Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Texas/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

New infobox headers

If anyone's been following developments at WT:USRD lately, or looked at many highway articles recently, you'd have noticed that the header bars in the infobox switched to a green that's similar to guide sign green. There's also a brown for use on historic, scenic and park roads. The USRD guidelines that were crafted are that this color should only be used on highways that meet a two question test. 1) Is the road a named auto trail? 2) Is the road an historic, scenic or park road that uses brown signage? Green guide signage was developed in the 1950s for the Interstates, and if there were another standard for signage, it was developed after the auto trails. For that reason, the auto trails are using the brown=historic convention. As for part two, the roads that under NPS or NFS jurisdiction typically have either brown reassurance markers or use brown guide signage instead of green.

The reason I've repeating this here is that some Texas highway articles are using the brown type. Farm to Market Road 390 and Texas Recreational Road 2 have brown reassurance markers. That's fine. I just want to double check on cases like Texas Park Road 27, Texas State Highway OSR, or Ranch Road 1 to make sure things are good with respect to the guidelines. If certain type codes should blanket use the brown, let us know and we'll program the template to default that type to brown. Imzadi 1979 → 07:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that you can change the template code to designate the brown color on all Texas Park Roads by default. Although the reassurance markers have black on white shields similar to state highways, the routes serve state or national park areas that are so designated either for scenic or historic reasons. Guide signs along these roads are typically two brown posts holding brown pickets with gold lettering. As far as Ranch Road 1 and SH OSR, their unique designations are intended to set them apart from other roads. Ranch Road 1 runs through Lyndon B. Johnson National Historical Park, site of the former president's ranch, and the adjacent Lyndon B. Johnson State Park and Historic Site which includes the Sauer-Beckman Farmstead where park interpreters wear period clothes from the late 19th and early 20th Centuries while performing common routines of that time. Nearly the entire length of the route runs along the Pedernales River, a very popular waterway for white water rafters and kayakers. As far as SH OSR, the letters stand for Old San Antonio Road part of which the highway follows and was a road dating back to Spanish colonial times. Fortguy (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, we have a slight difference of understanding here. The guidelines for the brown headers from USRD are from a two-part test. 1) Is this article on a named auto trail, the named roadways that predate the US Highway System's formation in 1926? 2) Is either the reassurance marker, or the guide signage for the roadway in brown & white instead of black & white or green & white? If TxDOT signs Ranch Road 1 with green & white guide signage, then it should have a green header, not a brown one. According to what you said, the Park Roads have brown wooden guide signs, so they should be brown headers. What color are the guide signs on OSR? If they are green, the header needs switching. Imzadi 1979 → 19:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

With that understanding, I'll switch RR 1 and SH OSR to the default. Fortguy (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Park Roads and Rec Roads now default to brown, so there's no need to add |header_type=historic unless it's a one-time exception. Imzadi 1979 → 02:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

FMs not worthy of articles??

Apparently someone out there has taken issue with an FM having an article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Farm_to_Market_Road_752

I've done a LOT of work in the last several weeks on TX road articles, especially FM/RM ones. Now someone (obviously not someone with knowledge of WP's TX Road article efforts) thinks there's no reason or worthiness to having a road represented? OK, fine, sure, I haven't yet gotten fully up to speed on the constructs/ways/means on how articles should look, but I don't feel that an article that covers a real, legitimate subject that has other similar representation here already should get the boot. Please discuss. I hope I haven't wasted someone's time and bandwidth around here. Awtribute (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Two quick comments: 1) You should respond at the AfD discussion with your thoughts and concerns on the nomination. 2) When posting to a project's talk page about a new AfD nomination, a simple and neutrally worded statement should be used. When it isn't simple and neutral, others may suspect you of canvassing which is against policy. Keep your opinions to the AfD discussion, not here. BTW, I'm posting this at WT:USRD so that the national project will know. Imzadi 1979 → 10:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

FMs/RMs with undesignated Spurs

One thing I have seen as I've started the editing journey and looked over many MANY TX maps, is something I've not seen brought up here (or other online road-related forums) before. There are a few FMs/RMs with a sort-of built-in Spur, numbered the same as the FM/RM it's attached to, but not signed as

but rather as

I found one like this in Freestone County northwest of Teague on FM 1366 north of US 84. A spur is noted in the TxDOT Designation File listing, but if you look up by '1366', you won't find a Spur listing there. Yet, when you turn on the Spur road, you see this... Should these separate Spurs be placed within the FM/RM article (for the FM or RM they connect to), or should they be in with the Spur lists? I say the former, as TxDOT doesn't seem to track these Spurs like the pure Spur instances. Awtribute (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow! I knew that some FM roads had spurs but I always assumed they probably were signed with FM shields. I didn't know TxDOT gave them spur shields instead since none of the FM routes near where I live have spurs. At this point, what I would do is mention the spur route, its length, and year created in the "History" and "Route Description" sections of the article, since the spur is little more than half a mile long and doesn't seem to go anywhere notable. (One of the advantages of Google is that it lets you virtually "drive" small routes like that and see what is along the highway.)

One of the FM roads I've been lately meaning to expand beyond stub status is the much discussed FM 390 above because of its scenic designation by the Legislature and brown shield. It also has a spur road extending westward beyond the town of Independence. Although Independence is now a town of less than 200 people, during the days of the Republic of Texas to the end of the 19th Century it was considered a major community. The spur route goes to the original location of Baylor University, a Big 12 Conference school now located in Waco, and the University of Mary Hardin-Baylor in Belton which was formerly Baylor's women student's department although both schools are now co-ed. Baylor, along with Southwestern University in Georgetown, are the oldest universities in the state and the only ones I'm aware of that were chartered by the Congress of the Republic of Texas. Because that spur has that much to say about it, I'll probably give the spur a subheading within the article and use {{infobox road small}} similar to U.S. Route 54 in Texas#El Paso business loop. Fortguy (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure enough, I browsed thru Google Street View, and yes, there is a Spur sign there (even though the Google map of the area misleads you into thinking another road is the "2nd" FM 390). Unfortunately, the little Street View camera car didn't go down the Spur so no close-up there. Anyway, your instance is just like the one I found. Awtribute (talk) 06:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Something I forgot to ask, when you brought up the brown FM 390 sign. If it's not a Rec Road or a Park Road, yet TxDOT goes to the trouble to sorta make it look different, and the TIICs in Austin say it's a scenic route, why didn't they try to make the sign different (not necessarily the color or the state outline being different), but like having it say SCENIC ROAD (SCENIC being where the FARM or the RANCH or the R (for Rec Roads) would be)? I know, it's a long shot, but I've not seen a special separate scenic TX sign before. Awtribute (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It's recognized as scenic because the Texas Legislature said so:

Sec. 225.026. FARM-TO-MARKET ROAD 390; SCENIC HIGHWAY. (a) Farm-to-Market Road 390 in Washington County is a scenic highway.

(b) The department shall design and construct markers indicating the highway number, the designation as a scenic highway, and any other appropriate information.

(c) The department shall erect a marker at each end of the scenic highway and at intermediate sites along the highway that the department determines are appropriate.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.Transportation Code Chapter 225, State Highway Names

The route retains its Farm to Market designation and route number according to the statute. Changing the route shield to say "Scenic Road" would technically violate the statute by changing the Farm designation on the shield since the Legislature did not itself change the name of the road, but merely recognized it as scenic. The brown shield was probably what TxDOT decided was the most cost effective way to implement the legislative mandate. As far as why the Legislature did that, I have no clue. The Legislature does strange things. There is a historic distrust of the Legislature which is why it is limited to regular sessions that last only 140 days every two years with the local joke being that the printers of the 1876 Constitution accidentally transposed those numbers. Fortguy (talk) 06:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You can add FM 762 in Richmond, TX. Streetview has a good image of where the FM & spur meet on the south side of town. That's the only one I've run across so far. 25or6to4 (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This brings up another question: Do we add these spurs to List of state highway spurs in Texas with a notation in the "Notes" column explaining that they are FM spurs? FM 1 has had a spur at Magasco since 1954 which would overlap the existence of a former state highway spur with the same number in El Paso that existed until 1964. The Google StreetView pics don't show the shield with enough resolution to be able to read the text above the route number at neither the location where it branches off of FM 1[1] nor at its dead end.[2] Were these two routes sharing the same shield at the time? Are there any other FM spurs currently designated with the same route number as presently existing state highway spurs? Fortguy (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, {{Jct}} will look for a spur shield if you enter the type as FM-Spur.
Example:{{Jct|state=TX|FM-Spur|390}} gets you FM Spur 390 –Fredddie™ 00:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE... I've found more FMs with Spurs, FM 94 in Matador, FM 2361 in Memphis. FM 378 has 2...1 north of Lorenzo and 1 north of Floydada. Awtribute (talk) 13:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, FM 1 has one, although it isn't included in the junction list. Fortguy (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

New Spur issue

Up to now, since finding the FM/RM undesignated Spur occurrences, there have been no overlaps with any of the active regular Spurs. Last week, while putting together the South Plains portion of the FM/RM-by-county list, I discovered an FM Spur (54) in Petersburg (south of Plainview) and a regular active Spur in Harlingen (Spur 54). Whenever the articles are formulated for each, would there need to be some kind of top-of-article notation on each referencing the other (to somehow avoid confusion)? It's kind of hard to believe that TxDOT would let 2 different like-numbered Spurs (or any other kind of road) exist.Awtribute (talk) 13:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• For all the things TxDOT does right, I wouldn't have believed this issue existed until I saw it myself when I drove past "Spur 2361" in Memphis. That aside, I just ran into this issue when expanding FM 3's article; it has a spur signed as such, but there's an officially designated Spur 3 as well. To test out a suggestion, I created the Spur 3 article (I mean, why not?) and put a top-of-article "also see" note on it. Likewise, the FM 3 article has a "BTW, there's an actual Spur 3"-type note in it to provide a backlink. Thoughts? --Kinu ^t/_c 08:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Stub count update

Just an update to y'all. TXSH has 401 out of the 4917 stubs for all of USRD, or 8.15%. Any thoughts on where some can be expanded, merged or even *gasp* deleted to affect a reduction in the count? Imzadi 1979 → 21:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. We now have five states that are free of stubs: Michigan, Delaware, Iowa, Arizona and Minnesota, with the last two added to the list in the last 24 hours. Michigan, for the record, is also start-class free, the first state to do so earlier this week. Imzadi 1979 → 21:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Another update, Texas is still holding the top spot at 389 stubs. I'd like to propose merging the FM/RMs together into lists, RCS-style like List of Michigan County-Designated Highways or Business routes of Interstate 196. When future work on expanding the individual highway sections is enough, they can be split out of the list. Currently C-66 (Michigan county highway), F-41 (Michigan county highway), H-58 (Michigan county highway) and H-63 (Michigan county highway) have been split out of the list. Additionally, Forest Highway 16 (the "H-16" on state maps) has its own article. Each one has a summary in the main list though. If I eventually get them all split out, I'll convert the list into a table. In the mean time, dozens of potential stubs have been merged together into a more useful list. Imzadi 1979 → 19:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Should the FM/RM list be all 1 long list, or grouped like the Completion List pages (1-500, 501-999, etc) or grouped regionally (East TX, Panhandle, Rio Grande Valley, etc)? Awtribute (talk) 12:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd do regionally since you already have the regions defined well. Imzadi 1979 → 21:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, but if regional, how would you treat the occasional FM/RM that might overlap more than 1 region? Awtribute (talk) 12:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd list it in full on one list and link it from the other list. If hypothetical FM 1 is 50 miles in region A and 10 miles in region B, the list for region A should get the full listing. with a {{see also}} tag for the region B list. In the list for region B, insert the heading for FM 1 and a {{main}} tag pointing to the region A list's section on FM 1. Using the parameters in those templates, you can pipe the links to hide the #FM 1 anchor tag yet still direct the link to the specific subsection of the list. How does that sound? Imzadi 1979 → 19:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanx for the tip...so, without me having looked it up yet, is it known how much of TX' 389 stubs are made up of FM/RM articles? Are there plans for those stub articles that aren't about FMs/RMs? Awtribute (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

In Category:Stub-Class Texas road transport articles, there are about 175 FM/RMs, 2 Park Roads, 26 Loops, 16 Spurs. 8 misc (toll road, expressways, parkways, etc), 6 US Highways and an Interstate Highway. The remainder of the articles are 160 state highways for 390 in total. Just getting the total count down to those state highways would do a lot to improve the situation. The Loops/Spurs could be merger/redirect targets into other articles or lists. Since the FM/RMs are the largest segment of the category, and their notability can be questioned by non-USRD editors, they make a good starting point. Imzadi 1979 → 20:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Since I haven't done this kind of page from scratch before, and don't know all the syntax ins/outs, how can I get the next article to start after the bottom of the previous article's infobox if the previous article's text is shorter than it's infobox? Also, I'm guessing there's no way to isolate each article's set of references separately for each article? Awtribute (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a template, {{-}} that if you insert just before the next heading, it will force a clear space. Then the next heading will get its own full line. As for the references, they'll all run together in the same list. There is a way to create separate lists using the group= parameter. <ref name=Foo group=Bar>Reference here...</ref> will create something like ^{[Bar 1]} for the footnote tag. Then use {{reflist |group=Bar}} to group all of the Bar references together. I only use this technique to separate footnotes that are explanatory (group=note) from regular reference footnotes, and I wouldn't really recommend it for this sort of list. Imzadi 1979 → 22:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, was a big help to have that "-" template. I've only listed 3 counties in East TX so far and I'm already getting the "this article is 56 kilobytes long" message. Is the length going to be a problem or does it matter? BTW, if you'd like to see my progress, let me know what you think of what I've done so far. Awtribute (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Look good, except the headings shouldn't be put in italics. The infoboxes should be switched to {{infobox road small}}, which is much smaller and more compact. The "Major intersections" headings should be switched up a little bit. Instead of wrapping the heading with == ==, place a semicolon (;) at the start of the line. That will make the line bold without making it a heading. It gets to be a bit of a problem having multiple headings with the same name. Any roads that only have their termini listed in the table could have the table removed completely. Imzadi 1979 → 22:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Templates versus Lists of highways in counties

Off hand, I'm not sure how many of these there are, but in some counties, there is a list of highways in the county and a template listing the highways in that county.

Example:

• List of highways in Brazos County, Texas
• Template:Brazos_County,_Texas_Highways

I think there should be one or the other, but not both. The information in the lists would be better suited for the highway articles themselves. In some instances, like the business highways, there is more information on the list than there is in the actual article. The templates are easier to maintain as well – just set it and forget it. That being said, I support the templates.

I will post this on WT:USRD to get more voices in this discussion. –Fredddie™ 22:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the Ron Popeil style with the templates.That being said, I have decided to convert the by-county templates in Michigan to by-region templates at a later date. Otherwise you could end up with several templates on some articles. Imzadi 1979 → 22:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I much prefer templates to county lists and agree with all sentiment expressed by Fredddie. I am mixed on the scope for the templates. I only support regional templates if the regions are well known and well defined with minimal or no dissent on what constitutes a region. Unless there are very few articles to link from a county template, I personally favor county templates. I agree that some articles could have lots of templates, but I do not think that is really a problem.  VC  22:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Between having a standalone list or a template, I would favor the list. However, the highways that are within a county can simply be listed in the county article, making both unnecessary. Dough4872 01:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

If there are multiple templates, they can be grouped with {{Navbox with collapsible groups}}. The reader of an article is likely to be interested in other routes nearby, so I think the navboxes facilitate that. Fortguy (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Discrepancies in article layout

There are discrepancies in how the state subproject directs editors regarding article layout. Most Texas articles that have the main three article section have layouts in the following order per WP:TXSH#Structure: History, Route description, Major intersections or Exit list. WP:USRD/STDS#Article layout, however, puts the history section after the route description section. Changing the guidelines to conform with the national project would involve checking close to 140 class C or higher articles for editing. Also, the Texas subproject's guidelines for a "Notes" article section could lose the reference to oddities and trivia since Wikipedia generally encourages putting that stuff in the article prose rather than creating trivia lists. Fortguy (talk) 02:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say having each of the three sections is more important the order. I'd say go ahead and change the TXSH guidelines, but don't make changing the C-class-plus articles a high priority. –Fredddie™ 03:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

If you want to switch the sections around I can write some code for AWB that will do it fairly simply. You could do 140 articles in under an hour. I will even do the edit if you want me too. It won't take long at all. --Kumioko (talk) 03:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Would the bot also move Wikilinks to the first reference? For example, if both sections mention the town of, say, Glen Rose, would the bot move the blue link(Glen Rose) to the new first reference and unlink the new subsequent reference? Fortguy (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't completely understand but I believe the answer is no. It would basically copy each section in its entirety and move it to the new location. If you want me to delink the second link so its only linked ones there is a way I can do that too but that's a little trickier and I don't think thats what you want judging by the tone of your words. --Kumioko (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This should get pretty close but I would need to test it before I could be positive. There is a margin of error to this as well so I wouldn't recommend it as a bot task. It wouldn't be hard to glance at it to see if its right before you click save though.

Find

==([ ]*)History[ ]*==(.*?)==[ ]*Route[ _]+description[ ]*==(.*?)==

Replace

==$1Route description$1==$3==$1History$1==$2== --Kumioko (talk) 03:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that the section order should be determined by which order makes for the easiest/most interesting read. These are guidelines on how to write an article, that assume all other factors are equal. These are not absolute standards. The USRD project has had article pass FAC reviews with the history section first, Interstate 355 for example. Dave (talk) 05:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Normally I tend to go on the side of standardization but since I dont actively participate in the project normally Ill let you folks decide how you want to handle things. I will continue to monitor the conversation for a determination once you get concensus. --Kumioko (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Also, I did manually swap the order of two sections in a road article once, Interstate 70 in Utah, per requests that it might sound better reversed. It is not as easy as it sounds, and I would be concerned about having a bot do it. Problems range from changing all the wikilinked terms as after the sections are swapped, there are now terms that are used multiple times before being wikilinked. Also, in a couple of cases I had to re-write entire paragraphs as concepts are now explained in the 2nd section, but referenced in the first. From my experience it was more trouble that it was worth. Dave (talk) 05:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Good points and I agree that semiautomated using AWB is the best way. Doing it with a bot for a task like this is risky and would certainly do harm to some articles. --Kumioko (talk) 05:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

For the record, Interstate 37 is one that has passed an A class review with the History section first.

I agree with the others. The standards should be read to reflect only that the junction list (Major intersections or Exit list) should normally be one of the last items on the article, above any business loops/related routes merged into the article. Then you get the stuff like See also, References, Further reading, External links, etc at the very end. History then RD or RD then History are both valid structures and should be used as appropriate. Imzadi 1979 → 06:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree to some extent. In New York, the junction list is always the last item on the page, below any suffixed or special routes of the article route. I think it's jarring to the reader to have a large table in the middle of what would otherwise be a solid block of prose. Whether or not other projects feel the same way or do the same thing is up to them, but it's what I think results in the best article. – TMF 15:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

On the state subproject's page, I have moved the history section after the road description, and I have removed the notes subsection. I will undergo a review of the whole article layout section comparing it to the national standard and rewrite it where necessary to reflect local conditions. Fortguy (talk) 16:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to re-ordering the sections in the guideline. However, I would request that the guideline explicitly state that there should be no mass changes to articles that are already developed. (By developed I saying probably about B class or higher). Having a history section come first is perfectly legitimate and it would be Procrustean (excessively and illogically enforcing conformity) to reduce the quality of a developed article just to be consistent with a non-enforceable guideline. Dave (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

When I write a road article, I prefer the order route description/history/junction list. However, there are a few A-class and FAs such as Interstate 37 and Interstate 68 that have the history section first and I was told this was fine. However, the junction list should always follow the route description and history. In addition, if any special routes (alternate, business, etc.) are discussed in the article, they should be included below the junction list. Dough4872 19:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

FM/RM lists

I would like to start merging FMs and RMs into lists post-haste. Has there been any discussion on how to do it? I think the best way is to go by number, such as List of Texas Farm to Market Routes (1-50). I would include RMs on the FM lists and have List of Texas Ranch to Market Routes (1-50) redirect to the FM list. Any thoughts? –Fredddie™ 03:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Could you be more specific... are you actually talking about a merge of the content, or simply creating additional lists with basic information linked to the parent articles? While there are a fair number of articles that might not get past stub status, I feel there are plenty of FM/RM articles that are relatively fleshed out or have significant potential to be fleshed out (i.e., during the WP:USRD destubbing process) and would be wary of the content lost in an actual merger (for example, by merging a B-class article like FM 1 with 49 other articles of varying quality). --Kinu ^t/_c 06:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  • An actual merger of all articles or Stub- or Start- or C-Class length. List of Michigan County-Designated Highways of Former Michigan spur routes are templates for what we call the Rockland County Scenario. Basically, any article that's B-Class would get get summarized like C-66, F-41, H-58, etc have been in the CDH list, and the rest are merged in with the smaller infobox variant. Junction lists are typically stripped out if they only list the termini. (In other words, if the highway has no other "major" junctions beyond its termini, save the space and reduce the clutter in the list by omitting the table.) As entries in the list are expanded, they can be split back out into full articles, leaving a summary behind in the list. Until then, they get merged/redirected into the list. C-Class for a stand-alone article only requires the RD, History and JL sections to be present, but that's no guarantee they're substantially complete. Even some B-Class articles result in something so short that it can be merged into the list without a loss of content.
    As a side note, Texas' stub situation can produce frustration in the active editing pool of the project from other states. For every stub created in Texas, another state has to expand/merge/delete two stubs to move the project goal forward. This is because the goal is a net reduction off the total from midnight UTC on January 1. The last round of TX stubs created almost put the project negative on the 2011 goal. Please don't misunderstand, articles on notable roadways should be created where they don't exist, but creating new stubs while attempting to drop the total can be disheartening. And yes, we've sent stubs off to AfD or tagged them with a PROD if the roadway isn't notable in the name of stub reduction. Imzadi 1979 → 08:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I realize I'm new to the project, but of course not to Wikipedia, so I feel comfortable in being vocal about this. :) I suppose I'm not entirely convinced, or perhaps it's the Texan in me trying to defend my state's highway system. I see your examples as somewhat "apples and oranges"... you refer to highways which are at the county level in scope and defunct spur routes, whereas the FM/RM system is state-designated with numbers unique throughout the entire state... unlike, say, Virginia's secondary system, where numbers repeat and some of the routes are cul-de-sacs. After all, there are some FM/RM routes that are significantly more notable, longer, run through multiple counties, have a higher AADT, etc., than those in the "primary" SH system. Indeed, one could see the FM/RM system is more of an "overlay" system rather than a "secondary" system, ultimately a necessity due to the size of the state.
      I do see how the stub situation can be frustrating for the Roads project in its entirity, but merging/deleting stubs rather than attempting to improve them in some way seems like the easy way out (as far as the destubbing drive goes or otherwise), IMHO. The way I see it, there doesn't seem to be any reason that these articles should be stubs, given that TxDOT is very transparent (via its route descriptions, its county mapbook, etc.) and with a little TLC creating the "Route description / History / Major intersections" format to get an article beyond stub is quite doable for any route with a little effort. (Personally I wouldn't mind taking the initiative on that... I've attempted to start at the beginning and improve, for example, FM 2 and FM 3... I figure looking at those and possibly reassessing those might not be a bad idea.) Start-class (and higher) articles aren't necessarily a detraction to the project, IMHO, given the old Wikipedia is not paper company line (although I do agree that some of these routes might not have much to say.) Given that, there are other questions: if we do end up with, say, fifty sequentially numbered Start- or C- class articles, would merging all fifty articles into one ultimately make for an unwieldy list? Why fifty and not a smaller value? Ultimately, does organizing them numerically make sense, given that sequentially numbered FM/RMs might be on opposite ends of the state? That aside, if the value is going to be a relatively low number, why not simply have one article per route after all? It seems there needs to be significant consensus before anything should happen. Perhaps you're right in that creating additional stubs might not be a good idea at this time, but attempting to actually improve the ones we have might be a good experiment in seeing whether a merger is feasible and/or necessary. --Kinu ^t/_c 09:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
    • As an aside, I'll make it a point to attempt to destubbify the 20-something stubs I'd created over the past few days, before I realized the destubbifying goal. I think I'm finally seeing the (obvious) difference between a Stub-class and a Start-class article, so that should be a piece of cake. :) --Kinu ^t/_c 10:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
      • The examples given were only to illustrate the concept, not as a direct comparison. (Although the CDH system is a single, state-wide system numbered in a grid system as a pseudo-secondary highway system in the state.) As for merging/deleting stubs, many of the mergers aren't into lists, but rather merging business routes or suffixed routes into their parent highways' articles. The other night I merged Chicago – Kansas City Expressway with its Illinois component, Illinois Route 110. The next result was two stubs merged to make a Start-Class article. (IL-110 only exists as a route overlaid on top of the IL section of the CKC to give it single, yet redundant, number to the route.) The only stubs that have been deleted are on non-notable subjects. They'd have been tagged for deletion at some point, even if they were Start-Class or higher. (We've even successfully AfDed a Featured List once on notability grounds which resulted in the loss of a Featured Topic.) If the subject of the article warrants a longer article, expand! :) Seriously, the overall project has reached a general point where the focus is on expanding existing articles instead of creating them. (I work mostly with Michigan, and I'm slowly sending all of the remaining articles through the GAN process now that they're all a C-Class or higher.) Where some are essentially perma-stubby (like the former spurs in MI), a list that combines them in one place is easier to maintain the dozens of microstubs that just meet the notability guidelines. The goal is to minimize maintenance and maximize editor resources.
        Now, I had originally proposed organizing the lists on a regional basis. I'm not entirely comfortable with a purely numerical organization like Fredddie proposed (except to keep the content in a list in numerical order). There's List of Farm to Market Roads in Texas and the 10 sublists. My original idea was to merge the permastubs into the sublists, splitting the lists in half or thirds if needed. Another idea would be to do lists by county (yes, I know, 254 counties...) for all of the single-county perma-stubs.
        At one time I helped with an article on a FM or Rec road. It was under 10 miles long and from the Google Maps satellite view, it looked like all it did was connect a reservoir or lake to the main road. There weren't any landmarks long the way, leaving little to describe about it. Merge the short RD with the lead, remove the headers to leave a paragraph on RD and a paragraph on the history, and shrink the infobox. It was a prime merger candidate. With nothing much more to say, it would have made a fine addition to a list, if one had been available as a merger target. I guess that's the sort of article we're seeing for this, but of course the longer articles need to have summaries in their spots in the lists to make the concept work. Imzadi 1979 → 10:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) I have no doubts that there are some FM/RM routes that are notable, and those routes should have articles. However, my gut reaction with the FM/RM system is that there are way more routes that don't have a lot to say than there are routes with something to say. While I don't know the exact number of FM/RM routes in the state, since the numbers go over 3500, there are potentially 3500 articles that could look like this. So merging all these routes into lists is part stub reduction and part perma-stub prevention. If a good article can be fleshed out, by all means do it! The project's method for merging these routes allows for you to expand out while keeping a summary of the route in the list.
      • I, too, live in a state where there is an extensive farm-to-market road network (Iowa). While Iowa's FtM roads are at the county level and Texas's are at the state level, I think they're exactly equivalent. I could probably argue to no end about how the system is where FtM/FM/RM roads' notability lies and not the individual routes themselves, but I think I'd lose that discussion. As such, there is only one article about a route on Iowa's FtM network, and it was created before I became seriously active here.
      • As for the number, I was just throwing out an arbitrary number for discussion. With these lists, it seems somewhere between 25-50 routes is the limit before the page starts getting unwieldy even for people on broadband connections. Would you think regional lists or by-county lists would be a more logical way to create these lists? –Fredddie™ 10:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
        • I do agree that this is a sticky situation... one one hand, you're probably right in saying that some FM/RM routes aren't all that important... but on the other, I still feel like that none of these routes "should" be permanent stubs, given the information that's out there. Looking at the example you gave of the FM 2519 article, I'm kind of the devil's advocate to myself... yes, it was relatively easy to turn it from this to this, but at the same time, while we are talking about a route in an urban area, there really isn't that much to say about it. While I did add a reference and clean up the prose, one could say that the edits I made were ultimately more cosmetic than anything, even though it'd probably be upgradeable to Start-class.
          I guess trying to find an efficient system might take some thought. I am advocate of doing this logically... I feel like destubbifying these might have some sort of psychological effect and reduce our perceived need to merge them, so those of us in Texas subproject should probably see if we can't reduce the number of stubs, even if it is through basic cleanup such as the FM 2519 article... and then coming back to the question and trying to determine if we actually have a need to do anything about the articles. --Kinu ^t/_c 11:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
          • I think the "solution" creates a whole host of new problems. My preference would be concentrate on stub elimination while upgrading stubs to at least C-class. There really isn't any reason to have any stub or start articles in Texas with the wealth of resources TxDOT provides. The lists pose their own problems. As Kinu mentioned above, Grouping lists numerically results in unrelated roads in far-flung parts of the state being grouped together. Grouping roads by region or county creates its own maintenance problems with countless roads appearing redundantly in two or more lists. Creating the lists would be another huge challenge. With 25-50 roads per list, we're talking about creating at least 75-140 separate lists with junction lists, establishment dates, and other basic info the lists would require researched. Personally, I've lately turned my attention away from the FM roads and concentrated on destubbing SH routes and federally designated routes as fixing these seems to me to be a higher priority. If all Texas articles are destubbed, then I believe we can then have what I see as the luxury of discussing what to do about FM roads. As for Rec Roads, I agree that the proposed list format would be ideal for now, although RE 255 should have its own article since, as a former FM road, it is much longer than all the rest and is located in three separate counties. Fortguy (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

*Just to let you guys know, we have a gentleman's agreement about assessment around USRD. Basically if you have something that obviously fits the formula, you can reassess your own articles up to C-Class without flagging it for someone else. Of the Big Three (RD, History, JL) if it has none or one section=Stub, two sections=Start, all three=C. If a section is gibberish or essentially missing, feel free to discount its existence for assessment. Imzadi 1979 → 03:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

US Collaboration reactivated & Portal:United States starting next

Casliber recently posted a suggestion on the talk page for WikiProject United States about getting the US Wikipedians Collaboration page going again in an effort to build up articles for GA through FA class. See Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTM. After several days of work from him the page is up and ready for action. A few candidates have already been added for you to vote on or you can submit one using the directions provided. If you are looking for inspiration here is a link to the most commonly viewed articles currently under the scope of Wikiproject United States. There are tons of good articles in the various US related projects as well so feel free to submit any article relating to US topics (not just those under the scope of WPUS). This noticeboard is intended for ‘’’All’’’ editors working on US subjects, not just those under WPUS.

The next item I intend to start updating is Portal:United States if anyone is interested in helping. Again this is not specific to WPUS and any help would be greatly appreciated to maximize visibility of US topics. The foundation has already been established its just a matter of updating the content with some new images, biographies and articles. Please let leave a comment on the Portals talk page or let me know if you have any questions or ideas. --Kumioko (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Historic map templates

I have created the following templates for citing online historic highway maps hosted by the Texas State Library and Archives Commission:

• {{TxDOT 1917 map}}
• {{TxDOT 1919 map}}
• {{TxDOT 1922 map}}
• {{TxDOT 1926 map}}
• {{TxDOT 1928 map}}
• {{TxDOT 1933 map}}
• {{TxDOT 1936 map}}

All of these templates support the accessdate= parameter, and the 1933 template also supports section= as that map has grid references in the margin. Fortguy (talk) 03:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Toll road shields changed color scheme

In the most recent (2010 Revision 3) Standard Highway Sign Designs for Texas [3], TxDOT has changed the toll road shield to appear as white on blue, rather than the previous blue on white. With the help of Imzadi 1979 I have edited the existing toll road shields in Commons to reflect the new scheme, and have saved them with new names. They appear in commons:Category:Texas State Highway Toll shields. -- Gridlock Joe (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

RFC on coordinates in highway articles

There is currently a discussion taking place at WT:HWY regarding the potential use of coordinates in highway articles. Your input is welcomed. --Rschen7754 02:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Help Improve Texas Projects and Portals

This is an open invitation to anyone interested in helping to update the information on the various Texas projects and portals. The information is generally out-of-date, sometimes by years. Every little bit helps. Every small improvement adds to the larger whole. Together, we can get the Texas pages to look current and helpful to visitors.

These two Category links will take you to the various pages:

• Category:Texas portals
• Category:WikiProject Texas

Anyone interested in improving the basic look and structure, could open a WP:RfC. Dialogue is good for the project.

These are areas I see could be improved, in addition to miscellaneous information on the portal and project pages:

• Participant lists could be divided in to two separate lists: Active, and Inactive participants
• Task lists that require monitoring, can be somewhat automated by replacing the individual topic items with category page links
• Eliminate duplication of efforts. Inter-connect the like sections in different pages to a singular template.

As an example, I already updated the Open Tasks on WikiProject Texas, and the Things You Can Do on the Texas portal. These are exactly the same information, but point to two different templates. In a perfect world, these two pages would point to the same template, but they don't - possibly due to page formatting. I updated the templates they point to, so at least the individual items will point to Wiki links that would, in essence, make the list items self-updating. But it would be better if both pointed to only one template.

-Maile66 (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed restructuring of USRD

There is a proposal to demote all state highway WikiProjects to task forces; see WT:USRD. --Rschen7754 05:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)