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

message: Here's an idea for how the PA State Highway Articles should go:
:1. A general overview of the road, including size and types of use
:2. A brief history
:3. The ends of the road
:4. Route of the road, including towns and cities along the path, and intersections with other major roads.
:5. Major attractions along the road
:6. Recent projects to improve/upgrade the road, if applicable.
:7. Road in popular culture, if applicable.
These facts should be included somewhere in there: length of the road, year it was designated as a PA State Highway, volume of the road at critical points (if avaliable).
There's a good site for info: PA State Ends It has a lot of pictures which may be helpful.
Do you like these ideas?
Also, there should be a consistancy to the articles, whether we explain the route north to south or south to north (likewise for east/west roads). What do you think is better?
Getagrip123 18:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good so far. The articles should be done south to north (b/c of mileposts). Also we need a routebox for this project too. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  04:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PA State Highways Articles format 

message: Some articles covered by this WikiProject lack photographs. As part of a subcategorization of the requested photos category, there is now a category for Pennsylvania articles needing photos - to use it, just add  to the article's talk page. I have only added a few articles to the category so far, but it would be an easy way to make an extensive list Pennsylvania-related articles lacking photos. I hope you find it useful! TheGrappler 05:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Pennsylvania]] 

message: I just joined this project but i am a mebmer of another highways project that has put together a naming convention. The main reason why i brought this is is that their is a user who like to impose his own naming conventions, and has done so on at laest one article today PA Route 611, with the idea that it is the correct way to identify state highways in Penna. Regardless if it is the official way or not, i do not see it as a good way to identify PA highways as PA Route X, with my main point of contention being the PA. While PA is to Ambigious of a term to be used to identify thses routs, and if it used officialy i can see it more of a abbrivated version of Pennsylvania. Anyway i think that we should discussu this issue and come up with a convention. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 22:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd wait until the Arbitration dust clears, honestly. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  21:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I rather think it would be in the best intrest to move forward, the arbcom should have no bearing on this what so ever consider that it involves the actions of a user and not naming convention. Their for i see it in the best intrest of the project to move forward on this issue, so that we dont have 50 different types of article names. Anyone wanting to put foward a proposal should do so. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 05:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You're right - the full "Pennsylvania Route X" form is sometimes used.  --SPUI (T - C) 11:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then if that is the case, i move that the "Pennsylvania Route X" form be used as the perferd form for the article names, being that it is the less ambigious of the "correct" terms. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 06:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - "Pennsylvania State Route X" is not used, and "State Route X" is even just plain wrong for some routes - I-380 is SR 380 and PA 380 is SR 400 for example. --SPUI (T - C) 15:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well assuming that no one objects to this name proposal, then i say that it should be made as the perfered standard and listed as such on the project page and on the mos page, i'll say that a least a week for comment. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 07:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming Convention 

message: I finished these articles-each have 2 pictures (1 for each terminus).I did it help out here.HurricaneCraze32 23:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Pennsylvania Route 715]] & [[Pennsylvania Route 402]] 

message: As stated in the Structure section above, there is currently no set standard for the naming of Pennsylvania State Route shields. For this project to be truly successful (IMO), there must be one. For example, all New York State route shields are named "NY-X.png" (with X representing the route number). All Massachusetts state route shields are named "MA Route X.svg".
To start the flow of ideas, I believe that we should follow NY's lead and use "PA-X.png" as it is short, easy to remember and can successfully organize the shields. Comments? --TMF T - C 15:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shield Naming 

message: I think that we should use  as our infobox. It covers all of the important elements of the route, is very flexible, contains an efficient browse function and is widely used in many projects such as the NYS project. --TMF T - C 15:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've converted PA Route 120 and U.S. Route 6 in Pennsylvania to it. Once we get all the shields in a single format we can easily add them into the infobox. --SPUI (T - C) 23:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For reference, I've been working on some SVG shields for the PA routes using the format "PA-X.svg", where X is the route number. --TMF T - C 02:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you can go ahead and add the shields into the routebox using the "PA-X.svg" format. As for the image redlinks that are sure to arrive as a result, I'll deal with those as I come across them. --TMF T - C 06:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Infobox road/PA/shield PA should be all the articles needing them. --SPUI (T - C) 11:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, all of the articles on that list now have shields. The next step now is to change all of the articles with  to  as fast as possible as people are still using the obsolete Infobox route. --TMF T - C 23:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW,  has finally been orphaned and sent to WP:TFD#Template:Infobox route. --TMF T - C 02:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: User:Myselfalso has created a number of articles that are empty except for a navigation box for PA state routes.  They are currently tagged for speedy deletion and are in CAT:CSD.  Are actual articles forthcoming for these, say, within the next few hours?  If not, you should probably not be creating empty articles until you are ready to write them. --Aguerriero (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empty articles at [[CAT:CSD]] 

message: I've added Werdnabot to this page to automatically archive discussions older than 60 days per discussion on WT:USRD. If anyone has any issues regarding the use of Werdnabot, you may voice those opinions here. Thanks! --TMF T - C 17:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auto-archiving 

message: User:Myselfalso/PA Routes
Check out the link!  I'm creating a list of all state roads; it is color coded by stub, non-stub, not begun, etcetera.  I think this will help us work on the project so we know what articles to work on.  Also, if anyone wants to make the list longer, I have no problem with that.  --myselfalso 03:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice! That'll really help us get a grasp on the progress of the project when completed. =) --TMF T - C 05:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Route Articles 

message: I've come up with a widened shield for use with the 3-digit routes, based off of the 2-digit shield.
Take a look at PA 739 and PA 14 to see both implemented.  Comments/criticisms are welcome before I proceed with more.
Kether83 01:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --TMF T - C 02:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shields! 

message: After stumbling on an Arizona DOT drawing the other day that specifies the use of Series C for the route shields and series D whenever a "1" is part of the number and after looking at pictures of PA shields, it appears that PennDOT practices the same procedure, using C for all shields unless there's a "1" in the number, in which case they use D. Can anyone verify this? --TMF T - C 02:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in agreement.  Here are some prime examples:  , .  I can try to work on some of these over the weekend or next week as well, if the concensus is to move forward.  I see some have already been changed.  (BTW, is there anything I need to do to become an "official" member of the WP:PASH project?)  Homefryes 16:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, there's a good number of shields that need to be changed (PA 14, PA 100, PA 611, among others). Also, the only "official" thing that you need to do to join the WP:PASH project is to sign up on the project page. =) --TMF T - C 17:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shield Fonts 

message: A completion list is now available at User:TwinsMetsFan/PA Routes. --TMF T - C 00:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Completion list 

message: I've noticed that on some routes, decommissioned routes are being included in the browse while on others, the browse is limited to current routes only. Should we
#include every route, decommissioned and current.
#include current routes as well as decommissioned routes that have an article.
#include current routes only.
Personally, I'm in favor of choice two. Thoughts? --TMF T - C 22:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one's objected in the two weeks that this has been here, I'll implement choice two into the project standard. Comments are still welcome, though. --TMF T - C 21:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with choice 2.  If it doesn't have an article, it shouldn't be put in the list.  I'd rather be able to browse through routes that have articles than reach dead-ends.  --myselfalso 22:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox browse 

message: A lot of the state roads do not have infobox roads placed on them.  Because of time constraints, I've been placing the above seen SR Boxes on the pages.  I'll go back later and upgrade the articles to full infoboxes.  --myselfalso 17:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SR Boxes 

message: Shouldn't Pennsylvania Route 29 (north) and Pennsylvania Route 29 (south) be combined into a single article, Pennsylvania Route 29? Like PA 29, New York State Route 24 and New Jersey Route 440 are split into two segments, but has their own article that covers both segments. --TMF T - C 02:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The two segments were once a continuous route, like NY 24 was. So there's no reason to have two articles on a single route that was once continuous. As you said NE2, if we were talking about PA 17, then that'd be a different story. --TMF T - C 18:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pennsylvania Route 29 

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)  00:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll/Part2]] 

message: Requesting , please.  It's needed on List of crossings of the Schuylkill River.  Thanks --J Clear 20:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --TMF T - C 00:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shield Request(s) 

message: Unless there is any opposition, I am going to rename this template to pash-stub.  I think that it's easier to use.
--myselfalso 02:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind.  --myselfalso 02:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah the stub sorters get mad when you do that... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Pennsylvania-State-Highway-stub 

message: It was brought to my attention today that an article for the Amos K. Hutchinson Bypass exists. However, the entire length of the road is part of Pennsylvania Route 66, and I have requested that both pages be merged into PA 66, as there's no need to have two articles on the same stretch of road. Please comment at Pennsylvania Route 66. Thanks. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pennsylvania Route 66 

message: A HUGE amount of articles have been created lately that violate virtually every MoS on Wikipedia, whether it be the big one or WP:PASH. As you can see here, chronic violation of these policies will not be taken lightly. With that said, these articles are in dire need of cleanup, and all further articles are to abide by the project standards. Thank you. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crackdown time 

message: Also, this article should be renamed to "Pennsylvania Route 43" to conform to the project guidelines. Thoughts? --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have performed the move. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mon/Fayette Expressway]] 

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 22:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: A couple of proposals have arisen over the past couple of days:
*A proposal to merge U.S. Route 309 into Pennsylvania Route 309.
*A proposal to split a section on Pennsylvania Route 222 in the U.S. Route 222 article into its own article and eliminating the PA 222 → US 222 redirect.
Opinions on both proposals are welcome. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I agree with both. While our content should not be biased towards the present, our organization should - otherwise State Route 37 (Virginia) would be a disambiguation page like State Route 44 (Virginia). Thus the 222 split makes a lot of sense, since they are now separate routes. (The same applies to Maryland Route 222, formerly part of US 222.) The case of 309 is equivalent to a renumbering in which the type rather than the number was changed, like State Route 64 (Virginia pre-1958) redirecting to State Route 63 (Virginia). --NE2 00:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge and a split 

message: Shields are now complete for all past and present PA routes. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shields 

message: On the Pennsylvania Route 441 page, the Intersections table links to Middletown, Pennsylvania (a disambig page) instead of Middletown, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania (the correct article).  Because of the way the template is set up, I can't figure out how to change it so it links to the right page and still says just "Middletown" on the table.  Could someone take care of that?  --CrazyLegsKC 19:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. --CrazyLegsKC 01:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pennsylvania Route 441 

message: Has anyone heard of this? I've marked it for deletion because I couldn't find any sources. --NE2 23:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A Google search comes up dry. My guess is that either the creator of the article mistook it for another I-x78 interstate or the article is purely speculation. In either case, I have no problems with its deletion. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 01:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly this image, from 1967 according to the description, seems to suggest that plans for an Allentown bypass may have existed prior to the rerouting of I-78 in 1969, but there is no information about it anywhere on the Internet to confirm this, let alone that it was to be numbered I-278. Krimpet 02:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any maps of that area from the 1960s?  --myselfalso 20:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Interstate 278 (Pennsylvania)]] 

message: I was wondering, having peer-reviewed a Pennsylvania article, whether there was really a need to have a separate major cities section, since major cities, in theory, should be covered in the route description. It seems to me that the cities section is redundant. Maybe it's just me, though - I'd like to hear what you guys have to say. Thanks a lot! —Scott5114↗ 21:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A number of approaches could be taken for this. One is that the section could be turned into a standalone infobox like what is done currently at WP:NYSR. Another is that the list is moved to the routebox and the criteria for inclusion is raised so we don't list every single dot on the map in the box. The third option, one that I would have a hard time dealing with, would be its complete removal. Either (1) or (2) work for me, personally. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should I make the changes to Pennsylvania Route 145? As to TwinsMetsFan's option 1. -- JohnnyAlbert10 Time to talk · My Help 21:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Route description and major cities 

message: WP:PASH/NEWS
I have taken the initiative to begin the project newsletter for our wikiproject.  However, due to time constraints, I'm not sure how often I'll be able to do the upkeep.  Plus, I'm looking to contributors.  Please contact me if you'd like to help out!  --myselfalso 23:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:PASH/NEWS|WP:PASH newsletter]] 

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Survey - in support of the move====
#Support since that is what the project is about, really. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: #Support since that is what the project is about, really. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in support of the move

message: # Oppose: while "Route" is in fact the correct nomenclature when dealing with PA State Routes, "highways" are the actual entities that the project deals with. Additionally, the scope the project includes highways such as the Schuylkill Expressway and the Pennsylvania Turnpike which are highways, but not necessarily routes. Krimpet (talk/review) 02:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in opposition to the move

message: :Add any additional comments:
:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 11:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

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 16:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of All USRD Clean-up Templates 

message: Some articles that are about roads with little information have been merged into this list. If you know an article that is about a 1 to 10 mile long state route and the route doesn't have much to talk about; please merge the article onto List of minor routes in Pennsylvania, or post a comment here. Thank You. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 23:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of minor routes in Pennsylvania]] 

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) 05:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reminder from USRD 

message: Hey, we need to really put some strength into the project again.  Out of all 50 states, Pennsylvania is near or at the top of most articles on Wikipedia.  Thanks to the efforts of some editors, a large number of stub articles were created.  While doing so is helpful to any reader trying to find the basic information on a road, the project has pretty much maintained a large number of stubs - 410, approximately.  I believe only Texas has more.  
I was pulled over to WP:NYSR to discuss turning stubs into starts.  We, at the very least, need to do the same here.  
Here's what we're looking for in a start-class: 
*Good lead
*Complete route description
*Full junction list
In a B-class, we're also looking for: 
*referenced mileposts in the junction list (using the traffic counts)
*history
GA-class and FA-class go up for Wikipedia-wide review and A-class articles go to the A-class review within WP:USRD
So let's try to get to work, and get some of our stubs up to starts!  --Son (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hey guys 

message: I'm not a member of this project, but I'm currently reviewing Pennsylvania Route 73 for GA. I noticed that your intersection tables used coloured rows which are read by hovering. I can't say that I'm totally happy about the table - I'm a very experienced user, and I didn't think to hover, and hovering is a facility which I don't think is available to non-registered users anyway. 
Since this appears to be the current de facto or agreed project style, I haven't yet made it a GA issue, but it seems to me that a "good article" should be more transparent to non-project members,  perhaps through a key or footnoting? Jimfbleak (talk) 08:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There used to be a legend box that followed the table; however, it was removed in favor of the hover method. Personally, I'd rather abolish the shading system altogether (as I've said elsewhere) and make heavier usage of the notes column, but that decision ultimately has to be made at WP:USRD due to the national nature of the table template ( is little more than  with state=PA coded in). --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 09:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  View from the bridge 

message: Hey guys, with the time flying by lately, I haven't had much time to work on PA road articles.  Needless to say, this project has found itself in the well of inactivity.  
One thing I had done, which was several weeks ago, was move the project from WikiProject Pennsylvania State Highways to WikiProject Pennsylvania Roads.  In a bold step, this better reflects what the project is.  
As it stands, this project covers state routes, tollways, freeways, quadrant routes, former routes, historic turnpikes, beltways, scenic byways, and I think even Bicycle PA routes (and if I'm leaving any out, feel free to add them).  I think that the coverage I just listed is what this project should cover.  But if we're going to work on these articles, we need to do it in an organized manner. I have no problem trying to find out history of roads, because I'm in Harrisburg, and I can find some resources on that.  
That having been said, we need people to get working on articles.  While the project has worked well in the past, because of its inactivity, it's not working so well now.  We need to change it.  So, if you have any ideas, put them on here and we'll discuss.  I also think there are two good essays to read... User:Rschen7754/Manifesto and User:Jeff02/The purpose of WikiProjects.  
--Son (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  State of Pennsylvania project 

message: This is definately not a minor route in PA and I think it really needs some history added to the article. I really don't have time to add it and find sources myself, but I'd appreciate it if someone would find some history on this route as the article is very short and almost unsourced. Timmeh! 23:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  PA Route 940 

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) 21:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme 

message: See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#This is old and outdated.2C but its wrong
--Son (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion at USRD 

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 06:15, 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) 02:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects? 

message: As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps, a project devoted to re-reviewing Good Articles listed before August 26, 2007, the articles Interstate 95 in Pennsylvania and Interstate 476 have been re-reviewed against current GA standards. The articles will be placed on hold until issues can be addressed. If an editor does not express interest in addressing these issues within seven days, the articles will be delisted. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 00:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Reviews 

message: See WT:USRD#If we're not getting the articles changed -Mitch/HC32 20:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  If we're not getting the articles changed 

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) 03:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP 1.0 bot announcement 

message: Hey guys, within the past two years Interstate 99 and Interstate 376 have both been extended. Except on their respective pages the route grids haven't been updated to reflect this. Since there will be no more additions to the Interstate system within the Commonwealth for the foreseeable future (except for the extension of I-99 north to Corning, New York & south to Cumberland, Maryland as well as Pennsylvania Route 576 being rebranded as I-576 once the Southern Beltway around Pittsburgh is completed, both of which are at least several years away) can someone please update all of the Interstate route maps for Pennsylvania to feature the extension of these routes? Thanks! Jgera5 (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating the Interstate maps 

message: I have started a conversation here about the possibility of combining some of the United States related WikiProject Banners into . If you have any comments, questions or suggestions please take a moment and let me know. --Kumioko (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A consideration for cross project consolidation of talk page templates 

message: Casliber recently posted a suggestion on the talk page for WikiProject United States about getting the US Wikipedians Collaboration page going again in an effort to build up articles for GA through FA class. See Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTM. After several days of work from him the page is up and ready for action. A few candidates have already been added for you to vote on or you can submit one using the directions provided. If you are looking for inspiration here is a link to the most commonly viewed articles currently under the scope of Wikiproject United States. There are tons of good articles in the various US related projects as well so feel free to submit any article relating to US topics (not just those under the scope of WPUS). This noticeboard is intended for ‘’’All’’’ editors working on US subjects, not just those under WPUS.
The next item I intend to start updating is Portal:United States if anyone is interested in helping. Again this is not specific to WPUS and any help would be greatly appreciated to maximize visibility of US topics. The foundation has already been established its just a matter of updating the content with some new images, biographies and articles. Please let leave a comment on the Portals talk page or let me know if you have any questions or ideas. --Kumioko (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Collaboration reactivated & [[Portal:United States]] starting next 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pennsylvania_Route_283&diff=107356976&oldid=107354576 copied directly from http://www.pahighways.com/state/PA251-300.html#PA283. I have no idea if other such text has been copied. --NE2 06:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I'm crossposting to WT:USRD; definitely want to get some input on what to do here. --Rschen7754 08:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text copied from pahighways.com 

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 02:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC on coordinates in highway articles 

message: There is a proposal to demote all state highway WikiProjects to task forces; see WT:USRD. --Rschen7754 05:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed restructuring of USRD