# Talk:Maryland Route 5

The article for Mattawoman Beantown Road should be merged into this article because it describes a section of MD 5 and it is very short. Dough4872 (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed -- I say it's pretty clear-cut that we can merge the two.  --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 01:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I wasn't aware.  I simply looked at the Editing Guide, which said for Junction Lists, to list all numbered junctions.  Although......That IS referring to the Junction list in the Infobox, right?  OR, is that referring to the master junction table in the main article?  If the latter, I'll run through my changes and make any updates if any are needed...  (Yeah, I'm new <g> )  Kumba42 (talk) 03:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It's referring to the table in the main article. There you want all the numbered route junctions, and if there are any major non-numbered routes (for example, Suitland Parkway), those should be included, too. In the infobox, it's best to keep the list short, because if every route is listed, the infobox gets really large, and in a short article like this one, a large infobox can sometimes mess up spacing. - Algorerhythms (talk) 03:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Gotcha, thanks for the tip! Kumba42 (talk) 03:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Maryland Route 5/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.


### Initial review
Looking good, very detailed and well supported by references. Full review to follow.


### Full Review
Good well detailed article that seems to pass all the criteria.
Here's a few comments in case there's interest in raising this to FA status.
It would be good to have a bit more detail on features along the route, such as beauty spots,  interesting sites, good places to stop for refreshment, etc. 
You could also possibly add some general human interest stories if you can find anything related. Ive read a couple of FA articles on bridges from editor Iridescent which had some great examples of the sort of stories that can be added to transport articles to spice them up a bit. 
Both in the lede and history section the word "by" is frequently used in sentences such as "MD 5 was designated by 1927"   Is there some uncertainty about the date the designation was made?  If not would be best to say "in 1927" which would be more precise for what is presumably a single event  - one expects to see the word by to describe the cut off point for a process that happened over a long period , such as "by 2003 the entire network of roads as it exists today was complete".
Just clutching as straws really, cant fault the article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hughesville has a business spur of MD 5 now, although SHA signs it on their HLR as MD 625.  But the actual signage displays a green-on-white business shield.  I asked one of the WP:USRD/Shields people to cook one up (discussion here):

The question is, what's the best way to use this in this article?  The specs are derived from official SHA sources on their site, and I have a picture here depicting its use at the intersection of MD 231/MD 5.  Most MD Business spurs appear to use the stacking of numbered route plus the business shield plate, but I haven't checked the signs around the St. Charles area nor Leonardtown yet to see if they're following the green version.
At minimum, I didn't see an easy way to get the Template:shban to reference it, so I thought I'd comment before attempting to poke at a GA article.  Also need to merge in MD 625's info as the starting point for the business spur in Hughesville, and correct a few articles linking to 625 to point here instead.  Thanks! Kumba42 (talk) 02:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Took discussion to Template talk:Shban to see if it can get modified. Dough4872 (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks like Template:shban is fixed.  I did a quick check, and it looks like MD 5 is the only MD highway covered that both has a business spur and uses Shban.  MD 3 might, but I haven't been up on that road, and it has its own, separate article anyways.  I've also got a small write up to add to the "Bannered Routes" section for Hughesville, but I'm unsure about editing due to the article's status as a GA. Kumba42 (talk) 01:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I added a section about the Hughesville business route to the article. Dough4872 (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Yup, heard about it on IRC.  Looks good, and gives me some ideas for further improving the articles I've written for Charles.  Thanks! Kumba42 (talk) 02:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Since MD uses both the green-on-white shield, would it make sense to set up Shban to do both?  I'll play with the template some more.  --Fredddie™ 02:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks like it'll work, but one of the options will have to change from BUS to BUSINESS, most likely the green-on-white will change to BUSINESS.  --Fredddie™ 03:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Maryland Route 5. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/rvdroz/1946dc.jpg
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)