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

message: :The following is an archived roads debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result was project created.Mitch32contribs 23:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the state subproject has "no interest or available manpower", who does? I'm doing some work with California right now, and I can definitely help with auto trails. Sources will be the same as for early state highway history: old newspaper articles and the like. --NE2 00:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's California; for most of the rest of the county, probably nobody. Go ahead and help with the auto trails if that floats your boat; that's partly why we're devoting a task force to it, so that people who like them have a place to focus on them. But forcing them on states that would rather focus on making articles on present-day routes not suck seems unhelpful at the least. Remember, this is a project-space management problem, and thus we have the latitude to be subjective till the cows come home if we so desire. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, how about the following: articles like Lincoln Highway in California go in trails and CA, since the expertise of California editors is helpful, but the main article Lincoln Highway goes only in trails. If nobody called the trail by its name in the state, don't make an article: for instance Jefferson Davis Highway in California would probably not exist. Many that do exist will actually be redirects, like Lincoln Highway in Pennsylvania to U.S. Route 30 in Pennsylvania; the latter would be part of PA and trails. One- or two-state trails, like El Camino Real will have details that state editors can add, and should be in the state project. Does this sound reasonable? --NE2 00:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: See my comment above: the expertise for early state highway history is the same as for auto trails. I know because I've done a lot of historical work. --NE2 00:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Auto Trails

message: Probably should've waited till after ArbCom for this, but we do have a number of editors interesed in NY county routes, including me. I have a really gut feeling that the amount of CR articles may go up again. I do wish to bring back the project as a task force instead, because a full-fledged project is not needed at this date in time. This came more out of gut feeling and am proposing the reinstation as a precaution. It'll have the benefits of lower NY wikiwork and creating less of a burden on the project. Also, the notability guidelines would be stricter on roads, limiting it to certain ones. If you need more information or a list of interested users, just say so. Voice your opinion, please.Mitch32contribs 23:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it sounds like a great idea, and I would certainly join up and help out with it. Juliancolton Talk 23:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

text: WikiWork would remain the same as the CRs would still fall under New York road transport. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, my mistake. Mitch32contribs 23:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reinstation of NY County Routes 

message: I'm proposing a task force for all highways that aren't part of a U.S. state; namely, this task force would allow a place to put resources for D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands, Johnson Atoll, American Samoa, and so forth. The reason for a combined task force is because each of these localities (except Puerto Rico) only has a few highways to begin with and so it would be inefficient to give each a task force. If Puerto Rico gains more editors in the future, they could found their own task force/subproject as needed, since Puerto Rico has a sufficient number of highways for an individual subproject to maintain. 
Also, if anyone can come up with a good name that encompasses all of these (most are territories, but D.C. is a district and Puerto Rico is a commonwealth), please suggest it. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 15:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, Puerto Rico is a territory as well, a commonwealth is just a type of territory.  There really isn't going to be a name that would encompass them all to include D.C. since D.C. is fully part of the U.S., while the others aren't.  I suppose the best you could do is U.S Roads not located in a state.  --Holderca1 talk 15:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

text: We are missing Northern Mariana Islands which has highways as well.  --Holderca1 talk 15:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I knew I was forgetting one. :P Well, let's just call it "Territorial" then, even though it includes D.C., because "Task Force for Roads Not Located In A State" is pretty unwieldy, and we don't need to be all exact about it anyway. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Here's my $0.02. I support the idea of a combined TF for the territories (and district). I'm partial to the idea of a possible Pacific/Caribbean east/west split if in the future (or now) it's decided that there's enough articles/interest in one area to maintain that separately. The other split possibility is PR/everything else since PR does have interstates assigned on paper. They don't have to split now, but in the future, it might be desirable. --Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

text: It doesn't have enough articles to warrant a taskforce. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So don't give it a taskforce. Who says everything needs one? --NE2 17:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then there's no place to keep resources. Why do you find some reason to oppose everything the rest of us propose? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep resources on a subpage of USRD. Why do you always find some reason to abuse the fallacy of many questions? --NE2 19:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Territorial

message: I'd like to propose the formation of a task force under WP:MISH devoted to the county-designated highway system, and any other county roads of great notability in Michigan. As the CDHs have their numbers assigned by MDOT, there was a list formed, but some of them (C-66, H-58) are notable enough to be given separate articles. The infobox templates were created back in 2006, but at the time, I didn't have the graphics skils to create the necessary "neutered" shields for the browser in the infobox. Today I started expanding H-58 out into its own article, and over time, I'd like to do the same for others. Quite a few may stay as redirects to the master list for a while until source materials are found, but I'd like to aggregate the project together under a task force banner, similar to what's being proposed for NYCR. I'd like to see if we can make a go of a WP:MICH as a task force. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The following is an archived roads debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was Oppose. --Rschen7754 00:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Michigan County-Designated Highways

message: See the IRC meeting log for discussion. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: March 16

message: It's my suggestion that all subprojects that have 0 active members should be demoted to task force levelo projects.  --Son 00:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have there been any additional demotions since then?  Any discussion whatsoever?  --Son 21:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to my knowledge, Kentucky was re-promoted though. master sonT - C 18:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional demotions

message: :The following is an archived roads discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
Merged into Nevada task force. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed wholeheartedly. I can't decide whether MFD or the task force is the better option, as like you said, there probably aren't any CRs notable enough to deserve an article. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 18:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's County Routes in Nevada?  I know of the "one" in Vegas - but if that's the only one - This would be more of an MfD to me :? master sonT - C 18:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Taking a quick glance at a map, it appears that there are county routes in several Nevada counties, but none deserving of an article. Some aren't even paved. I say speedy merge into the NV task force. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, merge complete, not really much of anything to merge.  --Holderca1 13:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Nevada State County Routes]]

message: :The following is an archived roads discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the discussion was that the project was folded into WP:PASH. --Son (talk) 07:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the project creator, I'm just going to go ahead and fold it into WP:PASH.  --Son (talk) 03:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The above is an archived roads discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
Comment - Okay, this was opened and closed before I even saw it, but why would this get folded into WP:PASH?  Don't they cover different things?  Wouldn't it be better to fold into WP:USST? --Holderca1 talk 13:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: No, they cover the same things.  The former WP:HbgAR covered roads in the Harrisburg, PA metro area and was limited to covering PA routes and PA quadrant routes.  Any streets that might fall under WP:USST (such as Colonial Road or Progress Avenue) are quadrant routes and would fall under WP:PASH.  --Son (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Harrisburg Area Roads]]

message: :The following is an archived roads debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was demote to CASH task force. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Demote. Inactive and can be adequately maintained by CASH. See reasons given for demoting HbgAR above. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Demote.  Inactive and can be covered by CASH.  --Son (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Demote.  Also look at stubs again and see if the two categories can be merged.  — master sonT - C 00:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Demote. No reason for this to exist separately, even as a task force. --NE2 00:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Note that I'm waiting for Arbcom to close before carrying this out. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What does ArbCom have to do with this? --NE2 00:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just in case this is interpreted as a scope change for some reason. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think both "sides" are in agreement that this is non-controversial. --NE2 01:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I also support demotion to a task force. I just haven't had time to maintain it lately. But I would hate to see it subsumed as a fair amount of work has gone into it and several of these roads are of note. Gateman1997 (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject California County Routes]]

message: What exactly is the difference between a subproject and a task force?  I am failing to see any other than where the page is located and what it is called.  --Holderca1 16:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A subproject is a state highway WikiProject that is relatively independent from USRD aside from the national guidelines (INNA, ELG, etc.). A task force is a former state highway WikiProject that has been usurped by USRD for maintenance purposes. By nature, USRD has a greater say in these task forces than it does in the subprojects. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 19:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That may have been true at one point, but the two are on a collision course for each other.  For example, if Texas was changed into a task force, what exactly would be changed?  With every new guideline that comes out, each project is getting less and less different.  All articles are expected to have the same structure, infobox, browse, exit list, etc...  I don't see where there is any room for independence or difference from the other projects.  Why not just change them all to task forces?  --Holderca1 20:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A Question