Talk:National Highway System (United States)

message: This seems a little NPOV "NHS also will help us meet the challenges of global economic competititon by enhancing our different modes of transportation, increasing America's productivity, and bolstering its economy,"  any suggestions for replacement. Mbisanz 02:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: A link should be provided to Canada's National Highway System - that was already propsoed in 1988.  See http://www.tc.gc.ca/ship/nhsrrn.htm for details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.133.42.1 (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was no consensus. —Nightstallion (?) 09:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: National Highway System

message: The History and Justification section had been tagged as needed "cleanup" since March 2006.  According to the history, this was by Jersyko, who cited his reason as, "needs cleanup; this section is written from the POV of the dept. of transportation (obviously copied from their website), thus we have words like "us" and "our" here."  On May 6, 2006, I added an NPOV tag for much the same reason, including the reason that Mbisanz cited several months ago in the first topic on this talk page.  On May 7, Novasource removed these tags without fixing the problems, claiming that rationale had not been provided.
Virtually the entire article has been copy and pasted from the FHWA website.  If this is public domain and not copyright enfringement, that's fine, but that doesn't automatically make it encyclopedic material.  The first person used throughout the history and justification section is wholly inappropriate for an encyclopedia.  It requires a rewrite.
I would do the edit myself instead of tagging it, but I am not knowledgeable enough to do the rewrite.
Please do not remove these tags until the problem has actually been fixed. -- Northenglish 23:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV + Cleanup tags

message: Should something be mentioned about the Alaska Marine Highway ferry system being part of the National Highway System? It's a vital link in Alaska (since there are no highways to most of the towns it serves) and it's interesting (to me, anyway--I didn't know) that it's considered part of the NHS and receives funding from it. cluth 21:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alaska Marine Highway

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support as nominator. —  AjaxSmack    22:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There may be other National Highway Systems out there.  Having National Highway System adds yet another slight increment to systemic bias. Not sure if google searches are approp to determine WP structure. Should article names be set up for least surprise or for least skewwing toward the current favourite? -- Alan Liefting talk 20:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive.  If the US meaning really is the predominant meaning in the real world, then any "bias" is due to the outside world, not Wikipedia.  (Also, the Google Canada search was offered more as "supporting evidence," not the entire basis of the !vote.) SnowFire 21:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Should "principal arterials", under Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), be added to the Overview section? The official memo from NHS,  "Updated National Highway System Maps", dated September 28, 2012, would seem to suggest so. Does the prose about "Other Principal Arterials" at the main official NHS webpage refer to these same roads?
Also, the main NHS webpage distinguishes between the Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET) and Major Strategic Highway Network Connectors, while the article currently has the rather confusing and ungrammatical prose, "The Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET) of importance to the United States' strategic defense policy including links from major military installations and this Strategic Highway Network", for both. This looks, IMO, like it should be reworded and/or expanded, but I'm not a subject matter expert concerning this topic. Thanks, fellow roadgeeks!! --Chaswmsday (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Principal arterials under MAP-21 

message: Just something I noticed: The STRAHNET redirect on this page redirects to this page. I don’t know if that’s how it should work, but maybe it shouldn’t be a redirect? 2600:100D:B057:A934:A44E:F662:4FF2:D73F (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: STRAHNET highways are part of the National Highway System. What do you propose? –Fredddie™ 01:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  STRAHNET