# Talk:U.S. Route 163

An anon editor (not me) added a Navajo  Nation Highway as a junction list, only to see it get reverted, re-added and re-re-verted in a 12 hour period. For the record the anon editor is right. See the 2nd photo on this page: http://www.geocities.com/usend6069/End163/end163.htm
I don't get it, this highway is on the Navajo Nation, a semi-autonomous nation within the states of AZ, UT, and NM. The Navajo Nation does have their own department of transportation and does both jointly maintain US and state highways that pass through their lands as well as have their own system of highways. Why is it inappropriate to mention them in a Wikipedia article? If nobody can explain this to me I think it should be re-added Davemeistermoab (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Route 591 doesn't appear to be a major road, and its inclusion wouldn't seem to help the reader. --NE2 18:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, The highway shows up on both ADOT and NDOT's maps on their websites, but not by number, so I cede the point. ADOT's map: http://www.arizonaguide.com/interactivemap/default.asp NDOT's map: http://www.navajodot.org/content.asp?CustComKey=283301&CategoryKey=283302&pn=LinksInt&domname=navajodot.org Davemeistermoab (talk) 19:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure that these aren't maintained by the Bureau of Indian Affairs? They are marked as "BIA roads" on the map. --NE2 20:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe (not sure) that the BIA roads are the 4 digit ones. In either case, I'm sure at least some funding comes from the BIA regardless. I'm by no means an expert on Navajo tribal politics Davemeistermoab (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I am planning on getting this article ready to be submitted for a GA nomination, but I need some help from the Utah side of the border.  Any help would be appreciated.  Thanks.  --Holderca1 talk 15:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I can help, but probably not until Thursday or Friday. Please list what you'd like me to look into. IMO, the article still needs some cleanup. The biggest Q is the year formed. According to this article the re-alignment of US highways in the Four Corners was in 1971, according to U.S. Route 491 it was in 1970. (US 491 is also close to GA status is on my get around to it list). I think the US-491 article is better sourced. Other nit-pics with the US-163 article: stuff is bolded that shouldn't be. Dave (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow, that was a quick response.  Yeah, I wasn't planning on submitting it today, so no big rush, the Arizona side needs work as well.  According to the ADOT files, it was in 1970, so it looks like the article is incorrect.   --Holderca1 talk 16:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
One thing I have noticed is a lack of history prior to 1970.  If you have some history for UT 47, that would be helpful.  --Holderca1 talk 17:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Good work, I agree with most of the changes you made, I disagree with 3.  

- Northern Terminus. Originally listed as I-70. If we're going to list U.S. Highways, then US6 and US 50 should be also included, they are also present at this junction. Personally I think it should just be I-70. Also, the article is now inconsistent, saying 64 miles in the lead, 200 miles in the infobox. I think it is appropriate to mention that its only signed for 64 miles, but on paper exists for 200.
- I think Navajo 42 should be included in the junctions list. I have 3 reasons. 1- Monument Valley IS the main focus of this highway, and the primary attracion on it, yet we're not going to list the junction that leads to the visitors centor or the primary View area, John Ford point?  2- It's on the official ADOT highway map (Arizona loves to claim Monument Valley as theirs =-) ). It is also on the UDOT official map, but not mentioned by number. 3- its way more notable than Navajo 591, which is mentioned in the prose in the article's current state.
- If the article is going to use the paper definition and ignore the signed definition (which is what the article now does except for the lead), the map should be redone. The map only shows the 64 signed miles. Personally only roadgeeks know about the other 150 miles of this highway. IMO the article should stick mostly to the signed definition and mention that it technically extends to I-70 in the Utah and or History sections. Dave (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
OK I added my cleanup for the Utah portion. I did partially undo some of your changes per my concerns above. If you disagree we can discuss.Dave (talk)
Well, it is still a work in progress, so that may account for some of the concerns you have above.
I listed US 191 in the infobox to try and get across that there is a concurrency there, but you are right, its shouldn't be there, just I-70 will work.  I updated the infobox and didn't catch it in the lead, it should be 200 in both places.  If we have a reliable source stating that the US 191 section is unsigned, then yes I agree with that.
The UDOT route log says "route ends" at bluff then says "concurrency begins". That doesn't directly state the above but strongly implies it. I have photos of the Moab and Crescent Jct. area that only show US 191 signed. I could upload one if you want.Dave (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I know using a photo as a ref to show the same thing was questioned at FA, but I am sure it will be sufficient to go through a GA review.  --Holderca1 talk 13:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, I generally only put state maintained highways in the junction list with the rare exception here and there.  I think the BIA 42 meets that criteria.  I added BIA 591 to the prose when I rewrote the route description for the Arizona section.  I didn't touch the Utah section and since BIA 42 intersects the highway on the Utah side of the border, it didn't get added in the prose yet.  As far as Arizona claiming Monument Valley, I have seen a lot of tourist information from Utah advertising the north rim of the Grand Canyon pretty heavily as if it was in Utah (although it is easier to access from Utah), so I think that Arizona is just returning the favor. :)
I agree, the map needs to be redone.  I think it needs to be redone regardless since it doesn't even show the highways that US 163 terminates at.  I will comment it out for now and request a replacement.
--Holderca1 talk 13:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
One more thing, we should be consistent, The Utah scenic byway designations are listed in the route description. The AZ designations are in the history.Dave (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed that the UDOT links are broken.  --Holderca1 talk 14:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, would mentioning any movies, etc... depicting the highway itself be worth mentioning or would that be getting too trivial?  --Holderca1 talk 14:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have this debate all the time. I'm towards no. There's been so many movies, tv shows, etc. filmed in Monument Valley, that once you start a list, surely it's going to blow up. On another note, the lead is now way too technical. Nobody but roadgeeks care about AASHTO, nobody outside of roadgeeks care that there is a discrepancy in the AASHTO logs verses UDOT signage. IMO this stuff should generally be kept out of the lead. For non-roadgeeks I think it would be a fact overload.Dave (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Although, not all the movies show the highway, which is what I was trying to get at.  As for the lead, I was just trying to do a brief summary of the history, I will try to rework it a bit.  --Holderca1 talk 15:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, did Utah petition AASHTO to have that section of US 163 removed?  It doesn't really say whether they ever asked or not.  If they did ask, why were they declined?  --Holderca1 talk 15:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The Highway resolution PDF used as a source, has a scanned copy of the approved motion to reincarnate US-191, and a scanned copy of the rejected motion to extend (then) US-666 (now US-491). Neither motion mentions US-163, and the motions directly related to US-163 are not included in this PDF. In other words, I don't know.Dave (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thats fine, the only big thing that I can see that needs fixed is the two broken UDOT links.  I would fix them, but I have a feeling you are more familiar with the UDOT site than I.  --Holderca1 talk 18:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, reworked the history part of the lead.  --Holderca1 talk 16:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind about the links, their website must of just had a temporary problem, they seem to be working fine now.  I have nominated the article for GA as I don't see any glaring problems with the article.  --Holderca1 talk 18:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

The article is beautiful Holderca1,  I really feel that this meets all criteria. Good job man.Mitch32contribs 14:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I can't take all the credit though.  As you can see above, this was joint effort between myself and Dave.  --Holderca1 talk 17:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Polaron recently changes this article to reflect some supposed truncation by UDOT, but all the references still show the old length. Maybe this is correct, but it needs references. Will give a couple days to dig up the info before reverting. DeFaultRyan (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

See this and this. The UDOT logs probably won't reflect the change until the time they usually update their logs (once a year perhaps?). --Polaron | Talk 21:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Cool, nice find. Only wished you had put that link in the article as a source. Thanks for finding that.Dave (talk) 04:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Recently an anonymous editor added the following:
Another proposal would have US 163 run along Arizona State Route 98, U.S. Route 89, U.S. Route 89A, Arizona State Route 389, State Route 59, and State Route 9 to I-15 north of St. George.
At a minimum this needs to be tweaked, as the rest of the paragraph is sourced via UDOT logs, and this proposal is not mentioned anywhere in the UDOT logs. So, as written this is misleading. However, the bigger question is, is this true? sources, anybody heard of this before? Dave (talk) 21:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

OK nobody's defending the addition. I'm Undoing it. Dave (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on U.S. Route 163. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080625073807/http://tpd.az.gov/data/reports/2006SHSLog.pdf to http://tpd.az.gov/data/reports/2006SHSLog.pdf
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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on U.S. Route 163. 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:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.transportation.org/sites/route/docs/US%20Routes%20Application.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080711120003/http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE72/htm/72_04_012200.htm to http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE72/htm/72_04_012200.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Someone has removed Navajo Highway 42 from the junctions list (amazingly this was done several months ago and nobody apparently noticed) Checking the Navajo DOT's webpage, Highway 42 is still designated and mantained, see thsi 2012 map (the most recent they have available) [1] so I'll re-add it. Dave (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)