'll be able to open the floodgates up to a regular progression of nominations. Back to US 66, if we can get the s-d articles into B-Class shape, we can get the parent article whipped into good shape just by summarizing stuff into it. Then that parent article can be polished through GAN, ACR and FAC in the course of the year. About the only difference between doing that with US 66 and something like I-75 or US 6 is the additional cultural information and stuff about NRHP sites related to US 66 that would/should be in dedidated subarticles. Imzadi 1979 → 03:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Scott5114 has mentioned setting SMART goals in the past. Apply the concept to the proposed US 66 goal:

• Specific: Get the state-detail US 66 articles to at least B-class. Get the main US 66 article to GA.
• Measurable: Assessment can be subjective, but I think this goal passes the test.
• Attainable: We need to upgrade eight or nine interrelated articles. We can do this! Unlike saying we are going to do 999 of X. Or saying we are going to get the main article to FAC. We can discuss FAC after we get it through GAN.
• Relevant: The main article is our most viewed article.
• Time-bound: Do it by December 15, 2014. Yes, all of our yearly goals fit this, but the SMAR has to apply.

The US 66 goal should be our only goal this coming year. Do not add any other goals; we need to keep our eye on the prize.  VC  03:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with solely focusing on US 66 for next year. Sure, it should be an important goal, but we should not shun improving our other articles just to help that one area. Also, newer editors and editors not living in states served by US 66 may not feel encouraged to only work on improving US 66-related articles. We need a goal that can be applied to articles in every state as to provide opportunities for editors in every state and to make sure all 50 states are on par with each other. Dough4872 03:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I would have to agree. I personally doubt that I am capable of working on US 66 CA at this time, and if I'm not, then I don't think a lot of us are.... which would limit the goal to the 2-3 people who are capable of doing this.

What about this for a proposal: get X number of priority articles to GA or FL, whichever is appropriate. By "priority articles", I mean US 66 (in *), state route lists, main articles of 2dis, etc. --Rschen7754 04:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea of focusing on "priority articles" that would include US 66 but would also include other important articles dispersed throughout the country. Maybe more specifically we can put our attention to articles that are assessed High or Top importance as they are generally the most important articles to the project covering the most important roads and concepts. Dough4872 04:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

DOT articles

• Just an idea, but what about the articles on things other than specific roads? I doubt many articles on various state DOTs are up to par as they're often an afterthought. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 06:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • You should talk to Imzadi1979 about that one... --Rschen7754 06:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
    • We have some discussions on going over at Talk:Michigan Department of Transportation, which is likely to be the last non-listy article for Michigan to go to GAN. The biggest problem, for us, is that most DOTs handle rail, marine and, air transportation and mass transit in addition to roads. I posted on the talk page for suggestions and help on research because it requires branching out beyond the usual scope of this project. That said, Michigan State Trunkline Highway System was promoted to FA and TFA earlier this year in time for the centennial of the system. I would love to see more states get similar articles, even if they aren't brought to GAN/ACR/FAC. Imzadi 1979 → 06:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
      • I have said time and again that I believe that DOTs do not belong in the scope of USRD but rather WP:TRANSPORT as they often deal with more than roads. But nevertheless it does not hurt to improve their articles. I still think we should focus more on the articles on individual roads and lists of roads. We should also look into improving Interstate Highway System and United States Numbered Highways as they are key overview articles on our two national highway systems. Dough4872 02:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
        • I do not think DOT articles should be under USRD. –Fredddie™ 04:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
        • Nor do I. TCN7JM 04:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
        • DOT articles do seem to be somewhat out of our remit. I actually think they would be more appropriate belonging to whatever projects handle other state government agencies rather than TRANSPORT, since much of what will be in them is discussion of how various laws and the comings and goings of various political appointees shaped the DOT. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
          • Should we include the relevant parts of the DOT information in the top-level article for each state? We can use summary style and have a main link to the DOT article.  VC  00:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
            • The MDOT article and the MSTHS article have this in reverse a bit... MDOT summarizes the history of the MSTHS as it relates to the department and adds some specific details (first snow plow, etc) that are more specific to the history of the agency than the history of the system, etc. A lot of the rest of the MDOT article really isn't going to apply to the highway system because it will relate to government organization, the history of the State Highway Commissioner as an elected office, etc. I have no problem yanking MDOT out of the USRD assessments, even if I still work on it, but I wonder if my future super-topic on the whole highway system won't garner comments that the dept. needs to be included. Imzadi 1979 → 02:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
              • I think given that little informal poll, you may want to seek remedying yourselves of those article; consequentially, WP:CRWP will follow suit. Unless there is some silent opposition, it seem unanimous on this end. Regardless, I think it merits a discussion with WP:TRANSPORT. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 07:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
                • I don't think that they can object, given that they are inactive, and that it inherently falls under their scope. --Rschen7754 07:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

New England

I have been throwing this out for a while, so hear me out on this and change what you feel. Clearly the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions have had pretty good editor representations over the years. However, one significant black eye is still very apparent: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire and Maine collectively are still pretty bad. (Vermont is better but not by much). Yes, sources are almost always hard to be found in some of these states, but, some of these states also have a lot of really bad 2005-06 USRD stuff running around. So effectively what I am suggesting is a 2014 Master Plan for New England.

1. Start going through the 6 states and keeping everything to modern USRD standards, such as axing the awkward colors and getting junction lists up to standard. (See for bad example: Massachusetts Route 133.)
2. Start adding to the numerous amount of missing junction lists that aren't in many New England articles.
3. Start merging more state-shared routes, such as Connecticut Route 197 and Massachusetts Route 197. There are numerous ones of these in New England.
4. Vermont and Maine also share a major problem that other states suffer from, we lack articles on numerous routes.
5. Redoing the route descriptions in Rhode Island specifically to axe the list-style route descriptions that have been prevalent.
6. Gutting Massachusetts Route 128 and re-doing the article completely. MA 128 is one of the best known non-Interstates in New England and should be high on the priority list. If New England needs its first FA, this would be a top nominee for me.

This is just the start of what I have for now. Feel free to discuss. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 16:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Along the lines of this, it would be helpful if there were a page where we list all the basic resources for a state (i.e. map archives, route logs) in chart form for easy reference so anyone could jump in and help in any state. –Fredddie™ 16:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I would advocate merging like-numbered state-shared routes if one of both of them are very short (i.e. less than 3 miles). This concept should be applied not only in New England but in the rest of the country. The other ones such as standardizing the sections and creating missing articles are not unique to New England but other parts of the country too (particularly the South). These are all good concepts that any interested editors in New England can be suggested to do and can also be suggested for other states that have similar problems. Maybe a good idea would be to add/update to-do lists for each state task force on concerns that need to be addressed for each state. Dough4872 02:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I would not support this as a project goal. You simply will not get buy-in from editors who don't have an interest in New England. (Remember those article improvement drives nobody ever contributed to because they didn't live anywhere near the selected roads? Yeah, same problem.) There are several regions that are in worse shape than New England (i.e. the Deep South and the Interior West), so if we were to do something like this I would advocate focusing on those before New England. That's not to say that a plan like this shouldn't be put together, but it should not be a USRD-wide goal. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned, we need our goals to be able to apply nationwide so editors in all states can be interested. Focusing on a certain region like New England or a certain highway like US 66 will not suit everybody. But the concepts taken from these goals can be expanded to other areas to appeal to a broader base of editors. Dough4872 07:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The way I designed this was so most of it would be easy for non-local editors to do (making RJLs, keeping up standards and merging state route articles). The stuff like giving VT and ME their missing articles, redoing RI route descriptions and MA 128 being redone are less urgent to dos. As for the nationwide goal, you won't see me on US 66 either, so its not like that one is full-proof. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 15:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, then does anyone else want to comment on my get X GA/FLs from a certain list? --Rschen7754 18:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

US-66 is different because it involves eight states and crosses half the country. It also would not require local editors since it is entirely history. A case can be made that it affects everyone in USRD because of how many readers US-66 gets. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

"It also would not require local editors since it is entirely history." - but to look for the history usually requires some sort of local database or other local knowledge... --Rschen7754 19:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

US-66 is unique in this regard—enough books about it have been written for general audiences that you can probably even find one in the Bangor Public Library. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I do agree improving US 66 should be and important goal for this project but it should not be our only goal. There are other articles about cross-country Interstate and U.S. Routes that need attention too. That is why working on "priority routes" which would include important highways such as US 66, US 1, US 40, I-80, and I-95 would be a good idea so we can try to improve more than just one highway. I would like to see all the articles about U.S. Routes ending in 0 or 1, Interstates ending in 0 or 5, and select other important Interstates and U.S. Routes (which would include US 66) brought up to at least B-class. Also, I agree that state highway lists need to get attention and we should standardize all of them and try getting at least some of them to FL status. Dough4872 20:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Reframed proposal

I'm going to propose this as our 2014 goals, then we'll see what the reaction is and take it from there:

1. US 66: We work on getting all of the state-detail articles to B-class, which should enable us to get the main article to at least GA, maybe further.
2. List articles: We get 12 FLs, roughly 1 a month. Shields and maps may need to be created to support this, and template work will be needed.
3. Templates: We work on getting our core templates Infobox road (junction|state highway system|small), Jct(int|bridge), and the routelist templates to Lua, and extend them with Wikidata support where possible.

I think this covers all of the stakeholders in USRD - those who don't like US 66 can do work on FLs. What do people think about this? --Rschen7754 21:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

There are two perspectives at creating content on Wikipedia using summary style: top-down or bottom-up. We've been using the latter for so long, creating and improving the articles on individual highways, that the lists of them have been neglected. Even with this, the lists are actually pretty easy to do, albeit somewhat time-consuming. Each highway only needs a few pieces of information to complete its line of the table in the appropriate list: termini, length, date of creation, date of deletion, and maybe something for the notes.

Now that we have WP:USRD/STDS/L and the templates, we should look at doing some cleanup. Once a list is sent to FLC, the templates can be modified to accommodate any feedback from the reviewers, and that will benefit all of the rest of the lists in the other states. I actually think 12 FLCs may be a conservative goal once we get the knack for how to do them. Plus, there's not really a limit on how many USRD lists could be nominated at FLC at once.

As for the others, USRD at some point needs to address US 66, and if the subarticles are brought up to B-Class, someone can summarize them into an article that can be polished to GA or higher standards. The resources for those articles are widely available in libraries across the country given the status of US 66 in popular culture, so it isn't a region-specific goal. As for the templates, work there will only improve thousands of articles since everyone one of our articles uses, or should use, one of the infoboxes plus the other others. I support these as goals for 2014. Imzadi 1979 → 21:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree we should work on all these goals for next year, but I would like to see the concept of the US 66 goal expanded to other important Interstate and U.S. Routes. Dough4872 22:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Dough, we can do that once we get US 66 fixed. I support these goals as Rschen wrote them. –Fredddie™ 22:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying we shouldn't work on US 66 next year. We should work on it. But we should offer up some other important highway articles that should be fixed too. This way editors will have more options on what articles they should work on. Dough4872 22:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

At the moment, with the readership numbers as they are, there is no more important article for USRD than US 66, period. For October, 81,206 people read that article compared to 36,013 for the article on the Interstate Highway System. Imzadi 1979 → 22:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Support - These goals can work for next year. I would like to see our other important road articles improved in the future though. Dough4872 22:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

No, we should not set a goal to work on "other important road articles" just for those editors who do not want to work on US 66. I support the proposal as written. I like Imzadi1979's comments on the matter.  VC  02:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I support this proposal. TCN7JM 02:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I also support the proposal; however, I would like to see the addition of another general article-based goal, such as a WikiWork, stub-reduction, or a B-and-above goal. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

What would you suggest? I fear that if we add another goal, it may be opposed by some people. --Rschen7754 11:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

@Scott5114: --Rschen7754 07:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

What would everyone think of a goal of getting 500 articles to B-class or up? (so a new GA counts, etc.) We were able to eliminate 2,012 stubs in 2012, now we should take some of those articles further. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

We only got ~220 B-class articles this year, and ~100 GAs this year, for reference. --Rschen7754 10:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I dunno, 500 seems like a little much. I would support a goal like this, as a lot of highways in Kansas (and other states, like Ohio) most likely can't pass B-Class, but the number seems a bit too high to be reasonable if we didn't even come close to it this year. TCN7JM 10:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Any highway should be able to at least theoretically pass B-Class, or we shouldn't have a full article on it. B-Class is meant to be very attainable. Keeping the last year in mind, how would 250 new B-class-and-up articles sound? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Well theoretically yes, but look at the shorter articles that have been written for Ohio recently. They've been sent of to GAN with some people thinking they're still just stubs. As for Kansas, I guess the one article I did write that looked too short for me to be comfortable with sending to GAN was K-252, which was less than a mile long and ended up being merged into the <1 mi list later. Anyway, 250 sounds fine to me. Given one perennially active state is now out of articles that can be upgraded to meet this goal, the feat should be a bit harder. TCN7JM 08:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I would support a goal to get 250 B-class articles this year. Pennsylvania alone has more than that in starts that can be brought up to B. Dough4872 01:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

How would we track the progress of this goal? --Rschen7754 01:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

While I support the B goal in principle (yes we should be getting articles to B), I don't think it should be an official 2014 project goal. Having more than three goals makes it more difficult to complete any of them (see this year's goals). –Fredddie™ 02:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I have these concerns too. --Rschen7754 02:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

(←) The goal would be easily trackable. Take end of year B+GA+A+FA and add 250 to get the target. I don't think that the problem with the 2013 goals was that there were too many of them. Rather, it was because there was not a lot of serious effort put in to accomplish them. We got distracted by other things over the year, such as Wikidata, the list standard, deprecating {{LegendRJL}}, and converting templates to Lua. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we should go through with the B-class goal because it is a general road article improvement goal editors in all states (except Michigan) can take part in. It should be added on in addition to US 66, the lists, and the templates. Having the B-class goal as a article improvement goal can be good for editors who are not good with lists or templates or do not have the interest or resources to work on US 66. Dough4872 02:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Dough and Scott. B-class goal is easily achievable.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 03:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Scott, it's not just that we didn't accomplish one of our goals this year, it's just that when the list gets to 4 or 5 it's harder to get people to notice all of them. If we're going to have a B-class drive, then we need to ax one of our proposed goals, in my opinion. --Rschen7754 09:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. The B-Class drive fits right in with the US 66 goal, and each goal caters to different members of the project. TCN7JM 21:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

But US 66 would only get us 10-11 articles at most... --Rschen7754 21:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

If I say we had to cut one of the 4 specific goals I say we cut the US 66 goal. We can still work on US 66-related articles but it should be incorporated into the larger B-class goal. US 66 doesn't have enough articles IMO to have its own goal compared to a general B-class goal. Dough4872 02:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

No, the US-66 goal is important because it will benefit our readers the most of all of the proposed goals. Again, I don't think that we failed to accomplish our goals because we had too many, I think we failed to accomplish them because we forgot they existed or just weren't that interested in accomplishing them in the first place. That being said, if we are going to drop a goal, I would say it would be the template one. There are only three or four editors who are interested in template programming, fewer still competent in Lua; it would make more sense for that small group to focus on upgrading the templates, but not make it a project-wide goal. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I can go along with dropping the template goal as that is a goal catered to a specific group of editors who are interested and proficient in improving templates. The US 66, lists, and B-class goals are easier goals that a broader base of editors across the project can work on. Dough4872 03:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

A multi-tiered approach

Seeing as we are at some sort of impasse, let me propose this idea. Let's split this in two. Instead of shoving everything into a limited number of goals, my plan separates them into shorter-term goals and longer-term objectives. The "new-style" goals are pretty much the current version: they are intended to be completed in 2014, and generally involve content improvement. Objectives, however, have no set time limit, and are generally intended for non-prose tasks that will take a longer time to complete.

So with that, here are my brief, somewhat example-ish, 2014 goals and objectives:

Goals

1. US 66
2. B-Class drive
3. Featured lists

Objectives

1. Rewriting templates to use Lua
2. Eliminating hardcoded junction lists
3. Adding maps to all upper-tier articles
4. Adding KML files for all B-Class and above articles

Please expand on these goals below, as I'm not really trying to set goals, but rather explain the goal vs. objective concept. -happy5214 08:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I like this idea. We can set the goals to be done by the end of 2014 and keep the objectives alongside them with no hard deadline. Dough4872 03:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Support. --Rschen7754 09:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Support —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Support --AdmrBoltz 01:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Support —CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 01:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Support  VC  14:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Support - Great idea. TCN7JM 19:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Support -- LJ ↗ 22:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Support - Ironic because I am giving it the +1 after I created the 2014 goals page. We didn't make a funny poster for 2013; we should do that for this year. –Fredddie™ 05:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

One more thing

I'd like to propose an unwritten goal, just something to keep in mind during the year, for US 66. June 27, 1985, was its decommissioning date. We should strive to make it the TFA for June 27, 2015. Now, if all goes well, we should be in a significantly better position a year from now to get US 66 into shape and maybe through FAC. –Fredddie™ 02:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

SR 8 (GA)

The article for SR 8 in Georgia describes an incorrect routing in the Athens area. The map, however is correct.

I could correct this myself, but that may require changing some of the mileposts given. I question the accuracy of the mileposts themselves given that only a Google Map is given as a source for them. But anyway, what should I do in this case? Remove the affected MPs, leave them as is, or attempt to approximate them given the difference in the listed route and the correct route?

--97.80.136.13 (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Ironically, that Google Map link in the article doesn't show a correct routing east of Athens either... --97.80.136.13 (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd say fix both the jct list (including the subsequent mileposts) and the Google Map link. GeoTRAQS exists, but if you can get it to work, you're better off than I am. –Fredddie™ 19:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Be bold I think is what Fredddie is getting at :) --AdmrBoltz 20:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Interstate 70 in West Virginia

Seeing as how I wrote this a couple years ago now... what do you all think the chances of it making FA are? It would help in the I-70 FT that I know is a long-term goal. The article was GANed, ACRed, and Peer Reviewed (not HWY, but wiki-wide PR). --AdmrBoltz 18:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I do see the dead links. --AdmrBoltz 18:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd say the dead links are the only issue... User:Viridiscalculus made a template to properly cite the NBI, and that could fix those citations. --Rschen7754 19:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Snazzy, I found the {{NBI}} template and updated the article. --AdmrBoltz 19:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Lets see how this goes. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Interstate 70 in West Virginia/archive1 --04:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Maps missing?

It's known that the Infobox road maps coming from Wikidata have disappeared. This appears to be a problem on the Wikidata software end, and will hopefully be fixed soon. --Rschen7754 20:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, it's now been fixed, thanks to the responsiveness of WMDE and Reedy. --Rschen7754 21:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Final push for 2013 goals

We have less than 48 hours left (remember, 2013 on Wikipedia ends on Tuesday at 4 PM Pacific / 7 PM Eastern), and we have some work to do on our goals! We're very close, but we just need to do a bit more and we'll be there!

1. As of this writing, there are 2 stubs left in Colorado, 2 in Georgia, 3 in Vermont, and 4 in Illinois. This will give us 25 states that are stub-free!
2. We just need to drop 86 points to hit a relative WikiWork of 4.4!

If we work hard for just a bit longer we can do it, so let's get to it! --Rschen7754 06:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Just updating, but now we have 23 states that have been de-stubbed (plus DC and Guam). There are only three stubs apiece left for Illinois and Vermont. We're currently 80 classes from reaching the other goal, and as soon as the I-296 FAC is completely closed, that will provide another two classes of improvement to the project. As a quick reminder, if there are any articles that should be reassessed higher, please do so or add |reassess=yes to the banner so that someone can handle the assessment. Imzadi 1979 → 09:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I have destubbed Vermont. One of them involved writing a route description; the other two were New England interstate routes I redirected to New England road marking system.  VC  17:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

We just have one state left to be destubbed and 43 points left! Keep up the good work! --Rschen7754 04:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Rhode Island's six remaining stubs seem like a less-daunting task than Illinois's three. I can't speak for anyone else, but I kind of want to stay up to see us get reach 4.400 in the next couple hours. However, I don't think I'll be very productive at work tomorrow if I do that... –Fredddie™ 06:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Do Rhode Island's six remaining stubs seem less daunting than Illinois' two? TCN7JM 06:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

IL 78 by itself is longer than RI's entire highway system, so yes. –Fredddie™ 06:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Aw. Well at least I got rid of a class. TCN7JM 06:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

If six of us each tackle one Rhode Island article, we will be set. To "claim" an article to improve, make a minor edit.  VC  06:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

One down. TCN7JM 06:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

all done. That's 25 states. Now if I can figure out how to update File:Map of USRD stubs.svg, there would be more dark green visible. There are now 25 classes left to hit the 4.4 WW goal as well. Imzadi 1979 → 08:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

26 actually (unless something came up between our comments). 4.4 * 11119 = 48923.6; Current ω = 48949; 48949 - 48923.6 = 25.4 = 26 classes. Certainly obtainable, go for it guys! - Floydian ^τ _¢ 08:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

We're now at exactly 11 classes (no rounding needed) left to hit 4.400 with about 13.5 hours to go. Imzadi 1979 → 10:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

No, sir, make that nine! —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 12:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

FOUR Classes!!! --AdmrBoltz 15:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

We're done! - Several SC articles were misassessed. --AdmrBoltz 15:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Yay!—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 15:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Whoo! Just in the nick of time! - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who helped in the final push! --Rschen7754 07:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

2013 goal (Colorado)

What were the last stubs in Colorado? I would like to see what they look like now, but they weren't on my watchlist. Thanks. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 07:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

See Special:Contributions/Rschen7754. --Rschen7754 07:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Georgia

Thank you, guys, for finishing a "dream" that seemed all but impossible only a year ago. Remember, on February 1, 2012, there were 222 stubs in Georgia! If I hadn't gotten discouraged a few months ago, I may have destubbed the state myself. I appreciate it. Now, to start converting all those Start-class articles into C-Class ones. Thanks again! Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 09:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, you did most of the work. I only swooped in and took the last few stubs so that we could get closer to meeting our project goals. And I must say, Georgia is a very confusing state to work with. It's really great that you got rid of more than 200 stubs there. Have fun getting those Starts up to C-Class. TCN7JM 09:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

TCN7JM, Thanks for those good words. I was trying to get it done, but the longer stubs were kicking my butt and I lost focus due to personal issues going on in my life. I'm getting better, but I need to get rid of some "dead weight" in my life. Also, my laptop seems to be so close to the end of its life, so I really have to wait to do stuff like the Stub-to-C conversions here at work, due to the taxing on my laptop's processor of Google Maps and the GDOT maps. :-( Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 09:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Is exceptional treatment of alternative names within WP:USRD allowed?

This, I felt, went beyond the scope of this WikiProject.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Is exceptional treatment of alternative names within WP:USRD allowed? --Chaswmsday (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

strange deletion nomination

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 December 15#Interstate 470 in Ohio --NE2 18:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

All 3 have been withdrawn.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 21:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought we had WP:USRD/AA so we didn't have to list deletion discussions like this. –Fredddie™ 23:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

It would have showed up tomorrow :) --AdmrBoltz 23:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

US Route 321 Truck Route

In the article US Route 321#Bannered routes Greeneville truck route section. On road side signs the route doesn't have the typical "TRUCK" shield Instead it has simply "Truck Route" and in the infobox it won't except that shield, can someone help or tell me why or fix it? --ACase0000 (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The infoboxes are setup to receive certain standard images and types. The "Truck Route" banner is not a standard sign or type, favoring the typical truck banner instead. I'd leave it as "Truck" for now. If there's more prevalent examples of this, a non-standard banner could potentially be produced and made to be accepted in the infobox; if this is the only example, maybe not. -- LJ ↗ 21:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the help LJ, you look at google street view to see the shield, search for Greeneville, TN, then zoom in to the intersection with US-321 and US-11E on the southbound lanes of US-11E, it is also listed other places along the route. --ACase0000 (talk) 05:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Accessible lists in the infobox

Some of you have probably noticed that I have been slowly switching infobox junction lists from simple line breaks to use {{Plainlist}}. The main benefits to using Plainlist are that lists are compliant with HTML standards and subsequently are accessible to people with disabilities. It's generally A Good Thing™.

Tonight, I decided to try out horizontal lists for states and counties on U.S. Route 151. I want to get opinions from the gallery before I continue on to other articles. –Fredddie™ 23:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know what it has to do with disabled people, but I think it looks really good. Keep up the good work! Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't like the switch in the counties, and a simple comma-delimited list is already both accessible and easy to enter in the text editor. Imzadi 1979 → 06:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I like the new county list. However, I would advise against spending time deploying it, since Wikidata queries are right around the corner, and when they come we will be able to pull this data from Wikidata and format it automatically (so appearance in the edit window is no big deal). —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

That's kind of what I'm afraid of, with the Wikidata deployment. However, as fast as things move around here, "right around the corner" could be 2015. –Fredddie™ 12:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Time zones and history of state route signage

It would be a great idea if the time boundaries were indicated on all the interstate routes, e.g. Entering _______ Time Zone. That would be useful for motorists and others. One other comment: why not include images of state routes/highways from decades ago (e.g. the 1920s, '30s, '40s, etc.)? I think that would be a great way to show an admittedly small segment of road history. There's actually a website, http://www.routemarkers.com/states/1948/, that shows state routes signs from the 1940s and shows the similarities and differences between the past and today's state routes signs. Jay (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for starting an identical conversation topic in two places. For everyone else, please confine any discussion of time zones to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Road junction lists#Time zones on the interstate routes in the USA.

As for historical signage, some states already do this. List of state trunklines in Michigan has examples of all four styles in the infobox. U.S. Route 16 in Michigan uses all of the period-correct signage for a highway decommissioned in the early 1960s (1948-spec cutout state trunkline diamonds, 1948-spec cutout US Highway shields, 1957-spec Interstate shields, etc). The changes in designs from one period to another isn't a topic that pertains to any specific highway, so it should be in the articles/lists on the system. Imzadi 1979 → 20:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem with using routemarkers.com as a resource (besides from it being a SPS) is that the site only offers two views – 1948 and today. Many states had different route markers before the U.S. Highway System was created in 1926 than they did after 1926. What I'm saying is that the history of route markers is way more nuanced than routemarkers.com would have you believe. –Fredddie™ 21:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

PA 39

Greetings! I have started to revise the article on Pennsylvania Route 39. I'm putting out a request for assistance, as I would appreciate any feedback or help. See my comments on the talk page here. Thanks! --hmich176 07:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Yawn

Maryland Route 666 - who wants to find a reason to speedy this redirect? --NE2 19:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Not being a mind reader, I don't know why you want it deleted. Care to share? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like there was a edit made in error (a story about the 666 signs disappearing, the editor misread "Morris County" as "Maryland" and made edits based on that). I've made a formal RFD. —Mr. Matté (^Talk/_Contrib) 00:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

So there was a reason for its creation. I assumed it was just someone having fun. --NE2 03:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

National Scenic Byways website

FHWA has moved the old http://www.byways.org/ website to a new address at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/byways/ and revamped it a bit. State byways that are not also NSBs seem to be all missing. Imzadi 1979 → 05:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Two states' routes Concurrent

I was wondering how you would list a Junction in a junction list section or in the Infobox when there are two routes of two different states running concurrent together along the state line? The two routes are Tennessee State Route 7 and Alabama State Route 53 in Ardmore, Tennessee and Ardmore, Alabama. --ACase0000 (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

In the infobox, I would just list the route it's concurrent with as the southern terminus of the route. In the junction list, {{jctint}} can be used in a way that would set the state line as the place (taking up both the County and Location columns), and then |type=concur can be used. A good article to base your junction list off of in this situation is Oklahoma State Highway 20. TCN7JM 19:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

SR 7 / SR 53 works in jct now... if that helps part of the dilemma... Imzadi 1979 → 21:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Both For your help!! Imzadi1979, TCN7JM.

You may want to look at the junction list I updated on U.S. Route 71 in Arkansas and Texas as well; that highway runs along the state line.Imzadi 1979 → 07:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

TN State Route 81 junction list

I need some help, i created Tennessee State Route 81 and in the junction list i tried to list for the junction with the route's Truck route and this is what i got: [[Template:Infobox road/TN/link SR-Truck|Template:Infobox road/TN/abbrev SR-Truck]], so i am assuming that there hasn't been a TN SR Truck created for the jct template, i wrote it the best way i could. --A.Case talk 17:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

You are correct. There is no SR-Truck for TN in the Jct module yet. But are you sure the road is signed as SR-Truck 81? Along SR 81 it seems to just be signed as "To Truck Route US 11E". TCN7JM 17:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

TCN7JM on US-11E heading toward Johnson City it is signed as Truck Route 81 and then farther up from here there is a TO SR-81 on US-11E. --A.Case

I'm still not sure I see it. Do you mind linking to the signage on Google Maps or something? If this exists, the string is easy to add to the Jct module. TCN7JM 17:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

TCN7JM Go on Street view search Jonesborough TN then zoom in to the intersection of 11E, 321, Ben Gamble Road and Persimmon Ridge Road the sign is on the eastbound/northbound lanes and then turn around on street view and go and west on US 11E and you should see it it isn't far from the intersection. --ACase0000 06:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

It appears that Persimmon Ridge Rd. is signed as both "To Truck Route US 11E" westbound and "To Truck Route SR 81" eastbound, but both directions clearly lead to the other route's mainline. I'd surmise it's out of convenience (not the best signage choice, IMHO), since the two routes don't directly intersect. It doesn't appear there's a dedicated "Truck Route" for either, though (and TDOT's county map agrees with that assessment; see [5]). --Kinu ^t/_c 08:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Kinu, just to note, I have never seen truck routes on state or county maps, but they do exist. Not only in Tennessee, but both North Carolina and South Carolina have truck routes but don't list them on the maps, they are specifically only in the wild. Only NCDOT has online documentation when they do Truck Routes and why. I'm not siding one way or the other on this topic at hand, just pointing out you'll likely never see them on maps. --WashuOtaku (talk) 14:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Of course, as for the matter at hand, this particular one doesn't appear to exist, seeing as how the side road signed as going to it leads directly to mainline SR 81. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

WashuOtaku Kinu The reason the route is signed this way on US-11E is because the SR-81 does not intersect with US-11E it instead is bridged and the Truck route bypasses the main to SR-81 from US-11E which goes in the the downtown.

Ohio State Route 1 split

There is a discussion about if the article should be split or not.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 23:24, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Country property on Wikidata

See d:Wikidata_talk:Roads_task_force#Country_property. --Rschen7754 17:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Misassessed articles

An editor is going around with AWB and synching article assessments if, for instance, one project is a start and USRD is a stub. In these cases, the USRD stub is being misassessed as a start. See Talk:USA Parkway for what I'm talking about. –Fredddie™ 18:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

A lot of these seem to be the WP:US assessments getting the bump, but it's still worth checking. –Fredddie™ 18:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

See this thread on my talk page. The user has agreed to skip USRD articles from now on, but I think some articles still remain misassessed. TCN7JM 18:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

It might be useful to put this onto the precedents page or somewhere on WP:USRD/A. It's not the first time another project has disagreed with our assessments. –Fredddie™ 18:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Not sure he necessarily disagreed. I just didn't think he knew what our assessment guidelines were and/or that they took precedent over the WP:USA ones. TCN7JM 21:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

What am I doing wrong?

County	Location	mi	km	Destinations	Notes
Indian River	Vero Beach	9	14	Poo Parkway
	​	55	89	rickety old bridge
Brevard
	Melbourne Beach	98	158	Hershey Highway
		99	159	Old Hershey Road
1.000 mi = 1.609 km; 1.000 km = 0.621 mi

The bridge should be on the county line. Using normal table code it works:

County	Location	mi	km	Destinations	Notes
Indian River	Vero Beach	9	14	Poo Parkway
		55	89	rickety old bridge
Brevard
	Melbourne Beach	98	158	Hershey Highway
		99	159	Old Hershey Road
1.000 mi = 1.609 km; 1.000 km = 0.621 mi

--NE2 12:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I found that every bridge falls under one of the county jurisdiction or the other, thus don't worry about county splits when dealing with major bridges (which should be used sparingly, IMO). --WashuOtaku (talk) 14:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Huh? This is a state-maintained bridge that crosses the county line. Neither county has jurisdiction. --NE2 14:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

They are state maintain bridges, but for accounting purposes, they are typically allocated to a county oversight for DOT purposes. Also, not all rivers and streams are split in the middle, like the Governor Harry W. Nice Memorial Bridge. --WashuOtaku (talk) 15:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The junction list should reflect reality, not the DOT's internal practices. --NE2 16:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

And how do I put a rowspan=2 on an intersection that lies along a county/city line? --NE2 14:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

For Jctbridge, |river= spans both the county and location columns. This is preferred to your "normal table code" example because it doesn't show up that way for everybody. To me, it looks like one Indian River County junction and three in Brevard, not 1.5 and 2.5. |lspan= works for rowspans.

County	Location	mi	km	Destinations	Notes
Indian River	Vero Beach	9	14	Poo Parkway
Foo River		55	89	rickety old bridge
Brevard	Melbourne Beach	98	158	Hershey Highway
		99	159	Old Hershey Road
1.000 mi = 1.609 km; 1.000 km = 0.621 mi

Alternatively, you can use |county1= and |county2= (up to county4) and that will spit out "Indian River–Brevard county line" in the county column. |cspan= will then work for rowspans. The county1/county2 thing is set up in {{FLint}} and most other states, but not all. –Fredddie™ 14:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

County	Location	mi	km	Destinations	Notes
Indian River	Vero Beach	9	14	Poo Parkway
Indian River–Brevard county line	​	55	89	Charmin Lane
Brevard		Melbourne Beach	98	158	Hershey Highway
	99		159	Old Hershey Road
1.000 mi = 1.609 km; 1.000 km = 0.621 mi

In the original examples, the bridge appeared in only one county in my browser. The first example put it in Indian River County, and the second had it in Brevard County. Using the river is preferable because not all browsers render the other way consistory nor correctly. Imzadi 1979 → 17:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK, only Firefox correctly renders a split row in the middle. It unfortunately leads to a lot of ugly county/location border entries. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 05:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

User:TCN7JM/2-DISDAL

Hey, guys. I've assembled a basic list of 2-digit Interstate state-detail articles that could possibly exist, whether or not they do, and what classes they are if they do. We don't have as many missing articles as I thought we did when I was creating the list, but it would still be nice to get the remainder of the articles created, maybe as a side project next year or 2015. Since we have no Interstate stubs remaining, it would be best to create them at Start-Class or higher. Regards, TCN7JM 22:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC).

Well with a ww of 4.4, anything less than a C will increase the wikiwork. --AdmrBoltz 22:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Good point, but I'm guessing not all states have easily available history sources. TCN7JM 22:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

True - but a sandboxed version could be worked on while gathering resources. --AdmrBoltz 22:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess. I was basically just advising people to not create stubs. TCN7JM 23:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

What do you think the new Draft namespace is for? -happy5214 23:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• points to picture* --AdmrBoltz 23:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Someone might want to deal with this

Montana Secondary Highway 235 was a misleading redirect to MT 81. I made a lazyass stub with disambiguation, but someone changed it back to the misleading redirect. --NE2 07:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Dealt with. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's one solution, but will it keep someone from re-creating the redirect? --NE2 08:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

If it turns into an issue, it could be salted, but I don't anticipate someone having that much of a need to create a redirect there that we need to do anything immediate. It would be nice to see something like List of Farm to Market Roads in Texas (1–99) as a redirect target for the Montana secondaries, since there's probably little more than a few paragraphs to be said about each (and if a full article is warranted, it can still be made, of course). —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know the redirect was misleading. And I wouldn't create a redirect after an expired PROD. TCN7JM 09:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Divided highways in the United States

What's the point of this category? It would be very easy to fill it to the point of uselessness. --NE2 13:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Seems kind of pointless to me IMHO. --AdmrBoltz 13:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
• IMO, It's too broad, there are literally tens of thousands of divided highways in the US, to the point categorizing them as such looses any utility and significance. Dave (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
• It probably should be listed as a {{container category}} with no articles directly included. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I am good with that solution. --AdmrBoltz 19:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • But why does it exist in the first place? Couldn't both of its subcats simply be moved to its sole parent? --NE2 21:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Sub-categorize them by state and use that at the parent category. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
• I would say to delete this category entirely. It is very trivial and would contain too many articles as many routes are entirely or partly a divided highway. Dough4872 04:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Took it to CFD: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 January 10#Category:Divided highways in the United States. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

By state GA/FA status

So... if the state has at least one current GA or FA it is marked as a +. If the state does not have one its a -. Two states have featured content that are not articles (TX has a Featured List, WA has Featured Media).

• USRD/AL: +GA -FA
• USRD/AK: +GA -FA
• USRD/AZ: +GA +FA
• USRD/AR: -GA -FA
• USRD/CA: +GA +FA
• USRD/CO: +GA +FA
• USRD/CT: +GA +FA
• USRD/DE: +GA +FA
• USRD/FL: +GA -FA
• USRD/GA: +GA -FA
• USRD/IA: +GA +FA
• USRD/HI: -GA -FA
• USRD/ID: +GA -FA
• USRD/IL: +GA +FA
• USRD/IN: +GA +FA
• USRD/LA: -GA -FA
• USRD/ME: -GA -FA
• USRD/MD: +GA +FA
• USRD/MA: +GA -FA
• USRD/MI: +GA +FA
• USRD/MN: +GA +FA
• USRD/MS: +GA -FA
• USRD/MO: +GA -FA
• USRD/MT: +GA -FA
• USRD/NE: +GA -FA
• USRD/NV: +GA +FA
• USRD/NH: -GA -FA
• USRD/NJ: +GA +FA
• USRD/NM: -GA +FA
• USRD/NY: +GA +FA
• USRD/NC: +GA -FA
• USRD/ND: -GA -FA
• USRD/OH: +GA -FA
• USRD/OK: +GA +FA
• USRD/OR: +GA -FA
• USRD/PA: +GA -FA
• USRD/RI: +GA -FA
• USRD/SC: -GA -FA
• USRD/SD: -GA -FA
• USRD/TN: -GA -FA
• USRD/TX: +GA -FA
• USRD/UT: +GA +FA
• USRD/VT: +GA +FA
• USRD/VA: +GA -FA
• USRD/WA: +GA -FA
• USRD/WV: +GA +FA
• USRD/WI: -GA +FA
• USRD/WY: -GA -FA
• USRD/TERR: +GA -FA
• USRD/DC: -GA -FA
• USRD/PR: -GA -FA

Go go useless trivia. Though it would be nice to see some of the -s turn to +s over the year as part of our B+ drive. --AdmrBoltz 22:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

NY has 3 FLs, whether or not we still want them. Mitch32^{(The man who renounces himself, comes to himself.)} 22:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, some of the states w/o GAs but with FAs have A-Class articles that are also GA but not counted as they aren't in the GA-Class article category for the state. --AdmrBoltz 22:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, wait, NY has 11 FAs and marked as minus here, why? Mitch32^{(The man who renounces himself, comes to himself.)} 22:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Because I hit the wrong button ;) --AdmrBoltz 22:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem, being a nitpicking prick. :P Mitch32^{(The man who renounces himself, comes to himself.)} 22:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm flattered, but Iowa is not on this list at all. I don't understand what the purpose of this is, so I don't know what to do to add it. –Fredddie™ 23:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

IA is added. Was just checking which states don't have a GA or a FA. --AdmrBoltz 23:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Overriding parameters in infobox road

Is there a way to override the auto-population of the maintenance parameter? Case in point, U.S. Route 66 in California, the infobox is falsely claiming the road is maintained by Caltrans, despite the fact that this is a historical highway, and pictures showing parts with county maintenance and/or completely abandoned. Is there a way to override the auto population (I played with a few things and they didn't work), or better yet, should we just turn off the auto-population for historical routes, as few are likely to still be maintained by the state DOT? Dave (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Either |maint=none to shut it off, or supply a different value than the default through |maint=. Imzadi 1979 → 02:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I swear I tried that.... Sigh. Dave (talk) 07:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to change MTF colors

I would like to propose some changes to the colors we use to make maps going forward. These are mostly subtle changes that would align our color palate with the ones at Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions. I have added a couple colors that had not been addressed previously, but I think would be useful. I want to reiterate that I do not seek to have all maps remade with these colors (at least right now), but just would like to adjust the color palate for maps made in the future.

Now, the Map conventions page has a methodology for roads which mainly involves red lines. I do not think we should use that method since we typically use red lines to show highlighted routes. However, you can see in the example maps the orange lines for US Highways may get lost for some readers. However, that's another discussion.

Comparison of styles

Current style	Proposed style
Background shading Map Scale Type Fill HTML Color RGB Color Color Continental / Regional Land Solid #F7F7ED 247, 247, 237   Water Solid #FFFFFF 255, 255, 255   Local Rural Solid #F7F7ED 247, 247, 237   Urban area Solid #FFFFD0 255, 255, 208   Water Solid #BEE8FF 190, 232, 255   Borders Importance Type Stroke HTML Color RGB Color Color Mandatory State (local) 1.5x solid #9C9C9C 156, 156, 156   State (regional) 1x solid #9C9C9C 156, 156, 156   Optional County 0.5x dotted #828282 130, 130, 130	Background shading Map Scale Type Fill HTML Color RGB Color Color United States Land Solid #F6E1B9 246, 225, 185   Subject state(s) Land Solid #FEFEE9 254, 254, 233   Other countries Land Solid #E0E0E0 224, 224, 224   Urban areas Land Solid #F1C872 241, 200, 114   Parks and forests Land Solid #A0F090 160, 240, 144   Oceans and lakes Water Solid #C6ECFF 198, 236, 255   Borders Importance Type Stroke HTML Color RGB Color Color Mandatory State (local) 1.5x solid #646464 100, 100, 100     State (regional) 1x solid #646464 100, 100, 100     Optional County 0.5x dashed #646464 100, 100, 100     Water 1x solid #0978AB 9, 120, 171

Discussion

So what do you think? –Fredddie™ 03:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• I am all for matching standards, but we have a lot of maps that will need to be updated. --AdmrBoltz 03:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • +1 I echo Admrboltz, but since this would be for new maps going forward, it would't be a big deal. Also, going forward, we really should prefer SVG over PNG, where possible. Imzadi 1979 → 03:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
    • I think it would be too disruptive to be changing the map legends at this point. We have several years' worth of work invested in the current maps, and if we start making new maps with an altered legend, then we would have a small number of maps with the new legend versus several thousand with the old. We would also have to find a way to reconcile the problems with the proposed orange for the out-of-state fill and urban areas conflicting with our orange road lines. I oppose these parts of the proposal. However, I see no problem with adding to our legends the parts of the proposal that cover things our standards do not currently address, like the green fill for parkland. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
      • With svgs, it shouldn't be too hard to go through and modify the svg maps with a batch file to convert instances of #XXXXXX to #YYYYYY. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 08:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
        • Most of our maps are PNGs though (QGIS's SVG output sucks, unless they've fixed it recently). —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
          • It's what I've used to create the maps for ON 55 and ON 61, but I have no comparison. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 08:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
            • I used it for ON 71's last night. –Fredddie™ 13:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Meh. I'm concerned that even if the old maps are not "required" to be changed, soon it will be "recommended" at ACR. --Rschen7754 17:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The original maps for Michigan were all made before the current MTF standard was developed, and not once has anyone every asked for them to be redone on that basis. If anything, the requests related to those maps have been to add insets, or Canada, not to change the color scheme. Imzadi 1979 → 19:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I am worried that our readers may be bombarded with too much information if a cartographer decides to use all of the proposed elements. Remember, we don't have the luxury of having a key on every map like in industry. It is almost 5 AM in I will weigh in on this point by point in the afternoon, but I am liking the direction that this is moving in. --Guerillero | My Talk 09:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Generally, I like the new color scheme, however, I have a few suggestions.

• I think that the darker color for the other states should be what's used for other countries and a different color should be used for the other states. That way the US Highways outside of the subject state would actually appear.
• I think that our standards should be amended so that non-Interstate freeways are not the same color as Interstates. A different line width would work, but otherwise we risk implying that non-Interstates are part of Interstate Highway System. We already differentiate by color based on US vs state. Maybe freeways could use a double line of some sort as many maps use?
• I would love it if we had some alternate colors for urban areas. Some of the colors (parks, etc) would be beneficial for zoomed-in maps of single urban areas, but it would be nice to colorize the different municipalities in these zoomed in maps.

Imzadi 1979 → 10:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, US and state highways are only distinguished by line width, not color. (And some cases, not even that.) When this was discussed initially, a non-interstate freeway color was proposed but rejected, because of the fact that non-Interstate freeways are often indistinguishable from Interstates, and in many urban areas function as key components of the metro freeway system. (Why isn't the Broadway Extension in Oklahoma City part of I-235?) These days the only difference in the two is that the state DOT bothered to have AASHTO approve an Interstate route there.

If we are to alter the freeway symbology, I would prefer a triple-thin-line-with-colored-fill setup like the current KDOT and ODOT state maps use, assuming QGIS supports such a thing. I would suggest the fill be blue for Interstates, green for toll roads, and orange for non-Interstate freeways. This would make all non-tolled non-Interstates the same color, with the difference between freeway and surface road being the line style. (Logically, we could continue this line of thought the other way, and make the Chickasaw Turnpike a single green line, signifying that it is a toll road but not a freeway.) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Another thought I had was to create topographic-style maps, but I was having trouble with pixelation, so I'll have to keep experimenting. –Fredddie™ 04:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Secondary proposal: City point symbology

Sometimes on our maps there's a need to represent locations to add extra context, yet due to the scale of the map, displaying them as a mere dot works best. I have a symbology for these cases that I've been using on Oklahoma maps and maps like File:Snohomish County, Wash.svg. It derives from the KDOT map legend.

Feature	Population	Symbol	Label size
County seat	—	Diamond surrounding feature symbol	—
Unincorporated/CDP	—	Open (white) circle with slash	⅔x
Municipality I	<1,000	Open circle	1x
Municipality II	1,000–4,999	Ringed open circle	1⅓x
Municipality III	5,000–9,999	Ringed half-filled circle	1⅔x
Municipality IV	10,000–14,999	Ringed filled circle	2x
Municipality V	15,000–99,999	Yellow shaded area	2⅓x
Municipality VI	>100,000	Lavender shaded area	2⅔x

Perhaps this symbology should be added to our standards (not that it would be required for use on all maps or anything, just those of the proper scale. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I think this is confusing without a legend. Contextually, the differently sized and stylized text are easier to understand than the symbols. This could be something where we default to a WP:WPMAPS convention instead of adding more to our own. –Fredddie™ 01:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

If we do have special symbols for communities, we need to make sure to include symbols for state and national capitals too. Dough4872 02:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Category capitalization

Should Category:State Roads in Alachua County, Florida etc. be lowercased as State roads? Or should they be State highways to match other states' categories? --NE2 07:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I would leave them at "state road" rather than moving them to "state highway" to match the nomenclature used. As for capitalization, they probably all should be in Sentence case, so "State roads in... " or "Former state roads in..." as appropriate. That may mean moving articles to match so that a WP:C2D request can be made. Imzadi 1979 → 14:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

So what about the larger categories such as Category:State highways in Florida (which match other states)? --NE2 21:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Isn't the category structure such that we use "Category:State highways in XX" no matter what the state's articles are actually named? (This is the case for CA, NV, UT, and others.) Seems like if that's the case, then any county sub-categories should follow that convention--although it doesn't look like too many states have county categories anyway... -- LJ ↗ 02:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Most states lack county categories because there isn't a need to split the state highways out of Category:Transportation in Marquette County, Michigan, etc. As for matching, an argument can be made under the category renaming policies to either match to the appropriate article on the topic (ergo "State Roads/roads in Florida" depending on how that article is capitalized) or to have the entire structure match. Imzadi 1979 → 03:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

GAR notification

New Jersey Route 159, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Rschen7754 04:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Ridge Route

This ACR needs a few votes either way to be closed - could some people take a look? A full review is not necessary required for the removal discussions. --Rschen7754 20:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Bump - we still need 1 more. --Rschen7754 04:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I have closed this ACR. The article was not demoted from Featured Article status. Thanks to all who commented there. TCN7JM 04:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission

Could you review this submission? Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done: reviewed, cleaned up, and merged out of existence to List of secondary state highways in Virginia. Imzadi 1979 → 21:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

New Tennessee Route?

I was looking at Google maps and noticed a state route that is not shown in List of state routes in Tennessee, the route is 401 it goes from Tennessee State Route 69 east of Milledgeville, TN to State Routes 201 and 104 in Sardis, TN. and on an Google Street view image from July 2013 it is shown as Route 421. --ACase0000 (talk) 05:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

If there's one thing I've learned from being a member of USRD, it's "don't trust Google Maps". If you can, find a state map to verify that it is signed as SR 421. TCN7JM 13:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't trust the Goog, but they don't tamper with their street view photos except for blurring. These show secondary SR 421 at the north end (December 2007) and south end (July 2013). So SR 401 is almost certainly bogus. --NE2 16:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

See Copyright trap. Dave (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

See Hanlon's razor. --NE2 18:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Everyone!!! --ACase0000 (talk) 15:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Tennessee State Route 220A or Alt

I was experimenting on Tennessee State Route 220A just to see if there was a listed 220A or (220 Alt as it is shown) shield and there isn't, it does exist it is in Carroll County, TN near the town of Atwood, it goes from SR-220 to US-70A, i found it while looking at The 2014 Official Tennessee Transportation map i ordered and received in the mail. If you look on Google maps you wont find it, but if zoom in near Atwood and find Johnson Road at SR-220 then go on Street View and there you will see how it is signed. --ACase0000 (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You'll likely need to request to make that sign, I've never seen a TN SR do that, so it's unique (here's a screenshot on GoogleMaps). Visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Shields task force/Requests and make a request. Always go how it is shown in the field, not on a map. --WashuOtaku (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't either Washuotaku --ACase0000 (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Upcoming newsletter issue (Winter 2014)

Just a friendly reminder that we have a nominal deadline in a few days for newsletter content over at WP:USRD/NEWS. Imzadi 1979 → 11:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Props

The January edition of the project newsletter was such a welcome sight. This issue seemed to take it to another level compared to past newsletters. I am excited to see so many people contributing to the newsletter and to the project in general. Even though I did not contribute this newsletter, it gives me a bit of inspiration to pitch in next time. I hope this high standard continues with the next newsletter and throughout the project in 2014.  VC  02:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

M1-1 Shields Retagged

All M1-1 tags should be now tagged as {{PD-USGov-MUTCD|M1-1}} on Commons. I may have missed a few, but almost all should be correct now. --AdmrBoltz 21:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate shields on Commons

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Delaware State Route shields

FYI. --AdmrBoltz 14:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

{{convert/spell}} being depreciated...

...as it doesn't use Lua. See Help:Convert#Spell --AdmrBoltz 19:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course, after I just learned how to use it...Mitch32^{(The man who renounces himself, comes to himself.)} 20:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course. We can't make your life that simple, now can we? --AdmrBoltz 21:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any message saying that it's being deprecated... —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, maybe not this second, but it is not in Lua. The {{convert}} template is. --AdmrBoltz 23:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

A template will work just fine if it's not in Lua; I don't think WMF is planning on shutting down Parserfunctions at any point in the near future. Chances are, at some point someone will rewrite it in Lua and it will work the same as it always has. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 13:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

We can just do spell=in... --Rschen7754 18:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

There is an additional advantage to the deprecation. For example, {{convert|1|to|2|mi|km}} gives "1 to 2 miles (1.6 to 3.2 km)", which is something that the /spell template could not do, so adding |spell=in gives "one to two miles (1.6 to 3.2 km)". Also, we can get "one-mile-long (1.6 km)"" as well, something that didn't work in the /spell template. Imzadi 1979 → 21:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, just something to note. If a conversion falls at the start of a sentence, such that we want it to appear capitalized, use |spell=In with a capital I. Compare:

• {{convert|1|mi|km|spell=in}} [one mile (1.6 km)] with
• {{convert|1|mi|km|spell=In}} [One mile (1.6 km)]. Imzadi 1979 → 00:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

First SPUI in Texas, not Florida?

I don't know which side of OR this is, so I'm not changing the article. But the first SPUI might not be the one that we list (and is commonly cited as the first in scholarly publications): http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10567.msg272879#msg272879 --NE2 19:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

this source mentions it, as well as the 1962 date... but it claims it is a SPUI-like interchange. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

That book is somewhat on the edge of reliability, and doesn't say what the difference between SPUI and "SPUI-like" is. --NE2 21:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

U.S. Route 46 GAR

Resolved

 – Article passed GAR. --AdmrBoltz 19:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

U.S. Route 46, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --AdmrBoltz 19:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

It still cites File:1925us.jpg rather than File:1925 log.pdf. I'd change it but someone else would "have to" change the citation format anyway. --NE2 20:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. --AdmrBoltz 20:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Is the rest of that report online someplace? Either way, it should be easy enough to use {{cite book}} to reference the report appendix. To wit:

• Joint Board on Interstate Highways (October 30, 1925). "Appendix VI. Descriptions of the Interstate Routes Selected, with Numbers Assigned". Report of the Joint Board on Interstate Highways (Report). Bureau of Public Roads. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); |format= requires |url= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

You could alternately list the Secretary of Agriculture as an/the author if desired. Imzadi 1979 → 20:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

OCLC 55123355 --NE2 22:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

PS: why the external link? This means that if the filename is changed on Commons (since I forgot to devagueify it) nobody will know to fix the link. --NE2 22:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

File has been renamed File:Report of the Joint Board on Interstate Highways - Appendix VI.pdf, citation updated with new file name and OCLC number. --AdmrBoltz 22:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Cool, image redirects. --NE2 01:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

But actually, why the https? Anyone logged in will be redirected there anyway, but someone not logged in doesn't necessarily want https. --NE2 01:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't we be able to omit the protocol altogether? Just putting "//commons.wikimedia.org/..." should automatically select the currently active protocol. Or is that not allowed by {{cite book}}? -happy5214 06:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

So fix it if you don't like it. --AdmrBoltz 18:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Junction list/Major intersection section problem

In the section in Tennessee State Route 169 it was all messed up, but i fixed it but there is something i can't figure out how to do, see this page. --ACase0000 (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Someone mixed hard-coded tables and {{jctint}}... I have not cleaned it, but that's why. --AdmrBoltz 17:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Correction: someone changed {{jcttop}} to use HTML table code. --NE2 18:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

You either use templates or don't. Can't complain when the template doesn't work because it was used incorrectly. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Busted. --NE2 20:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't do it just don't know how to fix it. --ACase0000 (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done --AdmrBoltz 22:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks--ACase0000 (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

@NE2:{{jct}} isn't affected; {{jctint}} is. You can still manually enter intersecting routes into the "road=" parameter. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The idea is the same: I'm being told to use normal code rather than templates when the templates don't handle the case properly. --NE2 23:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

article about a freeway prodded as non-notable

Nocatee Parkway (mirrored version) is a developer-constructed freeway (OSM map) that's partly signed as County Road 210 (redirect to the county road list). Any opinions? --NE2 07:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

If it was notable, it would be a state highway. –Fredddie™ 14:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. CRs are not inherently notable and must prove their notability. I was the one who prodded it back in the day. Its only reference was to Google Maps. No secondary sourcing at all. The highway failed the WP:GNG and WP:USRD/NT. --AdmrBoltz 14:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

USA Parkway is an example of a similar article that has (so far) avoided the deletion machine, and Summerlin Parkway is an example of one that I don't think there is even any controversy about notability. So somewhere between those 3 examples is a line of notability, but I'm not sure where it is. Dave (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

USA has some references (and survived AfD in 08). Summerlin Parkway is borderline at the moment with out really any non AA Roads third party sources. --AdmrBoltz 17:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

As locally famous as Summerlin Parkway is, I'd imagine it wouldn't be difficult to find sources from www.lvrj.com or similar... Dave (talk) 22:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I wasn't commenting that there aren't any sources available, just none in the article currently. --AdmrBoltz 22:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Correction: if it was in a different state, it might be a state highway. A freeway will generally have sources no matter what government builds it (though a developer-built freeway might not). I might write the article, but right now it has a big target on its back. --NE2 18:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Sources about its importance beyond the Nocatee development: http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/030307/neS_8304333.shtml http://www.wokv.com/news/news/first_phase_of_nocatee_parkway/nny6/ --NE2 18:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Other non-state highway freeways with articles: Las Vegas Beltway (mostly CR 215), Ronald Reagan Parkway, Sugarloaf Parkway, Peña Boulevard, Gardiner Expressway, Don Valley Parkway, Storrow Drive, Osceola Parkway (more of a surface expressway), E-470, Northwest Parkway. --NE2 18:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Whats your point? --AdmrBoltz 18:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Whats [sic] your point? --NE2 20:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Why are you listing the above articles randomly? --AdmrBoltz 20:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

So hopefully with the outburts behind us, the question remains, what is the threshold of notability for privately financed highways? I could easily make the case for Summerlin Parkway, what started out as a homeowner association financed road has become a major thoroughfare in a major city (the fact that it was privately financed probably has more to to with the explosive growth and strained public resources at the time). I doubt I could make a case for USA Parkway and in fact would currently vote delete at an AFD. Currently it's nothing more than a privately built access parkway to a private industrial park, making it no more notable (IMO) than a driveway. However, if the thing is built as proposed, it could be a usable highway to the general public. The highway in Florida is somewhere in between. Near as I can tell, it started out as a similar privately funded road to benefit a private interest, but also functions as a freeway bypass of an old county road. I don't know how I'd vote on a hypothetical AFD should the article be resurrected and nominated again. So, in my discussion above, I'm leaning towards is the road usable to the general public. But that in itself is a subjective standard. Anybody have a better one? Dave (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

A highway that is all or mostly a freeway, as is the case with Nocatee Parkway, should have inherent notability. But I am not ready to fully commit to this because, like with the public usability standard, what should be classified as a freeway, besides access control, lack of cross traffic, and interchanges, is somewhat subjective.  VC  03:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't help in most states, but Nocatee Parkway is definitely a freeway because bikes are banned from it, and this is only legal on freeways in Florida. --NE2 03:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Related question: is there a way to search old newspaper articles, now that the Goog no longer can? --NE2 18:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Append "site:news.google.com/newspapers" to your search query. It's clunky, but it seems to work. –Fredddie™ 18:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

That only finds the ones the Goog scanned, not ones on the newspapers' sites. --NE2 20:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I never knew it could. Whenever I used it, I would only get articles from newspapers in their archives. –Fredddie™ 20:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It was a useful tool and it had no way of forcing you to use Google+, so they canned it. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's my quick take on the situation. Freeways, be they state- or county-maintained, should have sufficient secondary sources available to establish notability of the GNG variety. Articles deleted by PROD can be undeleted by making a request at WP:REFUND (request for undeletion). Do that and then toss in a few sources, or even just put them in "Further reading", and then it should survive an AfD. Either way, it can't be tagged with a PROD again if the old article is restored. Imzadi 1979 → 03:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

USRD Cup 2014

Is there interest from others in the project for a 2014 USRD Cup? I really like the idea of the Cup, and would be willing to act as judge this coming year if nobody else wants to. If there is interest, what time of year would be most convenient for it to take place? Regards, TCN7JM 03:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm for participating, not running it. --AdmrBoltz 03:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I personally would be for spring or summer. --Rschen7754 03:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I would be willing to judge the cup this year. We can possibly start in February or March in order to allow for people to sign up. Dough4872 03:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Come to think of it maybe May or June would be better since people will be out of school for the summer. Dough4872 03:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is an idea for the cup if I do run it: We can start on April 1 and have three rounds that would end the contest in the end of June. This way it would not drag too late into the summer to conflict with vacations. The contest will be somewhat similar to how Fredddie ran it in 2013. Dough4872 04:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the USRD Cup should be an occasional thing and not an annual thing. That being said, I will not be participating in a 2014 Cup in any capacity, so don't let my dissent dissuade the final decision. –Fredddie™ 04:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

If there is a Cup this next year, I might consider entering, depending on the rules/point structure and my personal situation. One, Georgia is almost de-stubbed, so the only thing that could be good for me is the Start-to-C expansions. Also, I don't know what will happen in my personal life (wife and I have had problems for years and I think it just my hit the breaking point, finally. So, I don't know how much time I might have. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 05:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe a possibility to open up the cup to more countries and editors is instead to do a HWY Cup to encourage global participation. Dough4872 04:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, but USRD articles should be specifically excluded. I think it would be a better contest if USRD editors were completely out of their comfort zones. –Fredddie™ 06:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't that kind of be unfair considering the rest of the editors would be in theirs? TCN7JM 06:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I would personally not participate if USRD articles were excluded. Maybe I'm callous, but I don't really care what shape other countries' articles are in, especially when there is so much to do in the US. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

If we do a HWY Cup, all editors, regardless of country, should have the freedom to get points for editing any HWY, USRD, CRWP, HKRD, AURD, etc. article. That way we are not depriving editors from editing in their home country which they are most familiar with and have the sources readily available. Dough4872 16:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

This is kind of the response I was expecting. I would have to see who signs up. If Floydian, Evad, and Tomobe all sign up it might be a great competition. But if it's six USRDers and a couple newbies in Europe, then it might as well be the USRD Cup. –Fredddie™ 17:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It was at my suggestion that we open it up. I would be interested in delving in this year. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I would be interested in participating in a HWY cup. I don't think USRD articles should be excluded, but maybe points could be weighted by project/task force wikiwork at the start of the cup, or some factor times wikiwork, so that, for example, getting an African Highways task force article to GA is worth more than a USRD GA. - Evad37 [talk] 01:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the HWY Cup should have multipliers that favor improvement of articles in regions that do not get that much attention and have bad articles. Dough4872 02:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

A word of advice from last year, multipliers work to that effect, but only to a degree. During competitions like this, people get creative as to how to score as many points as possible without doing a lot of work. For instance, if there are KML and map multipliers, you should only be able to earn them if you make them both. Then you wouldn't have people making KMLs for big points only to have map makers take the KML and make maps for bigger points. I won't name names, but Scott was good at that last year. Oh wait. –Fredddie™ 05:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I just looked at the rules and figured out the fastest way I could legally score the most points. :P —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

To avoid these problems, media (such as maps, shields, and KML) should not be eligible for multipliers. Multipliers should primarily focus on class improvement, GAN, ACR, FAC, etc. Dough4872 04:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I've started a tentative sign-up page at User:TCN7JM/HWY Cup 2014. @Dough4872: Sorry, but I think I'm going to stand by my original proposal to host the Cup this year. 2015 is already looking like a busy year for me, so I wouldn't be able to do it then. If you want it next year, it's yours. TCN7JM 04:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Go for it, you'll do a good job. I'm not sure I want to participate in the cup this year though. Dough4872 04:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Merging articles of same-numbered routes in different states

There is a discussion going on at Talk:Route 286 (Delaware–Maryland) about why the MD 286 and DE 286 articles were merged to form Route 286 (Delaware–Maryland). I think we have had a project discussion about how to name such combined articles, but I do not remember one about when it is prudent to create such combined articles. Your input is appreciated about this particular situation or the concept in general.  VC  15:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

My concern with that article is that one of the merged articles was a GA and the other was not. Technically speaking, the new merged article should not be a GA because it did not go through GAN, only part of it was. –Fredddie™ 04:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Should we open a GAR on the article? Route 261 (Delaware–Pennsylvania) is similar in that DE 261 was a GA before the merger but PA 261 was start-class.  VC  13:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

That would be my suggestion, yes. --AdmrBoltz 15:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I have started a GAR for Route 286. I'll be out of town for a couple days, otherwise I would have done the same for 261. –Fredddie™ 17:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a similar proposal to merge M-54 (Michigan highway) with M-83 (Michigan highway) that's been proposed at Talk:M-83 (Michigan highway)#Proposed merge to a double-feature article. Please feel free to comment. Imzadi 1979 → 10:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

US 19E redirect problem

U.S. Route 19E redirects to a section of U.S. Route 19 in North Carolina, but almost half of the route is in Tennessee. There doesn't seem to have ever been a separate article. --NE2 13:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I made those articles, US 19E is combined with US 19 in both states; go to U.S. Route 19 in Tennessee for the Tennessee section. --WashuOtaku (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Ignoring the question of why US 19E is combined but US 19W is not, surely you see the problem of someone looking up US 19E and getting redirected to North Carolina only? --NE2 15:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Someone related to this: If we do the right thing and create a proper US 19E article, do we really need to keep the US 19 in TN article? US 19 north of Bluff City is entirely concurrent with US 11E to Bristol, Virginia.  VC  17:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

To make a proper US 19E page, the US 19 in NC would need to be also rewritten. Seems easier to simply create a disambiguation page for US 19E and give the choice of either TN or NC. The way US 19 in TN and NC written now isn't really the issue, it was just how US 19E directs users to the NC page. --WashuOtaku (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the way US 19 in TN and US 19 in NC is written now is the issue. The organization treats US 19E like the mainline and US 19W like an auxiliary route. The two branches should be treated equally. If US 19W has its own article, then US 19E should have its own article. See U.S. Route 11E, U.S. Route 11W, U.S. Route 11 in Virginia, and U.S. Route 11 in Tennessee for how a similar situation is handled. Note that I am not implying that you are the person who has to make the changes; I just want all of us to be on the same page.  VC  00:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I created the U.S. Route 19E article and updated the U.S. Route 19 in North Carolina and U.S. Route 19 in Tennessee articles to not treat US 19E as the mainline.  VC  23:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I fixed a couple of errors and updated the forwards of US 19E NC/TN to it. Other than some additional polish, I'm coping with the change surprisingly well. --WashuOtaku (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Redoing the main USRD page

We talked about this at the beginning of the year, and then it died. What is the status on this? --Rschen7754 09:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The page needs to be greatly simplified. There is way too much stuff on the main page. It should serve as more of a portal to the various departments and subpages. Fewer giant lists of links. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Fredddie/USRD and User:Imzadi1979/USRD were the two sandboxes I knew about. –Fredddie™ 15:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I like Imzadi1979's version a little bit better. It looks like we are close enough to debut the new main page soon. Can we do this for the new year?  VC  15:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I prefer Freddie's. I think it's organized more efficiently (and I like the color on the page). --hmich176 11:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I also prefer Fredddie's for the same reasons as hmich176. I would like to add a suggestion, however. Regarding the featured content map, instead of just one wikilink to the most recent FA, could we have an expandable list of maybe the three or four most recent articles promoted to each category? I think new editors or those browsing the project page would get a better idea of the best the project has to offer. Britinvasion64 (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I seem to favor Fredddie's, but would like to note that the circular link in the Embassy section should probably be removed. TCN7JM 17:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The idea behind that was that it's supposed to be like a cross-wiki navbox. So the enwp USRD link would be bold. –Fredddie™ 18:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess that works for me. TCN7JM 18:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Moving forward

How should we move forward from here? What's in my sandbox is definitely not the final version, so I'd like to get a list of what we absolutely want and need on the project homepage. What can we move to other pages or remove unnecessary duplication thereof? –Fredddie™ 23:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

To start, what is in Imzadi1979's version that is not in Fredddie's version but that we need?  VC  00:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The goals are missing and would be helpful. --Rschen7754 23:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the 2013 goals are in there, but they're not as obvious as they are currently. –Fredddie™ 23:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and transcluded the CURRENTYEAR goals, so that's automatic now. What does everyone think of having a paragraph summary of important stuff in WP:USRD/NEW just below the navigation template? I was thinking of using same bright green color found on Commons' Main Page, maybe even the MUTCD fluorescent green color, to set it apart from the rest. –Fredddie™ 00:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I actually liked the map & featured content box that was there--maybe expanding slightly to include a link to the recognized content page. The related U.S. projects box that's there now (as of this writing) just doesn't seem to fit well on a short page that's supposed to show off our project--if we need it, maybe collapse it? -- LJ ↗ 21:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

There should be a box containing links to the departments of USRD. Philroc (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

There are department links on the right side of the page (How is our project organized?) and in the Navigation box. –Fredddie™ 22:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Bump. --Rschen7754 07:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

IMHO I prefer the look of Freddie's version... --AdmrBoltz 18:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I've decided to be WP:BOLD and deploy it. I know it's not 100% finished, but if something isn't done, nothing ever will be. --Rschen7754 20:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there a reason the new user orientation box is lime green instead of BGS green or beige-ish?  VC  00:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It's supposed to be MUTCD fluorescent green to, you know, draw attention to it. –Fredddie™ 00:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You know what? I think we should apply this new layout to all the task force and department pages in USRD. Then every page will be rid of clutter! Philroc (talk) 13:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The new page doesn't look so good on smaller screens – the featured content map seems to stop the left column from shrinking proportionally, forcing the right column to be only a few words wide. - Evad37 [talk] 13:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Control cities

Wikipedia's articles on Interstate highways have a rule about exits on Interstates that are also Interstates, and that this rule is to mention the control cities that match the cities that the highway signs themselves mention. We need to be more flexible and include other cities that the highway goes to before the city the highway sign has, if the city meets appropriate criteria. For example:

Go to Interstate 24 in Tennessee and Georgia. Go to exit 167 in the table. It says it's I-59 south towards Birmingham. However, there's a city called Gadsden that it goes towards before Birmingham, and it would be natural that Gadsden should be mentioned as well. (This is not original research; the signs for I-59 in Birmingham say that heading north on I-59 goes towards Gadsden, and then towards Chattanooga.) Any thoughts?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Just add it. That guideline is neither hard nor fast. As long as you're not trying to add every city on southbound I-59, you shouldn't be reverted. –Fredddie™ 22:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Generally you want to include what's on signs. Do any signs on I-24 mention Gadsden? --NE2 23:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

But how do people responsible for signs decide what cities to mention?? Is there any set rule?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

For the Interstates, AASHTO has/had a list of approved control cities, some of which were not strictly cities. This site has a list complied from the 2001 guidebook, and according to that, Gadsden is on the list for I-59. Imzadi 1979 → 23:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like Georgia doesn't use Gadsden: the first post-interchange distance sign on I-59 (as of 2011) lists Trenton and Birmingham, and signs at entrance ramps (as of 2007-2008) say only Birmingham. Enter Alabama and signs say Gadsden (e.g. exit 231). Is this an interesting fact to mention on the I-59 article? I don't know. --NE2 00:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I usually just add major cities the route goes to. On freeways that have actual control cities, I'll include those in addition to any other major cities. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 01:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

For control cities in major intersections and exit lists, I use whatever the signage along the road says. Dough4872 01:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

list of highways numbered X

Doesn't this go against the whole idea of a disambiguation page, where the link is spelled out in full? Would the solution be an alternate jct template that doesn't use the abbrev? --NE2 01:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Whatever is decided here, I've reverted that edit for now. TCN7JM 04:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

There were at least 20 other articles like that in the Jct missing shield category. There are better ways to waste time than to convert a dab page to templates. –Fredddie™ 04:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

If there are templates used, either {{jct}} needs an option to unabbreviate the names, or a forked template should be created that lists the appropriate full names instead of the shortened forms. Such a template would be useful on other non-road articles, but the priority at creating and implementing it wouldn't be very high. Imzadi 1979 → 04:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I would not support creating another template for this purpose. –Fredddie™ 17:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, though a parameter in the template would be nice to spell it out. --AdmrBoltz 17:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Ideally, we'd be able to add |abbr=off similar to the reverse situation to force abbreviations in {{convert}}, but that's a low priority for now. @Morriswa: you might want to take heed that while the templates are great for some things, they aren't designed for all situations. Imzadi 1979 → 20:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for "messing" things up on those pages. I have stopped using the template on them, except for List of highways numbered 540, where the templates were already there, so I added an entry using the template. The main reason I used it is for consistent formatting and for ease of insertion of shield images. I think the different states/territories should use some naming consistency in the shield image files. It is hard to locate the proper images sometimes. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not think the shields are necessary in the set index articles. They are nice to have, but if stuff is breaking, then they should not be used.  VC  22:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

What's breaking? Allen just can't find the shield names. TCN7JM 22:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

If the page is used to fix a link that needs disambiguation, it is suppose to be a copy and past to fix from the dab page. If the link is piped then an editor can not do that. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Should county routes be removed from these pages? Dough said that they are only for "notable" ones (I, US, and state). Is this true? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

If the county route has an article, it should probably be linked. TCN7JM 03:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

County Road 78A (Lee County, Florida) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect County Road 78A (Lee County, Florida). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. NE2 06:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

@NE2: if you tag the redirect (or almost anything else you post here about in regards to deletion notices), it will automatically show in Article Alerts the day after you list it. --AdmrBoltz 19:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. I see a lot of misinformation at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 January 16#Category:Former named state highways in Oregon. --NE2 21:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Someone did a piss-poor job of notifying the relevant projects about that deletion discussion. –Fredddie™ 00:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, it was listed on your alerts page. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Touché. –Fredddie™ 00:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:DRV, correct the misinformation and get the CfD overturned before an admin actually deletes the category. Imzadi 1979 → 02:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't care either way. You can do it. --NE2 03:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

FHWA Route Log and Finder List

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/routefinder/ was updated with a December 31, 2013, date for the various tables. All of the news 3dIs and open sections of 2dIs have been added, including I-69C and I-69E. Imzadi 1979 → 07:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Some are missing and others are outdated or otherwise incorrect, so use with caution: http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11468 --NE2 08:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Ohio shields

[6]—is this something we can/should use? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I remember seeing the discussion the one time I looked at the AARoads forum. I'll take a look. –Fredddie™ 02:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The differences are very subtle, but I think we should migrate to these. @Scott5114: if you can secure permission to use his file, we can get the bot going to redo these files, again. –Fredddie™ 02:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The page itself says I share my work here so that others, enthusiasts and professionals alike, may easily reproduce accurate route marker signs without reinventing the wheel. [...] This work is offered as public domain material, with no restrictions. I assume that's good enough, but the author has seemed willing to release them for Wikipedia use in the past, so if we need a more explicit release, I think it shouldn't be too hard to get one. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking we should give him a credit on the templates at Commons. Basically, how would he like to be credited? Side note, I did have to refactor the templates slightly. When I opened up the files and tried to save the numbers to path, they disappeared entirely. So, I had to redo the numbers. No big deal though. –Fredddie™ 04:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

He has indicated that he would like to be credited as "David K (User:VidTheKid)". —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, the new templates have been uploaded to Commons. –Fredddie™ 16:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

County road shield naming

In Commons:Category:Diagrams of Florida county route markers there are two main naming conventions (plus a few oddballs): File:Brevard County Road 3 FL.svg and File:Brevard County 5A.svg. Should they all be moved to one or the other? The latter appears to be what infobox templates use. --NE2 08:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

In addition, there are sometimes two styles, one with the correct border (File:Brevard County Road 3 FL.svg) and the other with too much yellow (File:Brevard County 3.svg). Presumably the latter should be redirected to the former? --NE2 08:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

We decided in 2010 that the county road shields on Commons need to be moved to the "<county> County <num>.svg". However, since only a handful of us have filemover privileges there, to call the effort of moving them to the new name half-assed would be generous. Any oddballs, Erie County NY comes to mind, should be "Erie County <num> NY.svg".

"Too much yellow" is the 2012 SHS standard; it's not wrong. –Fredddie™ 00:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Are real-world shields actually being designed that way? I just checked some photos I have of recently-installed shields (by FDOT, Orange County, and OOCEA) and they all look like the old style. (OOCEA and FDOT put a square yellow background on green guide signs, so the colors go green-yellow-blue-yellow-blue.) --NE2 01:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd imagine shield manufacturers have sign blanks in stock, so they're probably still depleting inventories. –Fredddie™ 02:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

One more naming convention question: should File:County Road 3 FL.svg be File:County 3.svg or File:County Road 3.svg? (Other shields are at both names: File:County Road 2A.svg vs. File:County 20.svg.) --NE2 01:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

County <num>.svg –Fredddie™ 02:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

@NE2: if you want to make a list of shield names that need to be renamed, I have filemover access on Commons. --AdmrBoltz 02:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Any particular list format that would make a bulk rename easier? --NE2 02:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Not that I can think of really... maybe File:County Road 2A.svg → File:County 2A.svg (which seems to be a redirect..., though County x is the correct numbering scheme). --AdmrBoltz 02:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

User:NE2/CR shields. If you don't have a batch script, don't bother :) (The ones at the bottom have duplicate images at both locations and have to be handled manually.) --NE2 03:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a script, but I can throw it to Commons bot requests --AdmrBoltz 03:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Go for it. As for the ones at the bottom, it looks like redirecting doesn't work; the bad one also has to be deleted. --NE2 04:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Removed them from the work request, which is now filed. --AdmrBoltz 13:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Once Florida is figured out, what about the other states? I want to say New Jersey is the only other state to be fully renamed. If you're wondering the rationale behind the name changes, it was because if there were 10 states that had a CR 1 in Foo County, and they all used the pentagon, it didn't make sense to have 10 instances of File:Foo County Route 1 IA.svg, File:Foo County Road 1 FL.svg, etc., when they'd all be identical. Plus, since Florida shields used Road instead of Route, we had that difference, too. –Fredddie™ 17:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

FL is chugging along as we speak. If you want to compile a list Fredddie, I can get the others set up for moving. --AdmrBoltz 17:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Florida is  Done --AdmrBoltz 18:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Cheers. I seem to have missed Okaloosa - File:Okaloosa County Road 2 FL.svg and File:Okaloosa County Road 189 FL.svg need moving. --NE2 23:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

2 is done. 189 is an issue. File:Okaloosa County 189.svg already exists in the new style. --AdmrBoltz 23:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Old MUTCDs

Clicky here - Might be worth saving them out to commons... --AdmrBoltz 01:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't Wikisource be better? –Fredddie™ 17:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

WS would be good if someone took the time to OCR them or retype the text, but then we'd really need to extract all of the figures/diagrams/graphics. The PDFs can be uploaded directly to Commons though. If they're on Commons, we could build a citation template that links to the PDFs, especially for citing old route markers and such. Imzadi 1979 → 17:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, Wikisource is a long term goal. –Fredddie™ 03:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I should look, but I might have a program that can enhance the PDFs by embedding OCR-generated text into them. I was able to do that with stuff I was scanning, but if I could do that with existing PDFs, we'd be halfway to Wikisourcing the content. Imzadi 1979 → 04:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Florida State Road A1A: "Atlantic 1 Alternate"?

The Goog shows only a few independent reliable sources that list this as the etymology for the name, and all are recent. I suspect they got it from Wikipedia, which has said it since 2004. I'd like to remove it, but someone will probably revert me because OMG it's in a reliable source! Any advice? --NE2 03:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Any chance of getting Word of FDOT on the subject? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Florida State Road A1A#References now includes the original State Road Board resolution, which mentions the confusion and desire to keep the number 1, but says nothing about what the letters stand for. I expect FDOT to, at best, dig up the same resolution in response to a query. --NE2 04:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, my biggest problem with the article is that there is no link to Vanilla Ice. :) --Kinu ^t/_c 04:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Lua conversions

This morning, new Lua versions of Template:Jcttop/core and Template:Jctint/core were deployed. Please let us know if you find any issues ASAP. --Rschen7754 10:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Inserting table rows manually no longer works: U.S. Route 17 in Florida#Major intersections --NE2 19:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

{{Jctgap}} should be used for that, instead. --Rschen7754 19:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not a gap, and how are you going to find all the broken places and fix them? Why is it breaking in the first place? --NE2 20:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The only difference seems to be the use of tr/td vs. table wikicode. In other words, the new implementation doesn't work for some reason with table wikicode. Is this the fault of Lua? --NE2 21:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it seems to be caused by {{jcttop}}'s use of <table> rather than {|. Why was this changed? --NE2 21:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The same thing happens on Georgia State Route 236#Major intersections (edit: not going to post another here because Imzadi1979 will just go and cock it up; check the history) and any others that use jcttop but not jctint. --NE2 21:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

...maybe you should use all Jcttop, Jctint, and Jctbtm together?—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 22:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe people shouldn't break existing uses of templates? --NE2 22:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

This revision shows the article NE2 was mentioning, which has since been fixed. However, the point bears repeating: mixing usage between hard-coding and templates is not a good idea because we can't test all situations like that before changing templates, but we can test the templates for how they work with each other. Imzadi 1979 → 23:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Another point bears making: we have wikicode for templates. Why use html? --NE2 23:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Because it's an absolute nightmare coding wikitext tables in Lua. Your complaint is about hardcoded junction lists. Since those are officially unsupported, they're not my problem. Simple as that. -happy5214 06:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we shouldn't be converting tables to Lua then? --NE2 07:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe we should use the templates as they are designed to be used: all of them at once. -happy5214 07:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The issue with parserfunctions, besides the difficulty in understanding the code, is that it is much slower to load than Lua, especially for larger tables. --Rschen7754 07:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a full family of related templates for constructing the tables about which NE2 is concerned. There is a template to create the header, a template to create the footer, and templates to create the intervening rows. There should be no reason to mix templates with hand-coding, and if there is, either we have a case to add a template to the family, a function to a template, or educate someone that there is already a template-based solution.

In some cases, editors used raw wikicode to create parts of the tables instead of using one of the templates. That is a bad practice, and this isn't the first time that the templates have been modified. Previously, the templates were updated, in concert, to insert the second distance column. Manually formatted tables before mid-2012 that used the header template would have broken when the km column was added to the header. Granted, they wouldn't have broken as spectacularly as the SR 236 example above. That is why when there is a standardized scheme based on templates, you don't go using only part of it without knowing that the future-proofing action of using the templates will not apply to the non-template code. Imzadi 1979 → 09:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Peña Boulevard? --AdmrBoltz 17:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed; apparently type=ETC is no longer valid. --Rschen7754 18:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Needs to be removed from {{jctint}}'s doc file them... Might not be the only page with that issue, just saw it as someone was doing {{convert/spell}} conversions and it hit my watchlist this morning. --AdmrBoltz 18:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

type=etc should still work. Just make sure it's in lowercase. -happy5214 06:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Doc file updated. ETC use to work before the switch. --AdmrBoltz 17:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Another problem: length_ref is no longer present on Template:Jctint/core. (See Template talk:Jctint/core#How about a way to give a reference for just one distance?) --NE2 00:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

@Happy5214: Can you look into the above for NE2? --AdmrBoltz 18:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The issue was already addressed in the linked talk page. As far as I know, it works fine. -happy5214 18:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. See mile 21.31 on U.S. Route 92#Major intersections. --NE2 23:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

That's because Fredddie added the parameter you're using in {{FLint}} after I had already finished coding the module. I'll switch it to the older name for now. -happy5214 06:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I won't be getting errors from the reference bot when I reuse one of those references in the infobox mileage. --NE2 07:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Concurrency article

Resolved

 – WP:SNOW closed as a WP:NAC. --AdmrBoltz 17:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The article concurrency (road) has been nominated for deletion. Your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concurrency (road) is welcome. Imzadi 1979 → 07:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Rather shitty example farm about an important topic. It's certainly covered in reliable sources, though usually as brief mentions relating to other topics (e.g. what to do with exit numbers on an overlap). The problem is that it's such a basic and obvious topic that nobody's going to write a book or even a detailed definition about it. For example, in the MUTCD: "Overlapping numbered routes should be kept to a minimum." This makes the (warranted) assumption that the reader knows what's meant by 'overlapping numbered routes', as there's no definition of overlap in the MUTCD. --NE2 08:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you clean up your comment and make it in the AfD? You are preaching to the choir here.  VC  13:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission

Here's another submission for you guys/gals. Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe mention in Ohio State Route 60 as a historic road in the same corridor? (It was never a state highway except north of McGlade School Road - the 1912 official already has Inter-County Highway 344 on current SR 60 south of Jones Road. See also the 1919 Muskingum County map.) --NE2 21:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

commons:Category:Automobile Club of Southern California collection, 1892-1963

↑↑↑ New shiny images from the AAA of SoCal. --AdmrBoltz 15:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Portal

Resolved

 – Portal updated. Dough4872 05:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Just notifying the project that we need some consensus for the selected picture for P:USRD for February. Dough4872 02:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

State highway going four different directions

I was researching Tennessee State Route 156 in order to create an article on it, it is in southern Tennessee. And it is shown as going West-East and South-North i found the shields/signs showing this on Google Street View and the pictures were taken in the last few years. How would you put the terminus' in the infobox? I haven't seen a route that is signed all four directions before. --ACase0000 (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

If the route, for example, starts out going north, but when it finishes, it's signed as going east, then the termini would be "South" and "East". Hope that helps. -happy5214 17:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Happy Then route starts out going south (and is signed south-north) and then signed east-west.. So then the termini would be "North" and east? --ACase0000 (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

See Interstate 69 for an example. --NE2 17:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks NE2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACase0000 (talk • contribs)

Can you give us a Google Map of SR 156? We can give you better answers if we can see the route. –Fredddie™ 21:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I have reason to believe this is the highway in question. –Fredddie™ 21:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I made several trips down my end of the Alaska Highway about a month ago. The Alaska Route 2 signage between here and Tok is inconsistent, with both east/west and north/south signs accompanying the shield in different places. As DOTPF has started replacing 1940s-era truss bridges in this corridor only in about the past 5-10 years, I would figure this to be neglect of its signage inventory rather than anything deliberate. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

@Fredddie: it is the one i am talking about. --ACase0000 (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

And Fredddie the portion From US-41A to where it is shown on Google where it turns east-west is signed south-north. You can find the north and south signs at and just south of the US-41A intersection --ACase0000 (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

When official sources conflict

What should be done when official sources conflict about a road? For example, let's say source A shows unsigned route X following a certain route through a complicated series of junctions, while source B shows it taking a different route with different mileage. We're not going to have two different intersection tables for each source. I personally know source A to be more internally consistent, and more consistent with signage where routes are signed, but another hypothetical editor prefers source B for whatever reason and wants that version of the route reflected in Wikipedia.

Would it be useful to make a project page with examples of internal inconsistencies in source B, so uninvolved editors can see why A is better? Or am I assuming too much on the part of others, and will this just be attacked as original research? --NE2 00:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

What kind of sources are A and B? Engineering reports or mileage logs obviously hold more weight than maps (even official), which may simply be misinterpreted. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 00:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

A is GIS data specifically created to show the state road numbers, while B is straight line diagrams (or in some cases county maps). The SLDs are organized not by route but by "roadway ID", a concept that predates the 1945 renumbering. State road numbers are shown on the SLDs but are sometimes inconsistent, internally or externally. --NE2 01:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, from an engineering perspective, both hold equal weight. In this case it may be best to contact the state DOT and find out which route is current, barring dates on the two sources that may make it apparent which is newer and therefore more likely up-to-date. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 02:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

And if FDOT says the internally inconsistent error-riddled SLDs are more correct? --NE2 03:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

What route is it and where? –Fredddie™ 04:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

This isn't one specific case. The closest thing to the example I give is where the Goog shows it one way (and obviously FDOT overrules the Goog). But there are definitely discrepancies between the GIS data and SLDs, and I'm looking to do a preemptive strike. Right now I'm not remembering any examples, but next time I come across one I'll post it here. --NE2 04:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

If FDOT says they're correct, perhaps they are and the signage along the road, or whatever source conflicts, is incorrect. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Or some random FDOT employee doesn't understand what I'm asking. I haven't had good results when emailing FDOT. --NE2 01:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:USRD/STDS/L - References column (and non abbreviated parameter)

There really needs to be a references column for these templates. I'd like to use this format to clean up the mess that is List of longest state highways in the United States, but I need a references column. Of course, maybe these templates aren't best as we run into the same issue we have above with {{jct}} abbreviating all route names. Can we get an abbreviated parameter for {{routelist row}} to spell out the name of the highway and not abbreviate it? Or am I completely barking up the wrong tree? --AdmrBoltz 19:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I really, really hate reference columns so I'm glad we have |length_ref= for distances and the other columns can take inline refs. –Fredddie™ 00:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

FLC prefers reference columns, so I won't take a list there without a plan to implement the column. Imzadi 1979 → 02:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

If FLC prefers a reference column, then I say we add one. However, I would also be fine if they could be included in the headers for things such as the length or inline for things such as creation/decommissioning dates. Dough4872 02:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

As for the abbreviation, I have no plans to add such a thing. The lead will use the appropriate abbreviation conventions in prose, tables are specifically allowed to use only abbreviations, and {{infobox state highway system}} will also give the abbreviations. Additionally, we shouldn't have to worry about the abbreviation issue as long as the templates aren't linking to "I-75" over "Interstate 75 in Michigan". I know that was an issue regarding links to the redirect at "Marquette, MI" instead of piping the link to "Marquette, Michigan" to display that way. The tool tip that will appear when a reader hovers the cursor over the link will take care of that, which is why I always replace such redirects with links to the full article title at some point. Imzadi 1979 → 02:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

If that were an actual problem, it would be changed at the software level. Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. --NE2 05:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

That's just an editing guideline, but I paraphrased an actual critique at an FAC. Non-American editors will not know what our postal abbreviations mean, and if we can simply use [[Marquette, Michigan|Marquette, MI]] in the article to give them that extra little piece of context, then that's a benefit that supersedes the advise not to bypass redirects like the Franklin Roosevelt → Franklin D. Roosevelt example on that page. We're talking about polishing articles to the FA/FL level, which is "our best work", so some details will be looked at differently in that context, and may be considered "problems". Imzadi 1979 → 06:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

One uninformed opinion at FAC does not overrule a consensus-created guideline. --NE2 06:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Tony1 is a professional copyeditor and the master of FA-level, professional prose. You'd learn a lot to follow his suggestions. Imzadi 1979 → 06:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no interest in learning anal retentiveness, any more than I already have it. --NE2 07:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

One issue about inline citations is that it screws up the numerical alignment. A column of lengths reads much better when the lengths have the same precision. This was a point TagishSimon was supporting in MOS:RJL-related updates once upon a time. He even suggested that if most lengths in a RJL used 3DPs, that an oddball 2DP number should be padded with a trailing zero for consistency to keep the decimal points roughly aligned. Now, if we shift a length leftward to insert the footnote, we destroy that consistency for scanning/reading. That's why I won't use |length_ref= in a table; if a specific length of a highway for some reason can't be cited to the source in the header, its footnote will be in the references column. Ditto the citations for years to keep that column of numbers consistently aligned. These sorts of stylistic concerns will make or break a FLC nomination. Imzadi 1979 → 02:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand not including in-line citations in a column of measurements; the decimal points must line up. However, I do not think years will be scrutinized as much because years are always four digits for our purposes. If we do implement a reference column, how do we indicate what piece of information a particular reference is supporting?  VC  03:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

List of state highways in Marquette County, Michigan, went through an FLRC and was touched up to more modern standards a while back. All references were shunted to the references column except the general one in the header for the length as a part of that FLRC. That's the standard I've used since. Imzadi 1979 → 03:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem with a references column is that it makes it difficult to determine which reference goes with which cell, and also makes it difficult to determine if information is uncited. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, though I try to keep the references in left > right order based on the info in the table. --AdmrBoltz 19:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Random question for anyone more familiar with CSS than I—could we set up the cells to leave a blank space where a ref would go if there is none? This would allow us to have refs in cells and not knock decimals out of alignment, so long as multiple refs in a cell were combined. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Scott: I don't think there is. Decimal points that are not aligned is really a non-issue. What is gained if the rest of the content in the table sucks, but hey, the decimal points are aligned?! –Fredddie™ 13:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

What is gained? Holy crap, the article might become featured! As long as it reads like good content to the reviewers, actual content doesn't matter. --NE2 14:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

FDOT Video Log images OK?

Anyone know if the images in http://www3.dot.state.fl.us/videolog/default.asp are OK with {{PD-FLGov}}? For example: http://www3.dot.state.fl.us/videologsource1/12272003/B72016000S/I_00124.jpg --NE2 16:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I would assume so since it was created on the clock as a DOT employee. --AdmrBoltz 17:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Interstate 690

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways § Interstate 690

 – Imzadi 1979 → 22:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Could someone with better expertise please add some sources to Interstate 690? Most of our road articles are in good shape, but this one has [citation needed] tags dating back to 2010 and I have no idea where to start. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979: Thanks for moving. Interstate 790 needs a lot of work too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Better to have good information with citations missing than crappy information. --NE2 02:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

@NE2: To me, they're no better. The info is there, but as someone who's only ever been to New York state once, how do I know that some of this wasn't just pulled out of someone's ass? It absolutely needs sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? You think an article with some unreferenced statements is no better than an article with information that's definitely false? --NE2 04:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

TwinsMetsFan and myself are only human and have the sources we have. If you think you can actually go into the Syracuse Post-Standard and other archives, I'm all ears to re-source this stuff. Otherwise, WP:BEBOLD or stop whining. Mitch32^{(The man who renounces himself, comes to himself.)} 15:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I know I'm the better part of two weeks late on these comments, but I believe automatically assuming that part of an article may have been "pulled out of someone's ass" because the source link is no longer valid violates the basic concept of assuming good faith. --hmich176 18:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:USRD/A

Now that the main project page has been updated, we should look at updating the department pages to make sure they include any information that was dropped from the main page. First, I'd like to look at the assessments page. I was thinking it might be good to deconstruct the quality scale table below and make it less tl;dr. Yes, I know it's patterned off of WP:1.0/A, but I think the people who do go to that page just gloss over the table. We could also present the "big three" so it's easier to understand to outsiders. –Fredddie™ 22:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Fredddie/USRD/A was my sandbox from before. I'd like to add more about the big three. –Fredddie™ 22:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I like the flow of your box... though I'd move the wikiwork stuff further down as most people won't really care about it. --AdmrBoltz 22:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

TWSS? Can do. –Fredddie™ 22:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I like Fredddie's sandbox. The flowchart for assessment is really nice and should help readers learn about USRD article development. Dough4872 02:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to take a screenshot of an article to highlight the big three, anyone want to volunteer an article? Ideally, a short B or above would be best. –Fredddie™ 03:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

If an FA works, Interstate 296 is short and high-quality. Imzadi 1979 → 04:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Decided to go prose. I should have something to show you shortly. –Fredddie™ 00:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

A couple questions for everyone. Should we keep the "In summary" section that's below the quality scale? If so, do you think it would be better at the top under the lead? I'm thinking it could be an "at a glance" reference with the meat and potatoes below. Second, what about the assessment chart and the graphs? There is a Lua module that I'm going to look at which may be able to create our graphs dynamically, if that's something we'd be interested in. –Fredddie™ 02:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

No, we should neither keep the "In summary" section nor keep the tables contained in it. The mini-leads in the The Big Three and Upper classes sections do a good job of summarizing that information. I would put the graphs and assessment chart at the bottom; if those can be dynamically generated, even better. In general, I like having the prose split into relatively short paragraphs and by simple flow-chart elements, and then the graphs that require understanding that prose at the bottom. The "The Big Three" sidebar was a great idea.  VC  02:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there anything else we need to discuss about the Assessment page? Fredddie's version looks great. I motion we move it into project space.  VC  18:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm good with moving it. --AdmrBoltz 18:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

 Already done –Fredddie™ 18:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Split discussion for Interstate 30

The input from members of this WikiProject would be welcome on the talk page of the Interstate 30 article, which has a pending split suggestion. Regards, P shadoh (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Update: I think it's pretty clear at this point that no one other than the original proponent is in favor of splitting the I-30 article. Although I'm not a total newbie to WP, I am new at this process. So, what's next? How long does one "leave voting open," so to speak? I'd like to end it, but I don't know if I'm being premature, and I also don't know what the proper procedures are for doing so. Can you more experienced folks weigh in, please? -P shadoh (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

We already had set guidelines on what to do in this situation, and it was pretty clear by the amount of opposition that consensus was against splitting the article. Therefore, in this case I don't think closing the discussion after only four days would be premature, and I have done so myself. Thanks for asking us rather than just closing it yourself; discussions like this should generally not be closed by one who took part in it. TCN7JM 19:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Roads in Palm Beach County, Florida

I'm thinking this should be deleted (as categories serve the same purpose) but can't come up with a good reason that won't cause knee-jerk opposition. --NE2 18:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Refer to Our Precedents at TfD --AdmrBoltz 18:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

@NE2: several states' templates have been deleted for exactly that reason, that the templates duplicate the categories. At this point, unless a by-county road/highway navbox template is needed to retain a featured or good topic, they're pretty much going to be deleted at some point. Imzadi 1979 → 19:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Project NC

OK so since I had some pretty high goals I wanted for NC to obtain I made a Userfy'd Project called Project NC Roads 2014. You can view it by going to User:Ncchild/Project NC. If no one is interested then ill just try those goals myself.--Ncchild (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Um, why can't you just add some goals to the WP:USRD/NC page instead of reinventing the wheel and potentially confusing people by creating that page? Imzadi 1979 → 19:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I can do that, ok well then that's what ill do--Ncchild (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Future stub reduction

I was looking at the To-do list shown in the infobox under General stubs, and noticed that there were a lot of US Virgin Islands stubs listed. I had just read the most recent USRD newsletter that mentioned the Rockland County Scenario for clearing the Texas FtM roads and thought this would be a good idea to use this scenario to do the same for the USVI roads, as well as all the other stub-class articles (of which there are 1618 remaining) Calador109 (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

For USRD purposes, most of the stubs are easy enough to "fix" if an editor is interested. For the USVI, I had previously merged related "child" routes into the "parent" highway articles. Really, if someone were willing to write proper Route descriptions and build junction list tables, each article would be bumped to Start-Class. It's time consuming, but easy enough to do with just Google Maps and possibly another map or atlas source. Imzadi 1979 → 21:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:USRD/STDS/L reference idea

Seeing as references do not work in cells in Template:Routelist row, I came up with the following idea. Is it possible to put together a reference lookup table using a template along the lines of the Template:Attached KML? The wikilink to the lookup table would be contained in a reference tag that would be placed in the header of whichever column (most likely Formed and Removed) and maybe accessed from a Reference section. The lookup table would contain a list of all list items and the references associated with each of them. The table could either be displayed at the bottom of the list article under References or displayed on a subpage of the article as the Attached KML is done now. It may be possible to automatically import data, possibly with or without use of wikidata. Even if the lookup table needs to be put together manually, it would be better than nothing. At the most basic level, this lookup table could be a whole bunch of citation templates ordered within one set of <ref> tags. Of course, the more automation, the better.  VC  01:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:CITEBUNDLE? Inside a singel set of <ref> </ref> tags, we could have a bulleted list along the lines of:

• For the establishment of M-1, see <citation(s) here>
• For the establishment of M-3, see <citation(s) here>

The only problem with that is when you have 200+ highways in the same table, you could have 200 bullets in a single footnote. I don't know that would pass FLC muster though. Imzadi 1979 → 01:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

You could use 1 CITEBUNDLE per row in a reference column, which be limited to about 7 bullets per bundle, and be closer to the FLC format mentioned in the discussion further up the page but without ambiguity as to which ref applies to which cell. - Evad37 [talk] 02:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Either way, bundling the cites produces an issue with reuse. For example, there will be a few dozen highways that debuted in 1919, but if we're bundling up the cites, the two 1919 maps will be repeated over and over and over again in the references section because they can't be reused as we normally would; I'd have to bundle them in each bundle. The other solution is to unbundle the repeated cities, but we'll still have the same issues. That's why I don't want to reinvent the wheel and will be sticking to the tried and true method that's been done at FLC: a references column per row. Imzadi 1979 → 02:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, they are ways they could be reused – {{refn}} allows for refs within refs, or any reused sources could have short citations in the bundles and the full citations at the bottom of the page. Anyway, you don't have to use anything like this, but the idea might still be worth kicking around for those editors who aren't fond of the traditional references column. - Evad37 [talk] 02:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I need a visual aid, I'm having trouble picturing what it would be like. –Fredddie™ 17:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Reference nesting mockup

Just as a visual aid for the overall idea (and not paying much attention to specific formatting), it could look something like:

---

Number	Length (mi)	Length (km)	Southern or western terminus	Northern or eastern terminus	Formed	Removed	Notes
SH-10	235.0	378.2	SH-99 west of Herd	I-40 southeast of Gore	1924	—
SH-11	206.0	331.5	US-281 north of Alva	I-244 in Tulsa	1924	—

Notes

References

---

Each row has a single footnote, which contains sources in shortened form, with the bit of info that each source verifies specified. These footnotes are shown in one section below the table, with the full citations in another section. {{sfn}} or the like could be used to link the short form sources to their full citations. - Evad37 [talk] 18:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like that. I still think references should be in each cell, aligned decimal points be damned. –Fredddie™ 20:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with Fredddie, I prefer the citation being where the citation belongs. If you keep it at the right side, it leads to confusion to what is citing what. People writing academic papers would get a lot of crap for doing something like this. Mitch32^{(The man who renounces himself, comes to himself.)} 23:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Full implementation of my proposed lookup table method, which I intend to mock up soon, requires the ability to add references to the headers of the Formed and Removed columns, analogous to the implementation of the length_ref parameter. Using the reference column might work as a temporary measure, but like Fredddie and Mitchazenia, I am not fond of it.  VC  00:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I created a mockup lookup table and referenced it from the sandbox in which I am developing Maryland's massive route list: User:Viridiscalculus/Sandbox. See the second row and follow the links.  VC  00:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Just of note, it is almost impossible to load that page for my computer. Mitch32^{(The man who renounces himself, comes to himself.)} 03:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Now that I see it in action, I do not like VCs proposed method because you have to go to a separate page to get the reference. I do not see why we can't just include the refs in the cells or have a reference column with left to right refs like some of our FLs have so people can see the ref in the article they are at. Dough4872 04:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't prefer this method either. Having to go to another page for references will surely get shot down at FLC. –Fredddie™ 04:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

This may have been said and I may be an idiot, but exactly what is limiting the references from being done cell to cell. A regular Wikitable is excellent at doing cell to cell. Mitch32^{(The man who renounces himself, comes to himself.)} 05:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Nothing except the desire of some people to put everything in templates with limited flexibility. --NE2 06:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Please take the time to actually become informed about what you're talking about before you post. The {{routelist row}} template currently support per-cell references and not a reference column. Some people want support for a reference column added because WP:FLC prefers those. (And it's not like you have to use the template to follow the route list standard, anyway.) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Cells in the Length, Formed, and Removed columns of the {{routelist row}} template do not currently support per-cell references. Maybe this was an oversight, but I do not think you can say a template currently supports per-cell references if the most likely and crucial columns to have those references have script errors.  VC  01:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

You have to use the length_ref, established_ref, and decommissioned_ref parameters (see the template documentation) to store the references. This is because the template uses the main fields for each cell to calculate sortkeys (and km conversions), which doesn't work if they contain non-numeric information. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I am glad you added those parameters to the documentation just now because I am sure I am not the only editor who never would have guessed the exact wording of those parameters or known that they exist without the documentation saying so.  VC  03:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea of putting the refs in the headers, the only problem with that is if you may need multiple sources for a certain item, such as the establishment date or the length. We cannot put 10 or 20 or more references to maps or other sources in these headers. I think a way we can solve this is have the ref in the header be a footnote containing the multiple refs that are used for a certain column so it is not overloading the header. Dough4872 03:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Southeast Union

OK so first and foremost this is not a WikiProject. It is a cooperative effort between the states of the Southern United States. The idea is that between different people's efforts every state within the "union" can have good roads but also equal roads. This combines the strengths of editors within the union and let them focus on where they are good at. We don't tell you what to writeable just point you in the article we want you to work on. For example if we have someone who is really good at making new articles for roads we would send them to work in South Carolina where there are not as many road articles but if we have someone who is really good at making good articles featured then we would send them to place like Florida where there are a lot of good articles. In essence it is just a part of USRD and would encompass 14 states. I just thought of the idea.--Ncchild (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a WikiProject to me. There are, actually, very few of us who work outside of a set area, so while suggesting that we work in another state is noble, it is ultimately fruitless. –Fredddie™ 03:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. I guess that I should stop suggesting stuff now--Ncchild (talk) 10:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Interstate 40 in North Carolina

Can I have a some look over Interstate 40 in North Carolina again and tell me if there is anything that would make it better. If it does better than a C in grading can we have that changed to. --Ncchild (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

References to AARoads need to be removed as it is not a reliable source. --AdmrBoltz 00:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions for other resources.--Ncchild (talk) 04:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

For the route description, I would suggest using an official highway map along with a web mapping service such as Google Maps instead of AARoads. Prose sources such as books or newspaper articles would work too. Dough4872 05:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I actually think that most of the stuff I posted could be found on a map--Ncchild (talk) 12:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I have replaced all the AARoads references with Google Maps, or maps from DOT references.-I actually might have overdone the references but, I guess you really cant ever have enough--Ncchild (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's how I handle references in the RD section as a default.

1. I pull out the paper copy of the most recent MDOT map and note the map grid references to encompass the full route of the highway.
2. I plot the Google Maps driving directions for the full length of the highway. Usually you have to do directions from a town near the one end to a town at the other end and then drag the endpoints around and adjust the route. Then I put the map in the "Satellite" view and copy the link for use in {{google maps}}.
3. At the end of each paragraph, I list the footnote for the MDOT map first and the Google Map second. The paper map gets you the official routing of the highway from the DOT and Google gets you the aerial photography.
4. For some details, like the boundaries of National Forests in the state, I add in a citation to the Rand McNally atlas in addition to the MDOT map.

If at any point I need to cite a detail about a landmark or something else not derivable from the two maps, I repeat the pairing of the map footnotes at the end of the preceding sentence, and then insert the appropriate citation for the sentence on that landmark. That way the citations like up with the information they support.

Sometimes, I need to cite a specific map inset, say for a highway that passes through the Detroit area, and then I substitute a citation for that inset for the overall map. (Note, map insets have different scales and they may have their own grid references, which is why they get a separate footnote.) In all cases, I use {{cite map}} and supply as much information about the map (publisher, year/date, title, scale, cartographer, grid sections, page numbers, etc) as possible. I hope this helps. Imzadi 1979 → 14:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like reference laundering. I doubt the Haywood County map shows that "Interstate 40 then goes down a steep grade for the next 16 miles", or the Buncombe County map shows "the historic terminus of Interstate 26". Not that I really care, as I don't doubt these are true. (Though the former should include exactly how steep the grade is.) One good source for natural features is USGS topos; Acme Mapper has a nice interface. (But remember that these are often 30-40 years old; the terrain won't have changed much, but manmade features often have.) --NE2 14:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

NE2 makes an important point here: the information has to be easily obtained from the maps being cited. Some landscape details, like the presence of forests vs. farmland adjacent to the highway, or a routing through a residential neighborhood, can be cited to the satellite view on Google Maps (or Yahoo or Bing...). Some grade/elevation details in a sufficiently generalized sense can be cited to satellite imagery too, but USGS topographic maps are a better source. Realistically, the content of the article is determined by sources used, and you have to be very careful in working backwards to find sources to back information. Imzadi 1979 → 15:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The Historic terminus I remembered from when I made Interstate 26 in North Carolina. From what I'm hearing the article still needs more references to go up to a B status or something — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncchild (talk • contribs) 16:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Improve the article for the sake of providing useful information to the world, not for a letter grade. --NE2 16:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The Google Maps terrain option shows topography, so I generally use it for elevation information. It takes a couple clicks, but it's pretty easy to obtainable. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

However, topos show the names of features such as ridges, passes, and rivers (the Goog is often mistaken on the latter). --NE2 18:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

History

Do you know a good way to do history for something like State Routes?--Ncchild (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

It's very dependent on the situation at hand. ON 74 is a decent example of a very bare-bones history that should be easy to follow. Generally though, you're simply describing the chronology of the road, from past to present. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

New page ideas

• Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Core articles

Last week on IRC, I proposed a new page that would list the 10–20 most important articles that fall under USRD's scope. It was inspired by WP:CORE, which are the most important articles on the wiki in general. The goal of would be that all the articles listed should eventually be FAs. The idea seemed to be well received on IRC, but I am looking for more input on what articles we should include and/or if we should divide it into categories (see WP:CORE#Tree). –Fredddie™ 20:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Sounds good to me. --AdmrBoltz 20:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Essays/Route description
• Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Essays/History

These two pages would be essays teaching newer editors how to write RD and history sections so we can avoid sections like the one above. The standards page as it is doesn't really tell you how to write, so that's really not much help. We all have our own ways of doing things, so we could all chime in with how we do things. –Fredddie™ 20:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Giving editors standards to write good route description and history sections is a good idea, but do they need separate articles? Can't we just expand the coverage within Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Standards? Also, I do not know how we will determine what our "core articles" are as we have to be subjective about it. Probably the best idea I can think of for that is to do any Interstate ending in 0 or 5 along with any U.S. route ending in 0 or 1 in addition to US 66. Dough4872 20:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Splitting into separate pages would prevent or mitigate tl;dr. –Fredddie™ 20:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Its needed... WP:USRD/NEW doesn't help in this matter... --AdmrBoltz 20:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that some dedicated pointers on how to write a good RD section are in order. I know from my perspective, there are two ways I write them: mini lead summary with more "meta" content (total length, NHS/AADT stuff, etc) followed by subsections in a geographic order or just one section divided into paragraphs. As for history sections, there's lots of possibilities to cover there so again, a separate page of advice on "best practices" would be good. Those two with the pointer to MOS:RJL rounds out "how" to create the Big Three sections an article. Imzadi 1979 → 20:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

While I am certainly in agreement that a page like this is a good idea, it needs to be separate from the standards pages. The standards pages are essentially specialized MOS pages. The sort of page that's being discussed here would be a project essay, because we are all just sharing subjective advice that may not apply to all situations. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair point, Scott, so I changed it to Essays. Looking over our essays, it seems that a few no longer reflect the current attitudes (mainly those written before we "grew up"). It may be a good time to go through them all and either provide some context to newer members or remove them altogether. A couple of them, chiefly Scott's notability FAQ and Rschen's article reviewing checklist, I think could be moved under the USRD namespace. –Fredddie™ 06:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems like Scott's notability FAQ could be combined into the notability guideline—non-redundant info can be introduced as a separate FAQ section at the bottom of that page. The article reviewing checklist is probably best left an essay, or maybe if more formalized it could be dropped into a sub-page of the assessment department?

As to the other pages: Some essays on article writing are probably not a bad idea. Not sure if it's best to structure it as sections of individual editors' opinions, or each editor comes up with their own essay. I don't know how we would define "core topics", but the idea seems worth talking about. -- LJ ↗ 06:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

If several of us wrote essays, there would probably be significant overlap in what we say. From the degree of overlap, we could determine which opinions are authoritative ("consensus is that we mention each intersection with a state highway") and which are not, but are still worth mentioning ("editors vary in how much detail we talk about a road's surroundings") in a composite essay that we could create as the primary resource for new editors. I think each of us writing essays would be a helpful step toward creating this new set of resources.  VC  14:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Interstate 70

So, the Stan Musial Bridge and rerouting of I-70 in St. Louis have just opened, but Interstate 70 in Missouri and Interstate 70 in Illinois don't yet reflect the mileage and exits for the new bridge. Anyone know where I could get the mileage stats, new exit numbers, etc. for this? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, since we usually get that data from the state DOT, we wait until they come out with new data. Missouri has a slick mapping service (here) that we use, while Illinois we get that data from their GIS service (here). Since Illinois doesn't even have 2013 data listed, it's likely that we'll have to wait until next year to get the most accurate data. In the interim, we can use Google Maps, which does show the new I-70 (see?). –Fredddie™ 03:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Illinois%20AM2013.pdf http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Missouri%20AM2013.pdf

Looks like new mileage to the state line is only to the nearest tenth-mile, but I-44 extension mileage is to the thousandth-mile.

As for exit numbers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQNYNHW-QH8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEiIrQuMTWc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnkAqE-nGQM --NE2 05:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like I-70's been updated (or at least the exit lists have) but I-44 hasn't. Don't forget to include old exit numbers from when it was I-70. --NE2 20:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

NC WikiProject

Please don't ban me for proposing this but North Carolina has over 600 Articles in its realm and I think it's time for us to go to the next level. Before Imazadi replies No with 5 exclamation marks (JK) here out my proposal. Create a North Carolina Roads WikiProject for a trial run for a month. If it proves to be successful then North Carolina Roads stays a WikiProject but has close ties to the US Roads WikiProject. If it proves not to be successful then we go back to being a taskforce. I would actually provide a Webzine, right pages everything for it I just don't want someone yelling a me again saying you did this wrong or NO!!!!!!!!! You shouldn't have done this. --Ncchild (talk) 02:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The only problem is it has ties too close to the US roads Wikiproject...Even with a new wikiproject, I don't think anything's going to changes, in terms of article writing. If you still insist on doing it, propose here.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 02:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your youthful exuberance, but I think you should simply work on articles and other things instead of trying to create a separate WikiProject. Regardless of whether North Carolina highway articles fall under their own project or the U.S. project, the articles will need to be worked on. Creating a separate project will only add administrative work. If you can demonstrate that someone has been unkind in their criticism, please bring it forward, but I do not think anyone has yelled at you.  VC  02:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

VC is right. There are 74 stubs that can be worked on right now instead of worrying about the burden of setting up a separate WikiProject. Has there been any coordination with @Washuotaku:? Would he agree with splitting off WP:NCSH? –Fredddie™ 03:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject administration is a lot of work. We have dozens of editors for USRD working on articles. Some of those editors handle additional tasks like:

• Writing and editing the project's quarterly newsletter, which is a task that takes me an afternoon's work after other editors write the content for that issue.
• There are the bot-generated lists of new articles that has to be periodically checked for articles that need to be tagged and assessed for the project.
• There is the assessment log to check to verify that recent changes made to article assessments are valid. (Some people upgrade stuff to B-Class when it clearly doesn't meet the requirements for that classification.)

You'd need a substantially larger pool of interested editors to justify creating a new WikiProject, not two (yourself and Washuotaku). USRD just consolidated the administration of previously separate projects to simplify everything. The best think you can do, as others have suggested, is to write and improve the articles first. Imzadi 1979 → 03:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Well I guess I just gave it a shot. I haven't talked to Washutaku in a while and haven't seen edits from him recently. Never the less I plan to get rid of NC stubs by April 11.--Ncchild (talk) 10:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I tend to operate in waves, sometimes full force on wiki and sometimes just checking to make sure edits by others make sense. I'm in the later part at the moment because of personal issues affecting me in real life. Anyway... I do not see the need to break-out North Carolina, it sounds like a lot of additional work to deal with and we don't have enough resources. I'm sorry this might bum you out Ncchild. --WashuOtaku (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with everyone else. We have moved away from the idea of separate state projects in favor of one USRD. If you want to fix the North Carolina road article, its simple. Use the nationwide USRD standards to write the articles. Feel free to list resources and ideas specific to North Carolina at WP:USRD/NC. But I feel there is no need for a wikiproject. Dough4872 16:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

To put this another way, no other state has a separate WikiProject anymore... why should North Carolina? --Rschen7754 06:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Vehicle pileups

Continued from Talk:Interstate 94 in Indiana#Multi-vehicle accidents I believe that these can be mentioned on the articles for the respective highways if they're notable enough (see linked talk page for discussion of notability, including relevance to the table on Multiple-vehicle collision). In short, if a pileup involves an unusually large number of vehicles, it's notable; if said pileup is then important enough to be listed at the aforementioned table, or in extreme cases in its own article, then it follows that the mention of the highway there should be reciprocated on the highway's article with a brief, sourced mention of the pileup, or wikilink where appropriate. Note that this would be on a case-by-case basis; for instance, there have been two more pileups in the last week, neither of which are clear-cut as to being notable (north suburban Philadelphia on the Turnpike, which was actually a series of smaller wrecks, and Van Buren Co., Michigan on I-94, which was probably a bit too small). Mapsax (talk) 02:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

As I said at the talk page, the key basis for including an event in the History section of a highway article is the lasting impact to that highway, period. Any mention in another article doesn't really matter for the purposes of highway articles. Obvious, if the DOT reroutes, extends, or truncates a highway, that change has produced a lasting impact. A single crash, however tragic or however many vehicles involved, may not have such an impact. If the DOT changes the highway as a result of that crash, then we have a lasting impact. If there is sustained media coverage, then we have a case for notability. If the crash makes headlines on the day of, or the day after, the event and then it fades from media attention, we have no notability. If the crash was the worst ever in the state, that's another possibility to include it. Otherwise, sadly, these just aren't notable for the purposes of a highway article. The article on "multiple vehice collision" can, and will, have different criteria for inclusion because it has a different purpose. Imzadi 1979 → 03:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

My $.02, In the article Mousetrap (Denver) an accident is mentioned. In that case the accident actually gave momentum to a movement to re-design the interchange (the accident is also briefly mentioned in the articles for the highways that intersect there). That's worth mentioning. In the article on the Newhall Pass Interchange an accident is mentioned that resulted in the interchange being renamed in honor of the police officer who died there. That's worth mentioning, as that's how the interchange got it's name. However, not meaning to sound crass, but accidents, even pileups, happen every day and while they generate intense media interest, it's fleeting. I am aware that there are Wikipedia articles on individual accidents, however IMO, I concur with Imzadi's sentiment that the accident should have a lasting impact before it becomes part of wikipedia's coverage. Dave (talk) 04:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the Pennsylvania Turnpike, that road has had numerous large multi-car accidents over its 74 year history. Mentioning all of them would be overkill. Highway accidents are highway accidents, they happen all the time. The accident that happened on the Pennsylvania Turnpike last Friday has already faded from the media. Car crashes should only be mentioned if they have a lasting impact and cause a change in the design of a highway. Dough4872 05:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@Dough4872: You're actually backing me up. The two examples I gave are cases that should probably be dismissed according to my rationale.

General response: I guess that there's a broader issue here. I don't see why highway articles should be limited to construction materials, engineering, rights-of-way, and route designations. Anything cultural or temporal not related to those four qualities should also be considered, in my opinion and interpretation of Notability, provided that it gets due weight and can be shown not to be trivial. That's my rationale for the Indiana pileup: Due weight was the truncated sentence; triviality issue was addressed by recognizing status of entry on Multiple-vehicle collision article, that article not being part of the USRD project notwithstanding. I'm obviously outnumbered, but I feel that road articles could be enhanced by the attributes that I listed without becoming unwieldly, provided that guidelines are established to control them; the largest pileups would thus be included. Mapsax (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I mention the serious ones. Highway 401, Ontario Highway 402 and Ontario Highway 416 each mention a multi-vehicle pileup. Highway 401 even has a picture of one. If there is significant coverage, it may merit inclusion. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Where exactly do we draw the line of what gets mentioned? Before Google purged the news archives from their search results, for me, it was hard to find old news articles about a highway because there were so many about car crashes. –Fredddie™ 23:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, based on my examples, I think some possible minimum criteria might be:

1. Over 50 vehicles involved
2. Directly results in changes to the highway, such as building a median barrier
3. Causes closure of the highway for at least 24 hours

Whether meeting one of those or certain combinations, it's a starting point perhaps. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, stupid question. Don't the accidents belong in the article on the storm? They are a result of the storm and not caused by the road. So the strong tie is to the storm and not the road. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

By my reasoning, a pileup on a road in a storm, assuming notability all around, should be mentioned in articles about the pileup, the road, and the storm – all are factors.

To further continue my discussion on the topic: I've reviewed WP:EVENT. It seems that the only contention is the definition of "routine" in this context, as has been discussed in part already. Note that "routine" and "regular" differ; without researching, I'm pretty sure that pileups of various severity occur regularly in wintry or foggy conditions. More importantly, though, it should be noted that that set of guidelines applies to creation of a standalone article, not an allusion from an existing article. (I've had that discussion before, if only involving an internal mention of something rather than an external one.) Mapsax (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

North Carolina Highway 101

Can I have an revaluation for North Carolina Highway 101 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncchild (talk • contribs) 23:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

In the future, you can just add |reassess=yes to the {{U.S. Roads WikiProject}} banner on the talk page. If it's a newly created article, one of the project regulars (usually myself) will tag and assess the article when it shows up on the bot listing of new articles. Imzadi 1979 → 00:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've reassessed the article as C-Class after making a few minor syntax fixes. The history is lacking sufficient sources, otherwise it'd probably be B-Class. You also need a source for the mileposts in the junction list. A suggestion on the article, if I may – try to cut down on usage of "NC 101" or "North Carolina Highway 101". You can use these nouns sometimes, but it's better writing to mix these up with other nouns that are similar to it such as "the route" or "the highway". This makes for less repetitive and tedious reading.

I also echo Imzadi1979 on adding the parameter to the talk page banner rather than posting to this page every time you need an article reassessed. It adds the page to a tracking category and registers it as a backlog, and it also sets off the bot in our IRC channel so that we can act on stuff like this as quickly as possible. TCN7JM 00:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

OK so you said it was lacking sufficient resources, what kind of resources and where in the article? I followd all of Imazadi's tips--Ncchild (talk) 02:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

You need more sources than what you have for the history section. You say NC 101 switched places with NC 10 in 1928, but there's no source to prove that. Even if you used a map, you'd need the 1927 map as well to prove that it happened in 1928, and not some year between 1922 and 1928. The same is true with the info you have for 1931; you'd need a 1930 map to cite that properly. TCN7JM 05:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Not quite. You'd need two maps from different dates in 1928 to prove it happened in 1928. A 1927 map shows that it happened in 1927 or 1928. --NE2 06:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

If there are two maps, one nominally from January 1, 1928, you'd need a map nominally from January 1, 1929, to cite a 1928 date. The publication dates, explicitly stated or nominally implied by the publisher, are the limits. You can only say something like "X happened in late 1928 or early 1929" if your date ranges give you those limits. (This is why it is always better to get a source that gives the specific date of a change.) Imzadi 1979 → 06:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Er...yeah, what they said. My point stands, though. You need two different maps to cite an event in the history. TCN7JM 06:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Be careful with this logic. It is not uncommon for map publishers to draw projects that are under construction at the time the cartography was done as completed, or projects that are proposed as under construction. Nothing cynical about it, just an attempt to extend the useful life of the map before it is obsolete. However, this does mean that a map with a published year of, say 1950, shows a highway as open to traffic, when in fact it did not open until 1951 due to project setbacks. As an extreme case, there are documented cases where a reliable map shows a highway as completed that was never actually built, due to last minute cancellation or project changes. Also, a map published in 1950 may have had it's cartography done years earlier. I usually play it safe and say "Highway X first appeared in the official highway map in 19xx". See Wikipedia:Using maps and similar sources in Wikipedia articles. Although this specific case is about numerical designations changing, not alignments, the same basic principle applies. A map publisher could have shown proposed numerical changes that did not occur due to the project being postponed. Dave (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The MSHD/MDOT maps of Michigan will dash the lines and say "Under construction in <year>" in the legend, so again, situations with the publishers may vary. A lot hinges on the specific publisher being cited, so I caution against pairing maps from different years from different publishers. Imzadi 1979 → 18:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)