Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Virginia/Archive 1

message: What a great idea for a WikiProject.  I'd just like to make a few comments if I may.
1. Two articles that are good resources for anyone wishing to contribute are Virginia State Highways and List of Virginia numbered highways.
2. Is there a reason why you refer to state secondary routes as "county routes"?  That isn't either the usual term or the term used in state statutes.
3. Any naming convention for secondary routes should provide for routes that cross county lines while keeping their secondary route numbers.  Some ideas have been bandied about in Talk:List of Virginia numbered highways.
Thanks.  Doctor Whom 00:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled comments

message: I renamed the project template marker to <<Template:Virginia State Highways>> because it would work better for what we are doing.  Thanks to all that are working with this project --No1lakersfan 23:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name for template to mark all project pages 

message: I was wondering if this is the right designation for Route 602 also known as Rogues Rd. and the Old Carolina Road.  It runs from DC all the way to the carolinas.  It has significant historical importance because it was the route used by people like Jefferson and Washington as well as being a magnate for thevies (hence "rogues"). 66.225.69.254 18:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure you've seen this: PDF on the Upper Road (history). It seems to follow today's I-85 in NC. I don't know anything about Route 602 though, except that: VA 602... it doesn't exist anymore. --TinMan 05:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a former primary Route 602. Route 602 is now in the secondary region. --NE2 05:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, thanks. --TinMan 05:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It looks like this is the predecessor to today's U.S. Route 15, and was designated Route 2 in 1918. It's certainly not all Route 602; large portions are still US 15. The road connected Occaneechi Island (Clarksville) in the Roanoke River near the North Carolina state line with Frederick, Maryland. --NE2 05:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once in NC though, US 15 continues south, so in NC it seems to follow US 70/US 29, or more accurately, I-85. Are you trying to write an article on the Rouge's Road? --TinMan 05:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  says that the Old Carolina Road only ran to Clarksville. --NE2 05:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Carolina Road 

message: I've seen both these terms used outside Wikipedia. Which one should we be using? --NE2 05:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you not seen this? Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll. Join in the big debate if you wish on highways, state route, route, state road, etc. --TinMan 05:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on the purpose. Is this an article title? In the copy, I usually use "route", but if I might also say Virginia Highway 33 is a Virginia "state route" (bad example though). The word "state" just distingusishes the route from U.S. routes, etc. I usually only use "state route" for the opening first sentences and use "route" for the rest of the article. Now for secondary routes that y'all have in Virginia, I would call them "Secondary Route x", not "Secondary State Route x" because that seems too long. For the primaries, I prefer the word "highway" over "route" because I feel "route" is the path the highway takes. It sounds strange, and not everyone agrees, so that's why we're having a SECOND national naming convention for this stuff. --TinMan 05:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone else use the word highway? --NE2 06:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm considering moving towards a convention similar to Maryland, which would be Virginia Route X.  It's much shorter.  However, I do not like Route X (Virginia) at all.  For secondary routes, Secondary Route X (Y County, VA).  Virginia State Highway X evolved from other Wikiprojects that had similar conventions.  However, I am open to changing the convention provided we don't have Route X (Virginia).  It seriously bugs me.  --MPD01605 (T / C) 13:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But is that style actually commonly used? I've been looking through the VDOT CTB meeting minutes, and they use Route and State Highway often, and sometimes State Route and State Highway Route. Newer documents use Route and State Route. I've never seen Virginia Route used. --NE2 13:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Virginia can be added in parentheses. I'd rather type  than Route 1. State Highway seems to show up mainly in old documents; VDOT now uses Route or State Route. --NE2 15:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no matter what we do, we have to wait for the State Route Naming Vote to be complete.  For now, we have to stick with what we have and we can't move the article names.  --MPD01605 (T / C) 17:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't we figure it out on our own? That vote seems to be a solution in search of a problem. --NE2 17:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At that naming convention, each state will be able to decide which term they want to use. That's why I brought up the link. In my opinion, whatever the actual green road signs say should be what's taken most into consideration. In North Carolina, the signs either say "NC x" or "N.C. Highway x", where x is the route number. Since N.C. is the obvious abbreviation for North Carolina, we at WP:NCSH decided we're going to change to "North Carolina Highway x". I think it should be this way because addesses for residents on the highway use this format, and common language is derived usually the road signs that they read. Therefore, that's what I think people would most likely search in Wikipedia for. I don't think I've ever seen a sign that says "N.C. Route x". I've only seen that on maps and in legislation. Now, in Virginia, things might be different. I'm not familiar with the state enough to tell for certain. When I go to Virginia, I usually go to Danville or Christiansburg for business. --TinMan 18:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, living in Virginia, I call it "Route x", mainly because "Virginia is understood", the Fire-Rescue system in Loudoun County uses "Viginia Route x", and when I and my friends talk, and when I hear other talk, it's usually "Virginia Route X".  Also, with the current scheme of "U.S. Route x", it makes sense that the next step down is the aforementioned example.  So what should we do?  --MPD01605 (T / C) 19:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:No original research seems to discount that reasoning. I can give many VDOT documents that use Route, State Route or SR. Can you give anything besides personal experience and county agencies? --NE2 09:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd like to change it, since articles should not use a style that is not used in real life. But I'm not sure whether we should use Route or State Route - VDOT and the press use both. If I had to choose, I'd pick State Route, but I have no real preference between those two. --NE2 16:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok.  Then I would like to propose "Virginia State Route X".  --MPD01605 (T / C) 16:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any sources where that style is used? --NE2 16:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Route or State Route?

message: Is there a reason to use Template:Infobox VA route? Template:Infobox road can do all the same with greater flexibility. --NE2 17:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Specialised for our Project.  All projects use their own infobox that works for them.  --MPD01605 (T / C) 17:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Setting state=VA gives specialized settings. Have a look at the code that forms the infobox on State Route 40 (Georgia). --NE2 17:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most projects have their own boxes.  Maryland Route 210, California State Route 61, State Road 9 (Florida), and North Carolina State Highway 4, just to name a few.  --MPD01605 (T / C) 18:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Template:Infobox NC Route feeds its arguments into Template:Infobox road. California and Florida look very similar, similar enough that changing over wouldn't change anything. Virginia would only have minor format changes. --NE2 18:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: I've created an article about Virginia State Highway 262, which is the Staunton loop road.  Just thought I'd bring it to the attention of the WikiProject, because it certainly needs some TLC.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  VA 262 (Staunton Loop) 

message: I think that some of the route shields need updating.  Some of the much older SVGs do not work well with the VA route infobox template, and I think that if they were updated, they might work better with the template.  I also think that we should standardize how we name the route shields, because we have several different naming styles, the VA Route XX Shield.PNG/svg being the most prevalent. Standardizing the names would help greatly when trying to use a shield. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 23:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you all haven't done that already, then you probably should... and link them in a category on Wikimedia Commons so they're all together. User:Northenglish did that for us at WP:NCSH. --TinMan 02:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Now that I have found out how to create .svg files, I may work on converting all the existing shields to the Virginia XX.svg format. I think that it will make it easier to work with, and I may be able to customize the templates to work with that format. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 02:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Virginia Route Shields 

message: The State route naming conventions poll seems to be giving a clear lack of consensus. There should be no reason why that should affect us if we can individually come to consensus. Are there any objections to using the State Route style? I've been using this for new articles that I write, but I should probably have consensus to change old articles. --NE2 22:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still object to that, but I support Virginia State Route style, which I feel is a consensus between what you want and what I want, although I feel the other members of the project should be allowed to voice their opinions, too.  --MPD01605 (T / C) 23:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand how you can support Virginia State Route. This style is never used. --NE2 00:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Addition: I don't mind if you use the State Route style for the older historic routes that you've been working on.  My opinion is for the present routes. --MPD01605 (T / C) 23:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment I prefer that we use the Virginia State Highway XX, as it is easier to use, and is less cumbersome, because it does not use parenthesis.  It is hard to agree on things like this, but I think that a If it ain't broke, don't fix it approach may be the best way to go with this one. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 02:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current style is "broke" according to Use common names. No one calls these Virginia State Highway. --NE2 07:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Willy.  Parentheses are cumbersome to use.  But if this is the case, then I have to pull for Virginia Route X.  --MPD01605 (T / C) 16:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Parentheses are less cumbersome. Would you rather type State Route 3 (Virginia)| or Virginia Route 3|State Route 3? --NE2 21:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Then what do they call them in VA? Please do tell, because I'm curious. --TinMan 19:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See above - the most common style is State Route. --NE2 21:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: We actually call it Route most of the time in normal conversation.  Route 7, Route 28, Route 123, or just the number.  "Go down 7 to 28, go south, and turn left at the third light."  I would rather type Virginia Route 3.  I never have been a fan of parentheses.  --MPD01605 (T / C) 22:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The media often uses State Route, and so does VDOT, more often than they use Virginia Route. So using Virginia Route over State Route would not be using the common name. I would understand if you wanted to use Route rather than State Route, though I would probably still oppose that, as Route, like SR, is a "short form" of State Route. But Virginia Route is an alternate form that is not as common. Your dislike of parentheses should not be a reason to go against naming conventions. --NE2 22:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't want us throw Wikipedia policy at each other, but I'll say this anyway. You only disambiguate when it can't be avoided. I think it can be avoided while preserving the common name or semi-common name for people in the state as well as the rest of the world. That's why I dislike parentheses here. I think it's a last ditch thing when nothing reasonable can be devised. Plus, the first line of the "Common Names" guideline states: "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things" Therefore, I think "Virginia" should go before the rest of the title because I think everyone understands there is more than one kind of route in the world and should know Virginia goes first. Many of the other states, including my own and yours commonly use the state abbreviations for routes (i.e. VA 68 or NC 12). The state name is abbreviated in most of those cases, but it is still there. Those are what I call common names. Now, obviously, there are still abbreviations in those common names and those should be spelled out because someone in England might not know what VA stands for. So, I've come to the conclusion that it should be "Virginia State Route x", "Virginia Route x", "Virginia State Highway x", etc. or something with the state name first. That's just how I see and interpret it. --TinMan 22:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The common name in this case is either Route 3 or State Route 3. Both of those need disambiguation. --NE2 23:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't finished yet, sorry, so you might want to finish it. --TinMan 23:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My point still stands - Route and State Route are a lot more common than Virginia Route. To ensure that it doesn't conflict, we add the Virginia in parentheses. If the naming convention was to be interpreted the way you are doing, we wouldn't use parentheses at all. But articles in all areas of Wikipedia use them. --NE2 23:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's that uncommon, referencing the abbreviations. In North Carolina, we almost never say State Route (and just "Route x" is pointless with a state name in parentheses; that is just ignorant.) Road signs and addresses almost always have the state name written somewhere with "state highway" or "state route". What's on VA's signs and addresses where there is no other name? And, I think parentheses should be used for situations like the tv show 24. It should be "24 (TV series)" and not "TV series 24" since that is not the title for one, and disambiguation cannot be avoided. Nobody would type "TV series 24", but I believe someone would type "Virginia State Route x", especially people not from your state. If your road signs and mailing addresses up there DO say "State Route x" or some variant of that, then disambiguation would be ok for your state, but that's unusual compared to everywhere else that I know.  --TinMan 23:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you applying North Carolina's standards to Virginia? Route numbers are typically on separate signs with no prefix.  Here are a few that just say Route:  :Image:IMG 12511.JPG --NE2 00:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm applying majority-of-the-country standards, but that's why we have that poll on the other page. By the way, those signs aren't what I'm talking about. I typically see those for secondary routes anyway. Does Virginia not have a green rectangular sign that says "State Route x" or something?--TinMan 00:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, one of those links you gave me also uses "Virginia route x" and "VA x" found here: . --TinMan 00:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Virginia places a white rectangular sign with the route number, for all routes, at intersections that aren't already signed (most of the time) see here.  Exceptions could be US routes.  In addition to that, most (if not all) routes are named.  It's not like some places down here where the name for Highway 87 is "NC 87".  --MPD01605 (T / C) 00:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Those are in the text, not the photos. As it is a personal web page, it is not a reliable source. --NE2 00:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it had to be something like that because I haven't seen an unnamed state route in Virginia. It's always "Jeb Stuart Hwy" or "Philpott Hwy", etc. Isn't that really unusual? I know in the west, there are losts of just SR x or something like that. --TinMan 02:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: They also use State Route . In any case, I'm not sure how "common" the usage of the legislature would be. --NE2 00:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, on that same page are two uses of "VA Route 168" (i believe that's the route number).    --MPD01605 (T / C) 00:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah - it's inconsistent. --NE2 00:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: What we have is "broke". I'm trying to fix it. --NE2 03:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is what we have "broke"? You seem to be the only one that feels that way. Most other people feel that what we already have is fine, and do not want to change it. I do not think we need one person to come in here and dictate what we need to change. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 13:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Excuse me? --NE2 03:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming, again

message: Putting aside the above drama, I've tried making a shield. I think it turned out pretty well:
If you wish to complain, do so now before I make more. Should I upload these to the Commons? --NE2 17:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that one looks good. What fint did you use? When I made mine, I was using Roadgeek 2005 Series D. That looks very similar, but wanted to see for sure. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 18:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is series B. It looks like two-digit numbers use series C and one-digit numbers use series D. --NE2 18:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never noticed the differences, but thanks for pointing them out.  I think that they look great and that if you wish to continue, you can do so. If you wish, you can upload them to Wikimedia Commons.  Make sure they are listed in the Virginia road signs category. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 18:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I uploaded the shields for all primary routes that currently use infobox road. When I upload the adjacent ones, I will enable the shields in the browsing row. --NE2 18:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: How common are wide three-digit shields off green signs? Green signs often have their own rules.  shows both wide and square shields, probably posted at the same time. Or are the begin/end signs newer? --NE2 20:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those begin and end signs just look awkward to me...the shape isn't quite normal.  But the wide three-digit shields are very common.  That 460 sign is a wide one.  Here's another one with a good showing of the wide-sign .  On directional signs, it varies.  Usually, they're wide.  However in places like around the Pentagon, in Richmond, and in Bristol (areas with older signs), they're the thin ones.  It seems that the thin ones are older, and the wide ones are newer.  Routes like 267, 287, 195, 895, 288, 123, and 234 all are wide.  I'm at work right now, but I have some examples back at home of the wide signs on directional signs.  I hope I answered your question.  Also, do you live in Virignia?  If so, what part?  --MPD01605 (T / C) 20:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I reread your question and misunderstood it the first time.  Off green signs, they're common, but usually in urban areas (Fairfax, Vienna, the aforementioned cities) with older signs, they tend to be thin.  --MPD01605 (T / C) 20:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Does the shape used on  match recent signs? --NE2 22:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yessir it does.  Here's another good one .  It's correct- not an error.   --MPD01605 (T / C) 22:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Fantastic.  Thank you.  --MPD01605 (T / C) 01:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shields

message: Does anyone have info on previous VA state or secondary highway shields?  Here is a primary shield from 1940s (from this site).  What about before then? -  AjaxSmack  06:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a link on List of Virginia numbered highways to . --NE2 07:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical shields

message: Your state is invited to participate in discussions for its highway naming convention. Please feel free to participate in this discussion. If you already have a convention that follows the State Name Type xx designation, it is possible to request an exemption as well. Thanks! --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  00:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll/Part2]]

message: I've been testing out different styles for the main list. Can I have some input on Talk:List of Virginia numbered highways? --NE2 09:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New list format?

message: The poll closed, and from what I can gather, our new NCs are those listed on the WP:VASH project page.  How do we want to go about changing everything over?  The articles should be changed first, then all redirects.  I don't know where to begin with all this.  Any ideas?  Also, this Project should be retitled "Wikipedia:WikiProject Virginia State Routes", and you see where I'm going with this.  So...what to do now? --MPD01605 (T / C) 02:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Make sure you warn the ArbCom and the other big guys before you start mass-moving... or you'll get blocked... or at least that's what it says at WP:SRNC: "(Curps, WP:ANI, ArbCom given 12 hours notice so we are not blocked)"' --TinMan 03:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will notify ArbCom that any moves made in Virginia routes are OK, provided that User:NE2 and User:No1lakersfan are in agreement to the NCs and preparation to move. --MPD01605 (T / C) 04:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All sounds good for a go then. Now... who's got a bot? =) --TinMan 04:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: With that said, are there any objections if I start changing the style used in text to this standard? --NE2 10:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think it would be OK to just use Route X in the article body where it's not ambiguous?  Also, abbreviations would be SR X except where it would be ambiguous with another state's, then it's VA X (this would be used only in the routebox and other templates).  Is that OK with everybody?  --MPD01605 (T / C) 15:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine with me. I've been using SR X rather than Route X, but Route X is a very common style for all types of roads. The only number that's actually ambiguous is 13, since all the others match end-to-end, and the two 13s are pretty far apart. --NE2 15:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good then.  You can go ahead and start doing stuff, it's fine with me.  I've notified ArbCom of our intentions.  To give them enough time to see it, I said we will not be moving articles until Friday (the 15th).  --MPD01605 (T / C) 15:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am fine with moving all the articles.  If you need any help with the process, please feel free to let me know, as I am willing to work with everyone to ensure that the moving of articles is done in an efficient manner. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 21:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Naming Coventions

message: Some are very short, and some of the Interstates are currently redirects, but all the articles exist. This is basically the more major routes (2-57) and most of District 1 (61-98). --NE2 18:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: We now have an article for every two-digit route

message: Good for everybody that there are standard rules for naming state roads but there is a problem with the new Virginia system.  There is no differentiation of primary and secondary routes in the titles.  I know that all of the brilliant contributors to these pages know of the 600+ rule and don't need any differentiation but it is possible that some of the unwashed masses might actually access these pages in which case naming primary and secondary routes the same is potentially confusing.
These routes are conceptually quite different to the lay-Virginian and are called "county routes" by many.  The difference in shield and (in some areas) frequency of signage cement this.  Both the Virginia DOT state map and the individual county maps name the routes differently ("Virginia Primary" and "Virginia Secondary" and "VA Primary Highway" and "VA Secondary Highway").  The traffic volume estimates use "Virginia State Route" and "Secondary Route".  Only on the mostly informal web entries are the two route types conflated.
Adding a county name parenthetically does not show this difference.  Just as Interstate 490 (New York) is not a different type of route than Interstate 590, so it appears with Virginia State Route 895 and Virginia State Route 895 (Fairfax County).  Any state route could be appended with a county name if the article deals with a section only in one county (and could move beyond the theoretical in multi-section primary routes like VA 42). 
The thing that really set me off was the changing of all abbreviations of primary routes in the infoboxes to "SR".  Not only is this abbreviation rarely used in Virginia but it identical with "Secondary Route".
I don't care what names are used for Virginia state roads and am glad there is a uniform standard but there needs to some disambiguation between primary and secondary routes.  At least the abbreviations should contrast (e.g., VA/SR or SR/SSR; VA/SR represents less original research).  And what is the harm in Virginia Route XXX and Virginia Secondary Route XXX (XXX County) for article titles?
-  AjaxSmack  18:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually VA/SR is more original research. VDOT regularly uses SR to mean State Route, whether primary or secondary (see  and ), and the State Route style is more common than Virginia Route (see evidence above). There are only two "edge cases" where primary routes are numbered in the secondary range; if anyone writes an article on a secondary SR 785 or SR 895, we simply create a disambiguation page. This would be just as much of an issue if we used Virginia Route, as that style is also used for secondary routes (see  and ). --NE2 20:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with NE2 for the time being.  Right now, the only articles above 599 that could be confused with a secondary route are VA 895 and VA 785.  Virginia did not have Wikipedia in mind when creating their numbering system, particularly since Wikipedia was some many years away.  The use of SR in the routebox, or anywhere, wouldn't matter, since it would be directed to the appropriate page.  We can't call them PR X, because that would be ambiguous with Puerto Rico.  Secondary routes would be, for example, VA 606 or SR 606, and primary routes would still be VA 28 or SR 28.  Each secondary route article would have its own county page.  Virginia State Route 606 (Loudoun County), and Virginia State Route 606 (Fairfax County), even though the two connect.  There would be a disambig page for Virginia State Route 606.  Fairfax County Route 606 could redirect to the aforementioned article to save the county route problem.  I'll stop now before i continue to go.  --MPD01605 (T / C) 21:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant (above) that VA/SR is less original research than SR/SSR.  SR is used more than VA in internal VDOT documents but VA is not original research.  My question is still why there needs to be ambiguity in titles and abbreviations when there doesn't have to be.  Why can't the word "secondary" appear in titles?  And why can't primary routes be abbreviated by VA XX and secondary ones by SR XXX?  Wikipedia is not an arm of the VDOT or an internal forum for purist road hobbyists; it's an encyclopedia not served well by deliberate obfuscation in the name of a questionable ideal. - -  AjaxSmack   06:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Using a different naming style for each is original research, since common usage is to use the same style for both. When writing an article about a secondary route, put somewhere in the intro that it is a secondary route. Problem solved. --NE2 13:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Using a different naming style is not original research.  The Virginia Free Official State Transporation Map, the public face of the VDOT, uses "Virginia Primary" and "Virginia Secondary" and VDOT county maps use "VA Primary Highway" and "VA Secondary Highway."  And using a different abbreviation style is not original research according to your Google result above ()  So my questions still stand: Why can't the word "secondary" appear in titles and can't nonambiguous abbreviations be used? -  AjaxSmack   00:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a copy of the state map right here. It has the text "Virginia Primary" and "Virginia Secondary" next to shields. Nowhere does it say anything like "Virginia Primary Route 5". The only non-Interstates even mentioned in text are "Rt. 267" and "Rt. 44" (it's a bit old) in the HOV information. And yes - it is original research to use a *different* abbreviation for primary and secondary routes, since VDOT uses both SR and VA for both primary and secondary routes (see ). --NE2 03:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually it would be Virginia State Route 606 (Fairfax and Loudoun Counties) if it's a continuous route. --NE2 13:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was also in the huge Poll Part 2, might I add.  But that aside, does the article title really need to be Virginia Secondary State Route 606 (Fairfax and Loudoun Counties)?  They're state routes, and since state routes between primary and secondary do not intermingle (with the exception of 785 and 895), what's the big deal?  Will the layperson search for "Virginia Secondary Route 606"?  Probably not.  "Route 606", yes.  "Old Ox Road"? Yes.  "Virginia Route 606"?  Probably.  "Loudoun County Route 606"?  They could.  We don't know.  All these will have to be redirects, I suppose. Whether it's primary or secondary does not matter for the title, since they do not overlap.  Abbreviations would be just as confusing for the general public.  They, we, understand that SR means state route, and VA means Virgina.  If we see MD 17 and VA 287, with shields, we'd understand.  In the text, I'd probably read Route 606 and if it interests me, I'll click it, and see that it's Virginia State Route 606 in...Pittsylvania County or whatever.  --MPD01605 (T / C) 01:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ambiguity in the new naming rules

message: Every mainline primary state route, other than facility routes and a few ridiculously minor routes, now has an article with an infobox. Phase II will be adding history and writing articles about former primary routes. --NE2 12:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Phase I" (as I have just defined it) is now complete

message: Please comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/James River Bridge/archive1. --NE2 19:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[James River Bridge]]

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.  B2T2 23:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.  Badbilltucker 16:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: In response to a few issues that came up, we are giving a reminder to all state highway wikiprojects and task forces:
# Each project needs to remain aware of developments at WT:USRD and subpages to ensure that each project is aware of decisions / discussions that affect that project. It is impossible to notify every single project about every single discussion that may affect it. Therefore, it is the state highway wikiproject's responsiblity to monitor discussions.
# If a project does not remain aware of such developments and complains later, then there is most likely nothing USRD can do about it.
# USRD, in most to nearly all cases, will not interfere with a properly functioning state highway wikiproject. All projects currently existing are "properly functioning" for the purposes mentioned here. All task forces currently existing are not "properly functioning" (that is why they are task forces). Departments of USRD (for example, MTF, shields, assessment, INNA) may have specific requirements for the state highway wikiprojects, but complaints regarding those need to be taken up with those departments.
# However, this is a reminder that USRD standards need to be followed by the state highway wikiprojects, regardless of the age of the wikiproject.
Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 05:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reminder from USRD

message: As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level.  The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
*The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.  
*The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.  
*A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.  
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at :Category:C-Class_articles.  If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages.  The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles. 
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme.  This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year.  Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

message: Hi!  I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate.  This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group.  If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinators' working group 

message: Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects?  If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3.  Thanks, Matt (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects?

message: Sorry.  Not a Wikipedia saavy user.  But I know about US 29 and recently modified the above article to show that it was designated as the "29th Infantry Division Memorial Highway" by the General Assembly in 1993.  I then tried to cite my reference but am too stupid to insert the code right. Tried and failed twice.  If one of you experts can fix this for me I would be grateful.  The reference for this nifty fact is the VDOT document "Designated Interstate and Primary Route Numbers, Named Highways, Named Bridges and Designated Virginia Byways" which is online at http://www.virginiadot.org/info/resources/route-index-07012003.pdf . I can be reached at preis at aol dot com if need be.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.162.252 (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. Route 29 in Virginia  - made a change but could not cite reference. 

message: This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP 1.0 bot announcement 

message: Has anyone noticed a bit of a clique regarding good article reviews of highway articles?  It seems that a few states have all of their nominated routes reviewed and passed rapidly, while the articles from the wikiprojects of other states do not fare as well.  Is there particular reasons why Virginia articles do not get through the GA review process? Any suggestions would be appreciated. In particular, I tried to improve Virginia Route 27 with little success. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Some states have active editors that know how to write good Good Articles that need a minimum of effort to review and pass. Virginia Route 27 needs work. Simple as that. Also chances you'll get a reply from a Virginian are slim.<FONT FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="-1" COLOR="corn">Mitch</FONT>32(Transportation Historian) 22:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

text: If you actually implemented some of our suggestions, you might find that the article would pass. --Rschen7754 22:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Review the article history, and you will see hours of implentation, which met criticism by the next reviewer. How many Virginia highways have a successful GA review? Racepacket (talk) 06:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You rejected 2/3 of my suggestions. I wouldn't call that implementation. GA is not how much work you put into an article; it's whether the article meets the GA standard. Your work is useless if it doesn't meet the standard. As far as Virginia GAs go, Virginia State Route 37 is a GA, and rightfully so. Look at that if you need help. --Rschen7754 06:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Another thing is that individual reviewers will have different opinions on how one article will fit with the established criteria. On the average, they'll work out the same, but there is a level of subjectivity. That I found different issues than Rschen is only normal, but on the whole, before that article is renominated for a fourth attempt, it should be evaluated against that was actually suggested in both the second and third reviews. Rschen's comments in his review regarding the RD section were that it should be broken up into more than one paragraph. That's a vaild critique. The issue is that when I read the article for my review, your attempt made it disjointed. The first paragraph discussed the article from one end to the other. The second paragraph jumped back into the middle of the route. Instead you should have a series of paragraphs that start at one end and move to the other. There will be times where an additional paragraph is appropriate to discuss the route as a whole either before or after the full description. Now, I've given you five specific items that I feel need addressing to meet criterion 1, nine for criterion 2, two for criterion 3 and one for criterion 6. Rschen's review was broken down by section, so there isn't a one-to-one comparison with mine. He gave you a comment on the lead (which I echoed), 18 comments on the RD, 7 on the History, 2 on the Junction list and one on the images in general. Give the article a few days, come back and re-read the comments from both reviews. See if you've actually implemented the suggestions from both before renominating the article. I suggested a third-party copy edit simply because you can't do a proper evaluation of the strengths or weaknesses of the prose when you're rushing to renominate the article. If you walk away and come back to the article, then you can give it an honest editing without a third party. Imzadi 1979 → 08:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Another hint: When I review an article that has a failed GAN, I always take a look at the previous GANs and make sure that all of the issues in the previous noms were addressed. The more failed GANs you get that you ignore, the more times you roll the dice and get a bigger list of problems to fix. Rather than ignoring our suggestions (which we both spent hours writing up for your benefit so that you could fix the article rather than make snide comments after them), you could take our suggestions to heart and improve the article. While I, for example, rarely pass articles flat out, you'll find that your GAN will be held for a few minor things that you may have missed, and then it will be passed. Take it from editors who have been through the process several times (Imzadi, Mitch, and I have about 30 FAs and 230 GAs combined between us.) --Rschen7754 09:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article Process

message: There is currently a discussion taking place at WT:HWY regarding the potential use of coordinates in highway articles. Your input is welcomed. --Rschen7754 02:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC on coordinates in highway articles