# Talk:Minnesota State Highway 610

Somewhere along the line since this article passed its GAN review, some changes were made to the text of the article that needed to be reverted. Whenever there is a number in numeral form that is connected to a text phrase, meaning it can't stand on its own, it needs a non-breaking space (&nbsp;) instead of a regular space. This is to prevent the text and the numeral from falling on opposite sides of a line break. In other words, in "MN 610", the code for a non-breaking space has to be used instead of a regular space. This way the "MN" won't appear on the end of one line and the "610" at the beginning of the next. The same applies to US 10 or CR 81 as well.
A few names were placed in italics. That formatting change needed to be reverted. Per the MOS, italics are for emphasis, and the names did not need to be emphasized.
The exact formatting of the name of this highway in its legal definition is "Route 333", which is a proper name. The next sentence immediately after it does explain that legal number is not used on the roadway itself, making a previously inserted work unnecessary.
While I was editing and cleaning up, I updated the formatting of a few of the references, and I inserted the National Highway System information after the legal definition.  The article should now be in good shape again as far as the MOS and other standard practices go. Imzadi 1979 → 11:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I found a photo from the USDOT website to include in the article. If anyone finds any Mn/DOT-created photos, they can be added. (All MN government-created items are public domain using {{PD-MNGov}} as the license.) Imzadi 1979 → 12:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm waiting on word from Mn/DOT to get updated numbers on the highway. I'm hoping that they will be able to get me the MPs for the two interchanges so that I can update the length of the highway and the exit list table. Until then, please don't change these details without reliable information from a reliable source. Imzadi 1979 →  20:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Why does this page still say that the openings to Zachary and Elm Creek Blvd opened on the 19th?  They did not.  I drove by yesterday in the morning and again last night.  Not open. 66.41.190.92 (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
All reliable sources say that it was scheduled to open, and no reliable sources say it did not, in fact, open yesterday. Imzadi 1979 →  17:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

@Vcap36: you tagged the article, but it would be helpful to note here what needs updating. Without a least some clue, people can't dig up the necessary sources and apply the appropriate revisions. Imzadi 1979 →  18:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I noticed the phrase "The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has the project scheduled to start in late 2014" even though it is 2016. Vcap36 (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
You could have updated that much yourself, to change the verb tense from "... has the project scheduled to start in late 2014" to "... scheduled the project to start in in late 2014". If you're privy to additional information beyond that, you can also add it with an appropriate reference. Imzadi 1979 →  01:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The map with this article is out of date.  It only shows 610 reaching to what looks like approximately Osseo.  Whether it's intended to show it going to 169, or to 81, it's out of date, as it doesn't show the highway extending to 94.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.237.61.10 (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC) 

The map was updated, however something is weirdly keeping the line for the newer segment in the thinner width from before instead of expanding to the correct width when the server goes to render the map file. Imzadi 1979 → 17:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 Done I found the problem, fixed it, and re-uploaded the map. –Fredddie™ 02:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)