Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 7

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashford-Dunwoody Road --NE2 15:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion discussion 

message: I decided to clean up some Maryland infoboxes, including those listed on User:vishwin60/Roads/MD. In the process, I replaced template:infobox Maryland highway with template:infobox road. I was reverted on several articles: . Is there a reason why the Maryland template should be preferred? The only "advantage", if it can be called that, I can see with infobox Maryland highway is that you don't have to specify the state parameter - you use "infobox Maryland highway" rather than "infobox road|state=MD". On the other hand, using the state-specific templates means that whenever a new parameter, like maint, is added, it needs to be added to each of the state infoboxes before it can be used. --NE2 08:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, states like IL, MO, MA, and NH use the state infobox.  This would be the same for MD, as that project was a precursor of WP:USRD/INNA, however, those guidelines permit the usage of state-specific routeboxes. ([ →]zelzany - new age roads) 16:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On another note, it might be better to discuss this at the infobox subpage of WT:USRD/INNA. ([ →]zelzany - new age roads) 18:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: But why should they permit changing the infobox back when no other changes are being made? This is like bypassing redirects - it adds a useless edit to the history without improving the article. --NE2 19:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've convinced the guys over at that project—ages ago, to switch to an Infobox road infrastructure.  It is recommended that you use that template, as it was agreed to by consensus (WP:MDRD/EG). ([ →]zelzany - new age roads) 19:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's recommended that I don't help clean any more up then, as I prefer working with infobox road. --NE2 20:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you prefer to use infobox road, please discuss it over at WT:MDRD.  Please note that you may upset some people.  If you want to know my opinion on this, I don't have one, because I don't care.  I'm just saying that that project uses their own infobox, and you should try to work with it. ([ →]zelzany - new age roads) 20:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there any reason to use infobox Maryland highway over infobox road? 

message: I noticed this on User:TwinsMetsFan/cleanup. US 94 was directly absorbed into US 41; shouldn't it redirect there? --NE2 10:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting question, I think once we create the US 41 in Florida article, that would be a better redirect, but since US 94 was the southern half of the Tamiami Trail, someone would be able to find more info from that article than they would from the US 41 article. --Holderca1 14:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does [[U.S. Route 94]] redirect to [[Tamiami Trail]]? 

message: I rewrote U.S. Route 50 and added some history. Before I do it to others, can someone let me know if I did anything wrong? --NE2 10:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also relating to this article, does anyone have a map of Utah from the early-to-mid 1970s that shows US 50 on its new alignment via Salina and I-70? Thank you. --NE2 14:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First time I've ever seen a reference in a heading... Other than that, it looks fine. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any other way to do it, at least with inline referencing. --NE2 20:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are going to need to cite independent Google Map sources.  This article might go to GA soon—somebody might comment on the blown-up ref number in the TOC and the heading. ([ →]vishwin60 - new age roads) 20:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by "independent Google Map sources"? --NE2 21:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's an example. ([ →]vishwin60 - new age roads) 22:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems like overreferencing. I'll add to my question at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#References in headings? --NE2 22:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno about that.  But sure, it's good to get a third opinion. ([ →]vishwin60 - new age roads) 22:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reformatting of U.S. Route articles 

message: There are three columns but two headers, and many of the routes are in the wrong column. --NE2 14:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of Nevada state highways]] needs fixing 

message: Would Google Maps (and specifically, the new feature to re-route your directions by dragging) qualify as a valid source for listing highway lengths to the nearest .1 mile? —Rob (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can't find any better source, I don't see why not. --NE2 04:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Illinois GIS data is the best source, but after lots of crashing and burning with Quantum GIS and ArcViewer, I'm ready to do something else. For the time being. :-) —Rob (talk) 04:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most state DOTs have highway maps that include lengths to the nearest .1 mile. I used those for all Minnesota articles, and I believe I found the info for both Dakotas as well. --Sable232 15:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: One source that is bound to have lengths for almost every route in the US is the National Highway Planning Network GIS data.  Census 2000 TIGER/Line data might also help. ([ →]zelzany - new age roads) 16:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TIGER/Line data is not precise enough. When making the elevation profile on NY 52, the mileage from the data was several miles less than the actualy length, due to curving in hilly areas. --NE2 07:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion's scope was never at or meant to be discussing elevation profiles.  This was finding reliable sources for a route's length. ([ →]zelzany - new age roads) 14:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what NE2 meant was that the TIGER line data is a projection of the road length on a flat surface. If a road has extreme elevation changes, the projected length and the actual length may be off. In any case, TIGER data is still a valid source in the absence of DOT sources. --Polaron | Talk 14:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you use TIGER data in hilly areas, whether due to elevation changes or due to curviness, the length will be off. This is not a valid source. It's also very annoying to deal with, since every portion of the road between two intersections is a separate element. --NE2 15:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does NHPN data have those same inaccuracies? ([ →]zelzany - new age roads) 16:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea; I haven't looked at it. Try comparing it to a known length of a curvy road and see what you get. --NE2 18:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I just used it on U.S. Route 6N; droz said 27 miles, where NHPN said 27.84, so it should be fine. ([ →]zelzany - new age roads) 23:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google Maps for U.S. / state route estimates? 

message: I redirected I-10 exit list to Interstate 10 since it was just redundant and less complete then the state specific interstate exit lists anyway.  What is the opinion on this, leave as a redirect or use as a dab page linking to the exit lists on each of the state specific articles?  A more appropriate title should be used such as Interstate 10 exit list.--Holderca1 23:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to article size, tables do not count as part of the overall article size.  What is best to do with the redundant article is just to redirect it to the national Interstate article. ([ →]vishwin60 - new age roads) 23:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exit list pages 

message: Does the format of U.S. Route 66 in Oklahoma look good? --NE2 22:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd normally put the route description before history, but I guess since the article is about a decommissioned route, it can go first. Other than that, everything looks fine to me. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comments 

message: What is the proper name (if any) for a town primarily supported by the presence of an Interstate? Moreover, is it encyclopedic? —Rob (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "One-road town" is the closest I can come up with. --NE2 01:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, "service-based town" seems to be used in a few scholarly papers, but I'm not sure if it's quite what you're looking for. --NE2 01:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably the best that exists. There's a few concepts in Types of rural communities, which looks to be a never-touched article. But highway community is not among the choices. —Rob (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps there's a term called "Breezewoods", considering the I-70 stuff? ([ →]O - RLY?) 17:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems to be a roadgeek neologism like multiplex and ghost ramp. --NE2 23:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, right.  That was just off the top of my head, which was the first thing I thought of. ([ →]O - RLY?) 23:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper term for "highway community"? 

message: Here's an idea that's been bouncing around my head for the past few days. We've got hundreds of articles, of course, even just counting the national systems. Our standards continue to gradually evolve, as they should, but it's difficult keeping track of who's doing what in the way of keeping articles up to spec and free of vandalism. Naturally people will want to help out on their local interstates and U.S. routes, but you really only need one person to keep on top of standards and vandalism.
So I remembered a minor thing mentioned in the template that you use when starting a brand new wikiproject: article adoption. This isn't ownership, but rather just a way of letting people volunteer to keep tabs on the article and whenever we come up with the next thing we want to apply throughout a whole project (like when we came up with the Major Cities box, which still hasn't been applied to all the Interstates yet) each person can have a number of routes (I'd say about ten would be the right number, about four primaries and six auxiliaries in one system should be a good mix) they go and fix rather than feeling they need to work through a whole bunch of routes and get exhausted and we end up missing half of them.
(Please ignore the image, I've got a spiffy Adopt A Highway sign I made from the SHS that we could use, but I don't want to upload it unless I know there's support for this idea. We'll move it to template space too if it goes through)
The "adopt a highway" name gives the right idea: keeping the article clean and free of trash. When there's a change in standards, you have a clear focus to work on improving first, and then if you've got extra time and energy you can work on unadopted articles. I think this might help us improve the general quality of the project. The AID model is best for drastically improving single articles (it doesn't seem to be working, but that's another topic), but this will help us improve a broad range of articles quickly. Think it's a good idea? —Scott5114↗ 08:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't hurt to try it for a while. I'd be game for participating. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 18:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah sure. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm all for it! --Son 19:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds like a plan! --MPD T / C 19:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adopt a highway (an idea) 

message: I have listed U.S. Route 40 on good article review. --NE2 08:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article review 

message: There is a trivia section at List of Kansas numbered highways which lists this.  This isn't true, is it?  I would think something like this would be in the Utah highway list article.  DandyDan2007 22:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't correct; the proper abbreviation is SR #, per this. ([ →]O - RLY?) 23:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: removed it earlier DandyDan2007 06:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Utah highways known as U-xx? 

message: Um, how do I sign up for the WikiProject U.S. Roads? --Martin4647
:Put your name in Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Participants. ([ →]O - RLY?) 23:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signing Up 

message: If anyone wants to help with Utah, whose project was "demoted" due to low activity, UDOT has put a lot of history online. The State Route History describes most changes - though it should be noted that early dates, before the 1930s, are when the roadway was taken over by the state; it was not until the 1930s that all routes were numbered. There are also scans of documents relating to most routes, including some AASHTO correspondence, at http://www.udot.utah.gov/download.php/tid=1348/SR-XXX.pdf , where XXX is the number (with zeros padding out the beginning if necessary). --NE2 23:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Utah 

message: Interstates that intersect Interstate 80 --NE2 04:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No!  Delete!  --MPD T / C 04:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we decide it's bad, we can just redirect to I-80. There's no need to delete. --NE2 09:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with all.  I'll be redirecting it after I finish posting this. ([ →]O - RLY?) 15:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It used to be part of the main I-80 article. This could've been useful in a parallel universe of some sort, but I moved it to that article because it certainly didn't belong in the main I-80 article. —Rob (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does this exist? Should it? 

message: See this disussion for more info: Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#To_throw_it_out_there.2C_road_signs
I think the best remedy here is to start contacting the toll road authorities and ask the status of these shields, if they are public domain, if not, can we have permission to use them as we have been, etc...  --Holderca1 16:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Started page here to keep track of them: Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Shields/Database/toll_roads  --Holderca1 18:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright status of images 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pennsylvania Route 39 (1920s) --NE2 05:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of long-distance mileage signs in the United States. —Scott5114↗ 09:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion discussion 

message: I am looking for an up-to-date list of NHS roadways.  shows that the Fairfax County Parkway north of US 29 is not part of the NHS, but this doesn't make sense, and the map is outdated (for instance it shows the SR 234 bypass of Manassas as unbuilt). --NE2 01:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Details on the National Highway System 

message: I made Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways/Completion list. If you make a state-detail article, please find it in the list (what links here is useful for getting to the list) and make sure all the redirects point correctly. I also made a list on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways/Completion list of ones that redirect to the main page but could be separate; there's also the issue of I-90 in Ohio and New York, which should not be redirects. Please do not make any redirects to the main article like this, unless it's a single-state Interstate or we can agree that it's short enough. --NE2 20:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the consensus on having articles such as Interstate 44 in Texas or Interstate 15 in Arizona? --Holderca1 02:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: General consensus is to write an article if an article can be written. I'm not sure about I-44 in Texas, but I-15 in Arizona has won awards for its scenic nature through the Virgin River Gorge. If very little can be written about a short section, the alternative is something like Interstate 59 in Louisiana and Mississippi. --NE2 02:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't endorse the creation of either article. The segments are too short to merit their own article, especially based on the information currently present about the segments in the "main" articles. We don't need more lousy state-detail articles; at least, not until the main articles are complete and fleshed out. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure I like the idea. It has good intentions, but I personally fear that the template could be overused and placed on redirects that should never be turned into an article, at least not in the foreseeable future. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this: only add it to articles of the exact form "route in state" where that route does go through more than one state. Maybe two similar categories can be used - one when it fits those conditions, but we agree it should not ever be a separate article, like the two states of Interstate 155 (Missouri-Tennessee) or U.S. Route 611, and another for most cases, where it could be a reasonable article. --NE2 05:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with most of that, up to the "most cases". Consider an example: U.S. Route 219 in West Virginia. Could a separate article be made potentially? Yes, and I don't think most editors would have an issue with its existence. But should it exist right now, with the West Virginia section on U.S. Route 219 in its current state? Absolutely not. So what I'm saying is that this template may tempt editors to create a state-detail article prematurely, before the "main" article is ready for such detail article to be made, if it is to be made at all. Note this is only for the "most cases"; I agree 100% with the two examples you gave that should never be state-detail articles. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interstate completion list 

message: Clark County Route 215 appears to be a cut-and-paste copy of Interstate 215 and Washoe County Route 447 has nothing more than an infobox. To me, it looks like any article on Clark CR 215 should be part of I-215 and I fail to see how Washoe CR 447 is notable enough for an article. Template:Template:Cleanup-nvcr and Template:Nevada-State-County-Highway-stub also seem unneeded. Also see Wikipedia:WikiProject Nevada State County Routes. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I redirected CC 215. It's not even clear that CR 447 exists; it should probably redirect to SR 447 either way, and then the SR 447 article can talk about the road, which it appears was to become part of SR 447 in the 1976 renumbering () but did not actually become it (). --NE2 05:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: He seems to be a bit vandalistic, though we should certainly assume good faith on his highway edits, which look pretty solid though "noobish". --NE2 05:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thing he is simply a new user trying to fill in articles that are missing.  Redirects appear to be the right solution.  Vegaswikian 06:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The user reverted the CC 215 redirect, and seems insistent on pushing his ill-advised project. I wonder where inexperience stops and intentionally spotty editing begins... --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 17:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Also see . --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 18:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And Interstate 215/Clark County 215.  This was a redirect from I-215 (Nevada).  I added a waning to the user page and reverted the redirect.  Can Interstate 215/Clark County 215 be speedy deleted? Vegaswikian 03:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More county road joy 

message: , . I'd be willing to sign the RFC now; if the other person who signed requests undeletion and re-signs it, or starts a new one with the same text, it should work. --NE2 05:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and put my name on it if needed. Point to this diff, which explicitly gives my permission for them to do so. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I undeleted, could someone fix it? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Fingers-of-Pyrex|Fingers-of-Pyrex]] is at it again 

message: We've had another WikiProject created, this time for Nevada State County Routes.  Woo hoo!  Wikipedia:WikiProject Nevada State County Routes  --Son 16:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I touched on that above. I think its existence is a bad thing - the last thing we need are more non-notable county road articles. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 17:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The project has been tagged for demotion.  --Holderca1 18:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How 'bout merge with the State route task force... (as explained elsewhere) master sonT - C 18:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that there is a ton of work left on the state routes, I don't see the harm in a merger. Not many editors are doing much on the Nevada roads.  So a single project to cover both would be reasonable, no sense to split a small team of editors.  I know I have not been doing much, but I'm not sure anyone has on Nevada roads.  I think it is reasonable for the State projects to include county roads, but concentrate on the state roads until they are in good shape. Vegaswikian 19:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Project should be trashed. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new WikiProject 

message: is misreading it with respect to Stephens City, Virginia; is it possible that it's unclear? --NE2 03:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hard for me to understand what's being said here, I can see that the article has multiple links to one article and everything spelt out, but from what I interpret the convention's being followed.  (NOTE: I think any restate of U.S. Route 11 could be shortened to US 11 or similar.) master sonT - C 04:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Followed by who? Neutralhomer is changing the text back to "Virginia State Route 277" and "VA State Route 277". --NE2 04:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying - what he did was wrong - so a misread did happen. master sonT - C 13:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Any restate of anything could be shortened (SR 277, VA 277, US 11, etc, whatever, just stay consistent with abbreviations).  I'm understood that if not abbreviated, short names should be State Route X, but that's not to say that Virginia State Route X isn't ok.  VA State Route X, IMO, isn't acceptable.  It is possible there is a misread.  Where's our list of acceptable non-formal versions, and what to write in links? There's one somewhere.  --MPD T / C 04:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Virginia State Route X" is not OK; see WP:USSH. This is the long name; the short name is "SR X". By the way, you'll have to look back a few edits for his version; his latest edit was to bypass the redirects but keep the text, which is not actively bad, only useless. --NE2 04:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The key sentence to me is The official name is to be used when writing about the road in an article; only use the article title in another article if the sentence would otherwise be ambiguous. If "Virginia" is being displayed, that's clearly against the guideline as the "official name" does not include it. What was the state of the link before this back and forth started? That should be restored whether it was a direct or a redirect for compliance with WP:REDIRECT. --Polaron | Talk 04:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not it was a direct link shouldn't matter; it's easier to delete the Virginia and add it to the end in parentheses than to add the whole part after the pipe. (In this particular case, I used AWB, but the idea is the same.) --NE2 04:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True and I agree with you here. But some people seem to really hate redirects. This was one of the arguments for not putting the state name in front for article titles for highways in certain states, but it's best not to re-open this SRNC related stuff again. The current solution in the Stephens City article is not ideal but acceptable. --Polaron | Talk 04:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the current state is acceptable to me; when this had started, Neutralhomer was placing the status of the link ahead of that of the text. Maybe we should make it clear in the guideline that what matters most is how it's read, and maybe also put this before the long table? --NE2 04:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and add all this to avoid confusion and heated debate. ([ →]O - RLY?) 03:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue with [[WP:USSH]] 

message: Check this out.  See Stub Sorting/Proposals.  --Son 14:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub template discussion 

message: As if there isn't enough things going on, I found an article that's likely a neologism: Hidden route. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be moved to Unsigned route or something of the like. --MPD T / C 00:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, that article is a good idea, but needs to be rewritten.  --MPD T / C 02:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential neologism 

message: Do we need to remove these from all Dab pages?  such as done here?  if so - I'm curious as to the rationale.  In this case it still contained links to US Road subject articles.  Thoughts? master sonT - C 20:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think so.  It's still part of the WikiProject, even if it is just a disambiguation page.  I'd like to know the rationale for removal also.  --Son 23:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Tags on the Talk pages of Disambiguation pages 

message: All of the USRD Clean-up Templates 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. master sonT - C 16:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of All USRD Clean-up Templates 

message: I started User:AlexNewArtBot on a feed of new articles that might be U.S. road related. As you can see from its first results, it does a decent job but the rules could use improvement. You can check the log and try to improve the rules. --NE2 00:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article feed 

message: This article was just created. I was going to take it to AFD, since the road doesn't look any different from any other road, but saw that the part north of Carrington (which is not mentioned in the article) was once part of ND 4 (now US 281), ND 9, and some auto trails:  I don't think this is enough to keep the article, but it might be a reasonable redirect to US 281, so I decided to take it here for a second opinion. --NE2 11:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a member of WikiProject North Dakota, I agree that having articles for county roads is really not the direction we should be going. I would say either delete or turn into a redirect. --MatthewUND(talk) 23:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Redirect to US 281, then I guess the road could be mentioned in the route description as an alternate route through Carrington, or something like that. Regardless, I agree with the essence of the point, that this road isn't deserving of a standalone article. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 03:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I redirected, but it probably won't stick. --NE2 03:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was right; it's been undone. Can somebody assist? --NE2 05:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I think if it's reverted again, the next stop would be AfD. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Foster County CR 1605]] 

message: Moose-Wilson Road, created today, is an article about a road in northwestern Wyoming.  According to the article, half of it is in Grand Teton National Park, and half is not; the park's section is unsigned, while the outofpark section is Wyoming Highway 390 (Wyoming Highway 390 is a newly-created redirect).  It seems to me that Moose-Wilson Road would not be notable, aside from the state highway, which is inherently notable, and that therefore Moose-Wilson Road should be a redirect to Wyoming Highway 390.  What do all of you think on this matter?  Nyttend 04:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it makes more sense the way it is, with WYO 390 redirecting, since not all of the road is WYO 390. --NE2 05:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed with NE2 for the same reasoning. Making Moose-Wilson Road a redirect to WYO 390 implies that M-W Road is either a single part of WYO 390 or WYO 390 along its entire length; neither is true. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I wrote the article.  I happened to be updating an article that is related to the road, and I thought that as long as I was in the neighborhood, I would go ahead and create the article for the road itself.  I started writing it for the Wyoming Highway 390 page, but when I got done with that, I thought it felt better to rewrite it as Moose-Wilson Road to take into account the part that is in the park, and make the full connection between Moose and Wilson.  I will also note that the name for the census designated place located along highway 390 is indeed Moose Wilson Road, Wyoming, so the name itself has a little bit notability then just a local nickname.  So to be honest with you, it was just a judgment call; the way it is felt right to me, but I wouldn't be upset if it got switched.  Thanks. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 05:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the thing I'm curious about is this: is the road inherently notable?  Of course, state highways are inherently notable, but as this road is halfway not state highway, it just seems to me that only part is notable, and that for being WY390.  But whatever all of you decide :-)  Nyttend 14:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think thats the million dollar question.  I'm not sure if any national park roads are signed - I know that the ones in the two Wyoming parks are not, and most of the Wikipedia articles for the major roads going in and out of Yellowstone National Park mention that fact (U.S. Route 89 and U.S. Route 20 are notable examples).  So do park roads lack notability simply because the park service chooses not to sign them or do they have to "earn" their notability?  Maybe so - there are a lot of smart people in the US. Roads WikiProject that are better suited to answer that question.  But could this road "earn" its notability if it had to?  Thats a good question.  We know that the trail / road existed prior to the creation of the national park, but I don't know if it extended all the way to Wilson or not.  It served as the access road to JY Ranch, which was owned by John D. Rockefeller, Jr., and one of the only parcels of land that he didn't transfer to the government to create Grand Teton National Park (though the ranch was recently gifted to the government by his son ().  There are a few popular trailheads accessible from the road, and it is a local favorite for being a shortcut from Wilson to the park without going through the town of Jackson, which can be hectic in the summer time. So I don't know - I hate to make this about more then a single road in a national park, but there is an opportunity for some consensus here. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 17:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just there a few weeks ago in Yellowstone :) I would say that the article should stay at WY-309 and the redirect should exist. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wyoming state highway 

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. master sonT - C 23:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:FEUS}}]] 

message: Can someone get a photo of the parkway section of Interstate 35E, either from a car or from above? Thank you. --NE2 01:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo request 

message: He's at it again; I gave him a final warning. Can I be assured of a block if he continues, or do I have to reword that to say that it's not necessarily final? --NE2 09:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be assured, one will be given if it continues. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 10:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Fingers-of-Pyrex|Fingers-of-Pyrex]] 

message: Does anyone have any issues with this before I do a final check and take it to GAC? --NE2 04:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Major cities box. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only major city is Saint Paul. --NE2 05:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh okay. That's what I was told... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Explain why a box exists on its directional counterpart then... --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I haven't removed it? --NE2 06:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Interstate 35E (Minnesota)]] 

message: We're trying to revive the notability discussion above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Notability]] 

message: See Template talk:Jct. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 02:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with {{tl|Jct}} 

message: U.S. Route 51 in Tennessee and Tennessee State Route 3: should they be separate or merged? --NE2 02:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say merged; the routing is nearly identical, and the locations where the routings aren't identical are fairly short (based on a cursory glance). --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 02:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another merge issue 

message: Can anyone see a reason that this shouldn't be deleted? --NE2 09:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, it probably should be deleted. A shame, though. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does assert some notability.  First it is a 'major arterial road' and second it was apparently built to connect the first schools.  Is that sufficient?  Maybe if it meet WP:V and WP:RS. Vegaswikian 20:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Major arterial road" seems to mean a typical suburban arterial here. --NE2 02:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Warner Road, Arizona]] 

message: Before I go and remove or change all incoming links, can anybody find any reliable sources for Interstate 169 (Tennessee) or Interstate 169 (Mississippi)? For the former, I found a city council meeting where the town said they wanted it and a failed state law that would have mentioned it; for the latter I couldn't find even that much. --NE2 10:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tennessee seems to be legit. Kurumi cites Tennessee Joint Resolution 512, which means at least it's seriously considered and not just some lunatic roadgeek rambling. The Mississippi one seems to fall under the latter, so I'd say unless you can dig something up I'd have that one disposed of. —Scott5114↗ 04:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a failed resolution; I don't think that should count as enough for an article, or we'd have many articles about things that were never considered by the state DOTs or other planning commissions. --NE2 04:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I-169 

message: Does this need to exist? Should it redirect to List of auxiliary Interstate Highways, or elsewhere? --NE2 17:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a list of proposed main Interstates; however, this one, as it is now, is unreferenced and poorly named and conceived. Probably best to redirect it to the main Auxiliary list for now. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 18:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lists of proposed auxiliary interstate highways]] 

message: : I know that this is basically a folded diamond interchange, but the frontage roads add some complexity; does anyone know a standard way of referring to that? --NE2 09:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: hmm - wierd - but I have no clue. master sonT - C 10:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think there's a specific name for that type of interchange. It's common on I-94 in southeastern Wisconsin, and most Texas freeways. I just note that the exit leads to the frontage road, as opposed to the road mentioned on the exit directly. Both on I-27 and I-94, the frontage roads are bidirectional, since traffic volumes are light. On I-45, it's more of a local-express setup. —Rob (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this interchange type called? 

message: Does anyone know of a function that will check if an image exists on the commons?  #ifexist: works if it is located here, but it won't work trans wikis.  I am wanting to add something to  and  to dump the article into a cat if a shield doesn't exist.  Would make it easier to create needed shields that haven't been formally requested.  --Holderca1 16:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need help with parser functions 

message: Last night, I got the idea to add a preset line for maps in  similar to the one present in both  and . However, in the one for Infobox road, the size would be entered as "290x172px" - the size recommended by the Maps task force for infobox maps. It will not distort maps that are not made to that proportion; what it will do is resize the image so that it will fit within a 290x172px box. The pros to this is that it will standardize how much room is taken up vertically in infoboxes by maps and it will no longer require entering the full image markup (""), just the file name. Cons, of course, would be converting the articles that already use infobox road and have full image markup; however, I can use AWB to fix those and would be willing to do so. Comments/thoughts? --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 09:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fine, but the real solution is to migrate all the maps to SVG.  Allowing bitmap pictures for maps that were generated from vector data was not a correct decision and is what led to this "problem". -- KelleyCook 09:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What led to this problem is that the image markup wasn't coded into Infobox road like it was for the other two infoboxes. I'm not following how SVG plays any role in this; the markup for SVGs is the same as any other image. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 10:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map parameter in infobox road 

message: *Rename of state highway cats --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SH cat rename 

message: Working on these before I leave, and when I get back from Alaska. There's already some great pictures for these articles, so hopefully I'll be able to add to the collection while I'm up there. There are 14 routes (Alaska State Route 1) and about 19 named highways (Seward Highway), and one of the problems is that any one route can be a part of any one highway at any time.
So I'm working on untangling the articles and having a base set of route articles, and a base set of highway articles. The routes would be connected by the browse box in the infobox. The named highways are connected by succession boxes. This seems to be working relatively well.
Feel free to jump in. —Rob (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Already started to a point - Some of the numbered routes need to be renamed/pointed - and should be set up as disambig pages. master sonT - C 03:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alaska State Routes articles 

message: I have created Wikipedia:Copyright on highway shields as a page to discuss and determine the copyright status of logos for highways, mainly toll roads. Please help, especially if you are familiar with copyright law. Thank you. --NE2 04:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure why you are duplicating efforts: Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Shields/Database/toll roads.  --Holderca1 15:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That page was somewhat dead and not set up for discussion. --NE2 22:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All pages have a talk page, I don't understand what you are saying.  --Holderca1 01:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but it's easier to list shields and discuss them in the same place. --NE2 03:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: What evidence are you looking for, as I have said in the past, none of them have registered copyrights.  In lieu of a registration you have to use your own judgment on whether the image has enough originality to be eligible for copyright.  --Holderca1 11:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well it seems that some had evidence in the past - since they're tagged for Fair Use master sonT - C 11:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Evidence of no copyright notice would be good. All I saw you add to Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Shields/Database/toll roads was trademark registrations. --NE2 11:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Master_son, just because they're FU doesn't mean that there was evidence for it.  It was rather that someone thought they should be FU, and tagged them as such.  Doesn't mean they really are/should be FU.  --MPD T / C 12:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Evidence of no copyright notice doesn't really do us much good, all that says is that they didn't register it with the copyright office.  Copyright holders aren't required to register their work to enforce a copyright on it.  The only way that I can think of to be sure that there is not a copyright is to email the organizations and ask.  Yeah, tagging the image FU would be the default choice if you had no evidence.  --Holderca1 13:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before 1989, works had to have copyright notices on them to be copyrighted. Also, works published before 1964 have had to be renewed at least once to remain copyrighted. --NE2 14:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, we need to list on that page when the shield was created.  I haven't been able to find a way to link to search results (to show a negative result) at http://www.copyright.gov/records/cohm.html.  --Holderca1 14:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The page NE2 made is good.  I'll do some sleuthing later on some of those and offer my input later as well. --MPD T / C 12:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright on highway shields 

message: Does anybody object to this move, or can I tag the redirect with Template:Db-move? Everyone, even TxDOT, uses "NASA Road 1". --NE2 15:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I object, TXDOT uses State Highway NASA Road 1, .  The road is officially part of the primary state highway system.    --Holderca1 17:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They use it in one place. They also use "Interstate Highway 45", but we go with the more common "Interstate 45". --NE2 17:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interstate Highway and IH are fairly common in Texas outside of TXDOT, but to stay with the convention of the other interstates, we leave off highway.  State Highway NASA Road 1 is for consistancy with other state highways.  Along the lines of common usage, why is it U.S. Route 90 in Texas?  Shouldn't it be U.S. Highway 90 in Texas?  --Holderca1 17:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you say, that's for consistency with other states. But NASA Road 1 is a special case; there's only one NASA Road, and nobody calls it State Highway NASA Road 1. --NE2 18:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So are we going for consistency or common usage?  What about Texas State Highway OSR?  --Holderca1 18:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's in a standard State Highway shield. --NE2 18:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So are we going for consistency or common usage? --Holderca1 18:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consistency.  --Son 18:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Common usage, since there's no consistency here. TxDOT treats it differently, with a different shield. --NE2 18:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats the only difference, it is the same as the rest of the state highways.  Also, it wouldn't be practical to squeeze NASA Road 1 all in the standard sign.  So then it should also be taken out of the state highway browse order as well I imagine.  --Holderca1 19:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Why does N follow O?  I don't know whether it is a computer issue or not, but it is officially a state highway.  Not sure the logic behind the shield argument above, using that logic, Farm to Market Road X should be moved to Farm Road X, and Texas State Highway Loop 1 should be moved to Texas Loop 1.  --Holderca1 14:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right; N then O.  I forgot my alphabet.  --MPD T / C 15:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move [[Texas State Highway NASA Road 1]] to [[NASA Road 1]]? 

message: You may have noticed that some shields are larger than they should be. Don't panic, and above all don't try to "fix" it; it was a temporary bug, and all you have to do is purge: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#What happened to image sizing? --NE2 15:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I noticed that, for some reason it didn't affect IE, just Firefox, not sure about other browsers.  --Holderca1 15:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor issues with shield sizes 

message: I really hate to bring this up, but I'm convinced that the naming on WP:USSH for Alaska is incorrect. The state and media normally refer to the roads by their highway names, but, when they talk about the numbers, it's almost always "Alaska Route x", abbreviated "AK-x". For example, compare Alaska state website searches for Alaska Route with State Route, and the same with several numbers and names in the media (and state laws, which also show up in the Google News search): Route 11 Dalton Highway and Route 4 Richardson Highway. The one piece of evidence for "State Route x" brought up at Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll/Part2#Alaska -  - does not match the signed numbers. For example, on page 114, it lists the Glenn Highway as State Route 135000, but it's signed as Route 1. Please consider the evidence carefully before giving input, and please give evidence of the "State Route x" format if you find any. Thank you. --NE2 22:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was expecting a massive argument, but nobody's said anything. Is this because everybody agrees, or what? --NE2 05:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with Alaska Route.  They have 12 articles?  No biggie. --MPD T / C 05:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto what MPD said. The evidence above looks legit, and I don't think anyone's going to cry foul if we get the common name wrong for Alaska. As for expecting a "massive argument"...that may have been the case if we had any Alaskan editors, but AFAIK we don't. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) Maybe we don't know.  I will ask, if it is wrong and no one has complained do we need to change?  Vegaswikian 05:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just "complained", I guess. I'm currently working on Alaska articles and noticed the discrepancy. --NE2 05:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 08:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. --NE2 08:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alaska naming - State Route or Alaska Route? 

message: I just found a source for several state MUTCD supplements:  Maybe this will help people make accurate shields or with other things; for instance the Alaska one includes a list of routes. --NE2 06:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  State MUTCD supplements 

message: I noticed in my AWB run that someone had added an "external link" to Pulaski Skyway: "The Last Three Miles: Politics, Murder, and the Construction of America's First Superhighway" (). From reading the reviews on Amazon, it seems to be a good book with more of a focus on politics than the highway. That might be good, since the current article, while featured, probably needs a rework, and concentrates almost exclusively on the highway. (It should probably include a bit more on the engineering too.) Is anyone interested in this, or should I consider it? --NE2 10:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good read.  I can't afford it right now, but I would if I could. --MPD T / C 12:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should try interlibrary loan, if your local library participates. --NE2 12:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New book about the Pulaski Skyway 

message: I recently started using the "city1" parameter of template:jct for infoboxes, such as on Nova Scotia Highway 104. This is a little easier, but I realize that it provides less information than the standard in/at/near. Should I go back to the old style, or is this enough information? I think I actually have a slight preference for the word, but if you like the dash I'll keep using it. --NE2 20:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely back to the old style. As you said, the dash doesn't provide nearly the amount of information as the words. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'm changing to words. --NE2 20:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about infoboxes 

message: *Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diamond Bar Crunch Interchange
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstate 98
--NE2 22:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion discussions 

message: Would anyone object if we combined all the participant lists for all of the U.S. Road subwikiprojects into Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Participants? This would make it easier for maintenance and structure. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User list revamp 

message: It appears it should be State Route, see here  towards the bottom where there are links to each of the highway logs.  --Holderca1 12:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you look at the logs? The "State Routes" one is very inconsistent; on the first page alone it uses "State Route NM x", "State Road NM x", and "NM x". I don't know how "State Road x" was chosen, but this isn't evidence of "State Route" being the definite style. --NE2 14:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But so there's no evidence of "State Road" being the definite style either?  Then, we need to find a source. --MPD T / C 16:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If anything, it looks like "NM x" is the most common style:  Do we want to go Michigan and Kansas style here? "NM x (New Mexico highway)"? Or "NM x (highway)"? --NE2 16:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Using an abbreviation for the name is problematic. For a while, North Carolina articles were at "NC x" before they were moved to their current name to eliminate the awkwardness. This move did not come without discussion; the exact location(s) of it, I can't remember. Some might be found at SRNC, maybe others in the NCSH and USRD archives. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 19:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found it at [[Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll/Part2#<New Mexico> State Road X]]. Apparently the "tie-breaker" was that older signs included "State Road"; see . This seems reasonable to me, though I wonder why the common name was "State Road x", not "New Mexico State Road x". --NE2 20:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Mexico State Road or Route