Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 6

message: Check it out. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the laugh -- master_sonTalk -  Edits 23:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Song/We didn't start the fire (Roads)]] 

message: Click here. --MPD T / C 17:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the laugh -- master_sonTalk -  Edits 23:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Laugh a little

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.—Scott5114↗ 06:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:Montana State Highways}} 

message: State Route 1002 (Lehigh County, Pennsylvania) is up for deletion, please vote to keep the article. -- JA10 T · C 20:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The perfect example of a secondary state highway that is notable. -- NORTH talk 21:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I tried my best to do a makeover of this article. -- JA10 T · C 21:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was the nomer's first edit. Probably will be speedy closed. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And it was. Which goes to show, an AFD doesn;t necessarily mean a deletion. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: True. lol --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD! 

message: I just got an idea: why not have a bot (maybe VshBot?) keep a log of all USRD articles that have a cleanup tag? Something like this:
Name                      	WikiProject	Importance	Class	Reason needing cleanup
Colorado State Highway 121	none       	          	     	No lead
Everett Turnpike          	WP:NHSH    	          	     	Exit list not compliant with WP:IH/ELG.
Indiana State Road 205    	WP:INSR    	          	     	Needs more sources and expansion.
...and so on. WikiProject, importance, and class could probably be parsed easily from the talk page. Also, this would make it easier to pick out high-importance articles needing cleanup or those of a higher class that just need some polishing. You could also see all the cleanup reasons at once, so you can pick out things you're interesting in working on. Would this help anyone, or would it just be a lot of effort spent for no real gain? —Scott5114↗ 15:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if we need this or not for cleanup.  However, it might be justified simply as a way to compare the various articles in different ways.  That's not something you can easily do with categories.  So with a list, you could look at all stubs that are high importance and pick a few to work on.  Vegaswikian 19:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot to keep track of cleanup-tagged articles? 

message: At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 5#Infoboxes for U.S. route bannered routes, I attempted to gain consensus on whether or not to use a dedicated infobox on articles regarding bannered U.S. routes. From the comments that were left, I sense that there was some misunderstanding regarding what I was trying to say. For clarity, here's exactly what I'm proposing:
On U.S. Route 62 Business (Niagara Falls, New York), the infobox is Infobox U.S. Route with "type=Business" passed. On U.S. Route 7 Alternate (Burlington, Vermont), the infobox is Infobox road with "state=VT" and "type=US Business" passed. Only one infobox should be used, and that infobox should be Infobox U.S. Route. Why the need for a single method, and why should Infobox U.S. Route be used? Note that different links appear at the bottom of the infobox depending on which is used. On Infobox U.S. Route, five links pertinent to U.S. routes are displayed. On Infobox road in the example above, one link to the Vermont state highway page is shown. Needless to say, the five U.S. route links are more relevant to the route than the single Vermont link.
Additionally, as I stated in the original proposal, since the browse row in the infobox is a non-issue, as these articles are not to be included in any browses per WP:USRD/INNA, the state that the route is in is a non-issue is well, making  suitable for this purpose.
There is also the issue of Interstate loops and spurs, but we'll tackle that once this issue is settled. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 16:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infoboxes, part two 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/19th century turnpikes in Massachusetts --NE2 15:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion discussion 

message: After seeing some state WikiProjects heading to the trash bin (aka get "demoted"), I wonder if it is possible to create a multistate project (e.g. California and Nevada State Highways WikiProject). Sorry if this is a perennial proposal. For people who don't recognize me, I used to be called "Physicq210," from the State Highway Naming War of 2006. —Kyриx 03:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at this point, as we are trying to get the current projects up to par before creating any more :) In the future, it might be, if there is something that small (maybe some of the outlying states and territories like Alaska, Puerto Rico.,..) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhh, no...the scope would be too broad per Wikipedia:WikiProject. V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路) 03:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhh, how would it be too broad when WP:USRD exists?  There's nothing wrong if a WP assimilates a dead state WikiProject; this has essentially already happened in Canada and USRD.  --myselfalso 04:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes it easier to split later if the projects stay separate, even if only in name. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I didn't mean by creating new ones (I know it is impractical). I meant combining several states' projects and/or "task forces." —Kyриx 03:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My concern is that it will be too hard to separate them again... but I've been thinking about project adoption... one project being temporarily adopted by another... this, in fact, is happening in Canada de facto. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Splits will naturally occur when the subproject gets too big, would it not? However, the "Canada highway solution" seems quite useful. —Kyриx 03:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is also happening with states that don't have a project yet—Delaware will be controlled by PASH and NJSCR. V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路) 04:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will be, or already are? —Kyриx 04:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Already are.  I would've also put MDRD in there as well, but that project is so bad it's not even funny. V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路) 04:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But in my example above, would it be feasible for the California project to "adopt" the Nevada one? Or should I bring this up at WP:CASH? —Kyриx 04:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah... not sure how to go about this as I just came up with the idea :) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the proposal will essentially make it a two-state subproject... —Kyриx 04:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather that the projects stayed separate, but CA editors could help with NV. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multistate Highway Projects 

message: For states with their own US Route shields, is it possible to fix up the state highway infobox so that if the next route is a US Route, then it will show the state-specific shield?  I suppose it could also be useful in a "U.S. Route X in Y" article as well.  I have noticed Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa have their own shields, but they use the default national shield in infoboxes.  Perhaps there are other states as well. DandyDan2007 00:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is definitely possible, as California uses their own US shields in the infobox. I'll make the necessary changes so that WI, MN and IA are set up the same way. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was something I had been thinking about for quite a bit of time - but thought it would be difficult to do - until I remembered about California ;) -- master_sonTalk -  Edits 16:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Out of curiosity, how are the shields different in WI, MN and IA? JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 20:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WI's 3di shields use the 2di width, but with Series C font.  IA is the same with WI, but the font is Series B.  MN also uses 2di width, but has smaller numbers and the Series D font. V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路) 20:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that on all shields or just some of them? I don't know if it would be worth it if it's not a state mandated thing like California's or Florida used to have with the colored shields. JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 21:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For these states, it's mandated that the 3di shields look the way they are. V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路) 01:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  state specific US Route shields in state infoboxes 

message: Because there is no portal for roads but only for US roads, I want to ask here: I would be thankful, if the road specialists could have a look here: Portal talk:Transport#Headline of the netherlands motorways are all wrong Thank you -- 84.132.101.93 10:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headline of the netherlands motorways are all wrong 

message: Discussion at WT:USRD/INNA V60 干什么？ · 喝掉的酒 · 路 14:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A couple of page moves 

message: I am making the appropriate changes to the templates, according to TMF's sandbox.  Just be forewarned that when I come back at around 3:30 PM, articles using  and associated templates will be broken for a short time as I make the appropriate changes. V60 干什么？ · 喝掉的酒 · 路 17:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progress 

message: County Route 1309 (Westchester County, New York): looks like it would be better pruned and merged into Yorktown, New York. --NE2 01:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no need to delete it. --myselfalso 01:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no need to keep it; much of it is original research and the rest better belongs in the article about the town whose main street it is. This is the kind of "non-notable" county route that I thought we agreed shouldn't have an article. --NE2 01:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this article need to exist? 

message: Specifically, I wrote:
*...that when the U.S. Highway network was created in 1926, most of U.S. Route 6 in Nebraska was U.S. Route 38?
Would love to see it on there.  DandyDan2007 06:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Put up [[U.S. Route 6 in Nebraska]] as a DYK article 

message: Template: and Template: have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Holderca1 19:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of a couple obsolete infoboxes 

message: I ran across this article that I think you should add to this WikiProject. It's about the first trail across the northern U.S. Royalbroil 02:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can simply add  to the talk page to add a page to the project. One of the editors whose "job" it is to assign importance and quality will then fill in the missing fields. --NE2 10:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Yellowstone Trail]] 

message: There is a category and many articles dedicated to decommissioned highways in Missouri.  Are any of them notable?  None of them strike me as being worthy of being here. DandyDan2007 20:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This should probably be brought up at WT:N/HWY and referenced at WT:MOSH. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If they are decommissioned primary highways, then yes, they are just as notable as current state primary highways as we cannot be bias to present day.  Wikipedia is timeless.  --Holderca1 22:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some brief research into the articles reveals some of them to be decommissioned in favor of current US Highways.  Would it be better to just redirect to whatever the current highway is? DandyDan2007 22:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Another idea I have would be to just place it all in a list article.  DandyDan2007 22:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: So what you're saying is:
1. Keep the articles.
2. redo the list in such a way as to show what the current routes used to be.
DandyDan2007 10:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's not what I'm saying. I think they should be redirected wherever possible, which is what I did in Virginia. --NE2 14:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with NE2. ([ →]zelzany - new age roads) 15:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missouri decommissioned highways 

message: The Kentucky task force is being considered for repromotion here. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotion of Kentucky 

message: County Road 702 (Palm Beach County, Florida) --NE2 22:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now to deletion review Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 13#County Road 702 (Palm Beach County, Florida) ([ →]zelzany - new age roads) 16:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Overturned, I am in the process of cleaning up all the Florida county roads.  --Holderca1 16:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion nomination 

message: My latest Nebraska article, Nebraska Highway 14, has this as a potential Did you know ...? item:
*...that Nebraska Highway 14 became a cross-Nebraska highway with the completion of the Chief Standing Bear bridge over the Missouri River in 1998?
This time, I hope I have my references down, and I put the shield up, so hopefully, it makes it to the main page. I don't know what other highways I could do offhand.  DandyDan2007 19:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was successful at getting Interstate 10 in Texas featured on DYK and the key is to have a good punchline more than anything else.  I don't really see the above getting selected.  You have to ask yourself, would the average person reading it be interested enough to read the article based just on that one line?  Link to DYK when it was featured: .  --Holderca1 20:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Holderca1.  There's U.S. Route 322 in New Jersey that's up for DYK at T:TDYK#Articles created on June 14. ([ →]zelzany - new age roads) 01:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Made another attempt at a DYK article 

message: :Category:Road backlog has been created. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly are we to put in there, in theory we could put the entire project in that category.  --Holderca1 01:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya... basically stuff that is super backlogged... such as the unassessed category when it fills up... or if maps task force is backed up... that sort of thing. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Road backlog 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kew Gardens Interchange --NE2 23:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion discussion 

message: Can somebody offer a third opinion on whether this should be a separate article or a redirect? Thank you. --NE2 00:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for redirecting it to US 58 as it won't gain anymore information about itself than what the US route will hold already.  besides - I'm sure if you ask a local if it exists, they would say "huh?" master sonT - C 01:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Research on the talk page—there could be evidence that it existed on its own like New Jersey Route 165. ([ →]zelzany - new age roads) 01:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It didn't exist on its own. The road was specifically built as a new alignment of US 58 around Cumberland Gap. --NE2 04:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, obviously if US 58 in Tennessee is created, it should redirect there. Is it really a good idea to make that article though? By the way, would it be a good idea to add the Tennessee State Route 383 redirect to the state highway category, as recommended by Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects (which looks to have general support on the talk page)? --NE2 05:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like it would be pointless to create a "U.S. Route 58 in Tennessee" article as it would be as small as the one above in question. Is there any reason not to link it to U.S. Route 58 itself? master sonT - C 13:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Tennessee State Route 383]] 

message: Historically nonexistent highway and article a word-for-word copy of U.S. Route 55. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_June_16#U.S._Route_155 DandyDan2007 10:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion Discussion U.S. Route 155 

message: I'm not too good at programming, so I would not be able to do this, but someone else might. It would be useful to have a bot that creates the redirects in the completion lists, and maintains an on-wiki list of which ones are not redirects (and thus need disambiguation). It might also be possible to have it maintain the "list of highways numbered" disambiguation pages by adding any with articles. --NE2 03:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idea for a useful bot 

message: Florida State Road 5023 --NE2 22:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion nomination 

message: : unlike most collections, it has a number of maps from after route numbers were assigned. I found it by chance when looking for an old Baltimore County map that shows the toll gates on the Falls Turnpike (which I still haven't found; if someone knows of any that would be great). --NE2 08:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for some historic maps 

message: If anyone would like to nominate Key Highway for did you know, please do so; I can't think of a good interesting tidbit. --NE2 15:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind; I got one. --NE2 22:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did you know? 

message: A new task force has been created to improve the Florida county road articles.  See WP:FLCR  --Holderca1 21:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Florida County Road Task Force 

message: I think it would be a good idea to do collaborations on mid-importance primary state highways, for instance NY 52 or MD 25. It's somewhat less daunting than a major U.S. Highway or Interstate. Possibly our goal could be to improve at least one such article per state to a featured article or at least "A class", where we can all agree that it's worthy of that status. --NE2 13:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible collaboration idea 

message: I've made a template  (admittedly verbose), demoed on U.S. Route 6 in Illinois, to try to tie together all of the US X in Y and Interstate X in Y pages. (Haven't decided one way or the other regarding intrastate 3dis, or pushing scope to beyond US X in Y / Interstate X in Y pages). Feedback welcome! —Rob (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems redundant to both browsing and the state list page to me. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 18:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Just neglected to reply. ([ →]zelzany - fish) 18:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would probably keep it around for completion, and as a handy listm then. Some of the articles (in spite of their blue state) don't actually exist yet. —Rob (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Now that (use on state WP pages) I can agree with. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 07:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I see what you're saying, but it would go on Interstate 90 in Washington, Interstate 90 in Oregon... and not Interstate 90 in my world. Those links are already in the article. —Rob (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template for state-specific roads