Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/U.S. Routes/Archive 2

message: I thought that allowing these templates to exist would be a problem from the start. However, I decided to leave them uncontested. Here is the problem: editors have been putting them on Interstate and U.S. Highways... we can't have those on there. Here is the reason: If every state had one and put theirs on every Interstate they have, then Interstate 95 would have 15 templates- that's way too many. Even 3 or 4 is too many to have on one page... we already have U.S. Highway 1 with 3 on them and the page looks cluttered. Please share your thoughts. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  State Highways templates 

message: Since there seems to be a move to change the names of articles to "U.S. Route XX" from "U.S. Highway XX", should the title of the project be change to "WikiProject U.S. Routes"? —  Bellhalla 03:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll wait a week to make sure that the articles aren't moved back. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  03:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project title name change? 

message: For a couple of US routes, I created Oregon-specific sub-articles (as suggested by Wikipedia:summary style) a while back.  They can be seen at:
U.S. Highway 101 in Oregon
U.S. Highway 97 in Oregon
U.S. Highway 30 in Oregon
Obviously, not all of the US highways have this treatment; and some of them (US 730, US 199, US 197) are so short that it wouldn't be worth it; but I think this is a good approach to allowing state-level detail for US highways.  State specific pages can have state-specific templates (like Template:Oregon State Highways), which are generally a no-no on US route pages.
Two other approaches to having state-specific detail on US routes:
* Disallow it.  I don't like this idea for obvious reasons
* Put all the state detail on the main highway page; this will clutter up the pages horribly.  Especially for highways like U.S. Highway 20 or U.S. Highway 30 which cross the country.
There was some discussion about the merits of this on Talk:U.S. Highway 101, but the discussion didn't reach any concensus; which is why I am bringing the up here now.
--EngineerScotty 22:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Interstate 95 for a similar discussion. My view on this is that we need a consensus before splitting an individual article up... because then we could get madness like U.S. Route 101 in Southern California which we don't want. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is probably safe to draw the line at states; at least from the top-level pages.  I agree that a separate page for each county that a given highway passes through is overkill.  OTOH, Wikipedia is not paper, so if someone wants to write such an article, and it is properly referenced and NPOV, I wouldn't attempt to stop them.  We do have, for example, an articles on the Hollywood Freeway and Ventura Freeway--both of which encompass US 101 (as well as a pair of California state routes).  In Oregon, the article on the Mount Hood Highway gives lots of detail on a section of U.S. Highway 26, as well as Oregon State Route 35.  I see no reason to exclude such articles, if someone has the bandwidth to write them and do a good job. --EngineerScotty 21:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of summary style for state-specific detail 

message: Should we do the same thing as the WP:IH did for their browse state highways? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  05:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Browse state highways 

message: I realize that Wikitravel is not related to Wikipedia, though it is in a similar style.  There is some talk over there about making Route 66 a Featured Destination (same as a Featured Article over here) in a few months.  Should something be posted about this on the Route 66 article in Wikipedia?Rt66lt 03:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take a look at it on WikiTravel. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  03:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US 66 and Wikitravel 

message: I would like to put some infoboxes for U.S. Highway 71 Business (Joplin) and U.S. Highway 71 Alternate.  I was trying to fix a new one for the Missouri highway articles, should I put them in the new Missouri boxes when I finish it?Rt66lt 03:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Business routes, etc. 

message: I've created all of the U.S. route shields from 0-99 (and a few 3-digit ones) as SVG and uploaded them to Commons. You can find them at Commons:U.S. Highway shields. Scott5114 23:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 3 digit one is definetely wrong. I don't know about the other one. 193x154 is not proportional to 750x600 (SHS2004, page 3-4, M1-4 for independent use). This is just speculation, but if you made the 2 digit one in the same manner, then unfortunately there is likely a problem with it. Whether or not there is, I just made a template based on it. I was about to for all the 3 digit ones, but was scared off by the aspect ratio issue. Also, why are they so small? :Image:US DOT FHWA MUTCD SHS 2004 3-4 M1-4 600x600mm 00.svg --Chris 01:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Why the margins? Also, on the three digit one, when I was trying to get the path into position, I realized that the bottom point doesn't line up with the top one. That's also unfortunately definetely wrong. On the 2 digit ones, the middle points (top&bottom) are off-center. Did you draw these freehandish or something? Grids and rulers are your friend. --Chris 02:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I used :Image:US_39_shield.png as a template, having Inkscape automatically generate a vector from it (Path > Trace Bitmap is the command). The 3 digit one I figured was off, because I found those lying around my hard disk (I think I freehanded those. Which is why I only uploaded 3 of them; those three had no PNG equivalent when I created them.) Theoretically, the size of the original SVG file doesn't matter, because it can be scaled up and down infinitely without any loss. Scott5114 18:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes they can be scaled, but they are not in proportion to the size specified in SHS. I never noticed that tracing feature. Anyway, I suppose the 2-digit errors are minor, and probably fixable, but the three digit ones should be redone by somebody. I was planning on making them from scratch, like I did with my first set of 3di shields, but all of the curved lines scared me off (would take a while). Also, If you traced from bitma[, I don't think they'd be as scalable as something written in scratch in SVG. --Chris 04:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The trace-from-bitmap feature creates actual vectors, same as if you traced them by hand, so they're just as scalable. ...Scott5114 18:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: And three-digit done. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 08:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Because SVG is better. Diagrams should be in SVG whenever possible. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 19:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To elaborate: SVG is "scalable vector-graphics", and road sign images often need to be scaled to a smaller size, say in exit tables and that sort of thing. SVG scales better than other formats. ...Scott5114 20:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me.Gateman1997 21:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Are California's specs online? The Federal MUTCD doesn't have those. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly I'm not sure. However I don't think there is any harm in using the current gif image as a model. It is accurate to any US highway sign I've ever seen in California. If we find it isn't later it won't be hard to make adjustments.Gateman1997 18:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Apparently I want G26-2. Any idea where the detailed drawing of that is? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see table 2D-102 gives the sizes, but I can't find the exact specs. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, here we go. I'll make them for all current and former routes in California. Is US X (CA).svg a good naming convention? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another alternative might be to drop them at their respective "California State Route XX.svg" page. That way the CA box can be used on the pages as they are by law CA routes.Gateman1997 04:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that would work. ...Scott5114 03:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: That has problems with former routes like 48. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Excellent work, as always. ...Scott5114 18:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This has been done, but some of the SVGs are blank. See Illinois Route 95 and Illinois Route 41. Is this related to the recent commons outages? —Rob (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US route shields in SVG 

message: Don't forget to make version of the shield utilized in California for US 101, 199, 97, 95, 395, 50, and 6. The gif template is good but needs to be svg or png. .Gateman1997 01:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are California's specs online? The Federal MUTCD doesn't have those. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly I'm not sure. However I don't think there is any harm in using the current gif image as a model. It is accurate to any US highway sign I've ever seen in California. If we find it isn't later it won't be hard to make adjustments.Gateman1997 18:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Apparently I want G26-2. Any idea where the detailed drawing of that is? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see table 2D-102 gives the sizes, but I can't find the exact specs. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, here we go. I'll make them for all current and former routes in California. Is US X (CA).svg a good naming convention? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another alternative might be to drop them at their respective "California State Route XX.svg" page. That way the CA box can be used on the pages as they are by law CA routes.Gateman1997 04:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that would work. ...Scott5114 03:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: That has problems with former routes like 48. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Excellent work, as always. ...Scott5114 18:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  California 

message: Sweet. More shields to convert in my pages. Where can I put up a request for SVG Illinois shields? I don't maintain a project page for List of Illinois State Routes — that's just way too much overhead for me, and the list seems to be filling out via regional contributors. Here's an example:
Ugly? A bit. JPEGs? Definitely. More distinct than the ordinary square ones, though. I don't know of any standards used to construct them, and even if I did, there are a couple of signs of questionable standardization in existence anyway. —Rob (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been done, but some of the SVGs are blank. See Illinois Route 95 and Illinois Route 41. Is this related to the recent commons outages? —Rob (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Illinois

message: Suggested modified template discussion Template_talk:Routeboxus to make column headings more distinct. --Censorwolf 19:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Routeboxus 

message: Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Lengths discusses how to get precise lengths, like on US 30. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lengths 

message: Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Gflores Talk 17:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project 

message: I have just created Portal:U.S. Roads.  If you have any feedback, please place it under "Portal" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads.Rt66lt 03:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal 

message: I would like to clean up a few U.S. Route pages to meet the standards of this project. But I've looked at lots of pages for U.S. highways, and I can't seem to find any to use as examples. Also, the standards seem to be inconsistent -- for example, in the "structure" section, it's suggested that I use a bulleted list for junctions, while the "templates" section suggests that I use tables. Rather than try to decode the standard, it would be simpler to look at a page that's formatted correctly.
BostonHMann 15:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there an example of a US route page that meets the standards? 

message: This is killing me.
For lists of cities, states, or other locations, please arrange them from west to east OR south to north. Living in Chicago, it's my natural leaning to list things in a radius from Chicago, but I've managed to make myself stop doing that.
The justification is that most reasonable states assign mile markers in a west-east / south-north fashion, so an interstate listing should do the same.
Thank you. —Rob (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List order 

message: Okay, this section needs some sort of consensus...
# We need to decide whether to use "States traversed" or "Route description"
# We should be aware that subsection pages (U.S. Route 30 in Illinois) are cropping up that describe the route in finer detail. I have no problems with this, and find it to be better style.
# We need to decide whether the h3 section header should be wiki'd or not, i.e.
=== Illinois ===
or 
=== Illinois ===
I prefer to use "States traversed" and to wikify the subsection titles, but I'm equally aware that wikifying the subsection titles is a rare practice in Wikipedia. (The bolded items in my previous sentence are what I'm requesting consensus on). —Rob (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  States traversed / Route description consensus needed 

message: This is more a statement of opinion... I think that shields in the termini fields up in the infobox should be okay, a la U.S. Route 54, and will start doing this on more articles unless someone notifies me. :-p —Rob (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would assume this would be an accepted practice as that's how it's done on the Interstate Project pages, like Interstate 94. Stratosphere 19:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shields in termini? 

message: Greetings.  FYI I've posted in the Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Highways/General forum of the Project regarding the status of the main U.S. Highway articles, which one's are infoboxed, mapped and or junction listed.  I just completed mapping US 1-101 (151, 163, 400, 412, 425) and infoboxing the rest of them.  Article infoboxes still need to be "junctionized" (list of major junctions added) as well as making sure the endpoints and junctions are listed South to North or West to East  Also, check to see if the endpoints are junctions themselves and add the appropriate shields ala U.S. Route 9.
Refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Highways/General for the list of pages that still need to be "junctionized" Cheers! Stratosphere 07:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I will do that.  Thanks for putting the map into the infobox template, I was going to look into that. Stratosphere 17:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. Highway Article Status 

message: I'm hoping to get this up to a featured article; I've listed it for peer review. Right now I'm working on a master map (in SVG) of all current routes; I've done all two-digit odd and am up to 42 for even. Once I finish that I'll do some more work on the article, then probably ask for input on the ushwys mailing list and misc.transport.road, and then list it for featured article status. Any commentary would be appreciated. --SPUI (T - C) 18:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[United States Numbered Highways]] 

message: This should be helpful in writing articles. --SPUI (T - C) 06:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting... nice job with the ink pen... --TinMan 04:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1925 plan 

message: Okay, I updated U.S. Route 20 with the proposed scheme, and will not be making changes to any other articles. I will need to hammer together a custom TOC because the sheer amount of sections in the article is overwhelming. Being the longest U.S. Route in the U.S., I expect the need for a custom box to occur in 15-20% of all other articles. Generally, the longest ones, and the ones that go through the most states. —Rob (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks much better.  I like the major cities infobox.  I thought you were going to stick those in the existing one :)  I imagine the article will look even better once the individual state info is fleshed out. Stratosphere 00:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Eventually long routes like 20 should have a separate article for each state, so this is probably more of an interim thing. --SPUI (T - C) 18:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example 

message: Hello, I was just wondering what the accepted or decided upon abbreviation for a U.S. route is. I have looked around a few articles, and I have seen "U.S. 1", "US-1", "US 1", and a couple other styles that escape me right now. Which is the correct one to use in an article? Thanks, Hotstreets 01:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really the most important thing is that it's consistent within the article. I personally prefer "U.S. 77", but that's just me. —Scott5114↗ 18:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, thank you very much! Hotstreets 18:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abbreviation Standard 

message: Anyone working on the U.S. Route equivalent of the following?
Thanks. —Rob (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One makes me wonder why would you need this - the US Route 3ds aren't as stringent to their parent as the Interstates are --master_sonLets talk 16:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. In my opinion, one could make a case that U.S. Route 219 (for example) is just as much a full-fledged state highway as its parent,  U.S. Route 19. --TMF T - C 19:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems as though some of these 3di articles are hanging out in space. There's always the "Related U.S. Routes" list for the main articles, and then there's articles for historical routes like U.S. Route 330 or U.S. Route 320. Even current articles like U.S. Route 360 could use to stand related a U.S. 60 infobox if only for familiarity and style, even if U.S. Route 60 is linked to in the article. —Rob (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Could we not do a browsebox similar to the State highways?  or put them in the selection box with the 1 and 2d routes? --master_sonLets talk 19:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. Route boxes 

message: Okay . . . we've got a convention that the cities passed through should be listed from south to north or west to east.  Does the same rule hold for the states passed through?  Most of the pages I've seen for US routes have the states listed from north to south, and the route descriptions (including ones I've written) go from north to south as well.  Do we need to fix all this stuff? ObtuseAngle 19:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was under the impression that the states traversed section (which is the route description) should be written from south to north and west to east. All of the articles that have the descriptions from north to south were probably written before the project standards were updated recently. --TMF T - C 19:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  I'll (eventually) redo all my contribs so they read south to north and start working on others as well. ObtuseAngle 19:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ordering 'States traversed' and writing state route descriptions 

message: Recently, a user moved the state highway system browse boxes from the srbox at the bottom of the page to the infobox on a number of articles, cluttering up the infobox and making it extremely long (even with my monitor at 1280x1040 resolution!). I was under the impression that the browse bars should be in the infobox for intrastate U.S. routes only, and that interstate U.S. routes should have their browse boxes at the bottom of the article. Am I correct or am I missing something? --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 15:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct.  Only highways contained in a single state eg Interstate 43 or subarticles by state eg U.S. Route 51 in Wisconsin.  •  master_sonLets talk 17:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we make this nationwide? Because the browse system is a mess right now. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  18:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Make what nationwide, my comment or TMF's?  if its about mine, I agree.  I have such things stated on the two WPs I started and I believe that the I and US WPs also have them stated.  •  master_sonLets talk 19:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both I suppose... and also for the WP-less states too... like for example California has a messed up browse system right now... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  19:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with everything stated above. That said, I'll move the browses on multi-state articles back to the srbox. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah so I assume that we want to post all of the projects and WP:USRD on this, putting a section at WP:USRD for the browse... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  21:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea. That way, there's no confusion regarding browsing. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 02:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does WP:USRD look good? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty good. I made a few changes to clarify some things, but for the most part, I left the original writing in tact. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 03:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  State highway browse boxes 

message: I'm aware of the horrible mess that Werdnabot made of /Archive2... I'm leaving it in place for now to show the operator what is going wrong. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow...what a mess. Something like that happened at WT:PASH some time ago, where a bunch of random text (in fact, it looks like the exact same text that showed up in archive 2 above) showed up. A diff: . --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 03:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm wondering if we should manually archive from now on... if this stuff keeps happening. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  03:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Werdnabot archiving 

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 22:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: From the article: "For a long route, only list 2di junctions."
"2di" means 2-digit interstate - was this policy copied from the interstate project without examining it? --Random832T 15:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From my knowledge, "2di" is not interstate specific - it only means 2-digits, in this case, two-digit U.S. routes. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 16:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But you can/should include 2di Interstates too. For coast-to-coast U.S. Routes, including all 2di Routes (U.S. or Interstate) is definitely impractical, though. —Rob (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The way I worded my response was bad - what I should have said is that "2di" is this context likely means 2di U.S. routes and 2di Interstates. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: "2di" stands for 2 digit interstate, but it's sometimes applied to mean "two digit route" of any type. Perhaps the U.S. route policy should include 2dis and all US routes - 3 digit U.S. routes are much longer and more important than their Interstate counterparts. —Scott5114↗ 18:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Including all U.S. routes is probably not a good idea - we don't list every state route that is intersected for an article about a state route; we include the most notable of such. This reasoning should apply here as well. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. I think the reason that the 2di note was added was because, in many cases, the 2di are the junctions that end up being listed. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2di junctions? 

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 15:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: Why does United States Numbered Highways and its reference  say that US 2 is a principal route (apparently to avoid US 0) whereas most of the rest of the 'pedia (especially Template:U.S. Routes and U.S. Route 2 don't say it is principal? -- Paddu 20:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  So is US 2 principal or not? 

message: See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways#State law additions. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  State law additions 

message: U.S. Route 7 Alternate, is a southbound-only road. Does the normal convention of listing roads south to north apply to this type of road? (The road is listed south to north in the VT route log.) 
TIA, SkipperRipper 07:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go with the route log in spite of its direction. A little flexiblity here is okay, either way. —Rob (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on both counts.  (That it should be south-to-north, but that it doesn't really matter.) -- NORTH talk 18:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No specific opion here, just that if it is listed north-to-south to match the direction of travel, there should be an appropriate annotation. Fwgoebel 02:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "One-way" Highway question 

message: See WT:USRD#Infoboxes for U.S. route bannered routes. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infoboxes for U.S. route bannered routes 

message: See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads#Use_of_old_shields_on_current_routes... —Rob (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of old shields on current routes... 

message: I added some old history to History_of_road_transport#United_States_of_America.  More is needed on the development of funding, policies, and design.   I suggest creation of an article for the history of U.S. roads with much of this information, and links to the specialized existing articles.  Some of the existing articles have stub History sections which could link back to this general history so as to provide a more complete description of the history.  (SEWilco 20:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the talk page for articles relating to United States Numbered Highways.  A better place to say this is on WT:USRD, where it covers any road in the United States.  This project only covers roads that are usually signed with signs such as . V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路) 00:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, I somehow didn't find that project.  (SEWilco 03:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of US Roads 

message: At the IRC meeting on April 27, numerous editors expressed approval for changing the name of the "States traversed" section to "Route description". On intrastate U.S. route articles, "Route description" is already used, and changing the header name would make the project much more consistent with the rest of WP:USRD. Thoughts? --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 16:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it. —Scott5114↗ 18:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed change to structure 

message: Is there any specific reason these long decommissioned routes redirect to US 6?  Historically, neither of those routes was taken completely over by US 6 as parts became US 34.  I was on the idea that if it ever existed, it was notable, and this seems to fly in the face of that. DandyDan2007 10:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  US 32 and US 38 

message: I find it quite odd that the official nomenclature is "U. S. Route xxx", but almost all instances of discussing these highways in Wikipedia, including on this page(!) use the term "U. S. Highway", which, from my experience living in various places around the country, is much more likely to be used in making a reference to them while talking.  Was there some specific reason that "route" was chosen as preferable compared to "highway" in this context?? Doug 17:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Route is the official name used by AASHTO, which is in charge of the numbering scheme, so that's used in the article titles. Before this was common knowledge around the project, the pages were all at "U.S. Highway xxx", and any references to that naming scheme in the article probably dates back from that time and simply hasn't been edited heavily since then. The U.S. Route articles in general (particularly the 3-digit routes) could use some expansion and freshening up. —Scott5114↗ 17:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to be picky, but that's not quite accurate, is it?  AASHTO's publication United States Numbered Highways uses both terms, and I don't see that there is anything at the official website for AASHTO that indicates a specific preference one way or the other. Even the paragraph on naming the routes/highways at our own page on the system says it's not a closed question with AASHTO. Still, AASHTO's application for a numbering modification seems to have settled upon describing an individual numbered highway with the word "route," so I guess it makes some sense to go with that nomenclature. Doug 19:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomenclature 

message: So the Infobox U.S. Route insists that only one set of cardinal directions be utilized for a route's termini, however, as U.S. Route 202 crosses state lines it shifts from a North/South designation to an East/West. I originally figured the best solution was to list both directions on the termini lines, but that was removed by another editor (probably per the template). Quite frankly, I will insist this be an E/W highway because that's where I live, but I'm sure users south of here will insist it is a N/S highway because that's where they live. Neither directional orientation is correct, nor is it wrong. Any thoughts on resolving this? ZueJay (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's east/west in NY, CT, NH, and ME and north/south in DE, PA, NJ, and MA. For this particular route, putting both directions in the termini (i.e. south/west end and north/east end) might be the best way to go. I don't believe U.S. Route spurs don't have any rule about directions anyway. --Polaron | Talk 03:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the main issue with putting both directions in the infobox is that the long, non-breaking direction input ("south/west", etc) makes the left column of the infobox too wide. This then forces the right column to narrow, limiting the amount of horizontal space and ultimately increasing the vertical size of the infobox. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 03:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not use east and south, since it's EW at the Maine end and NS at the Delaware end? —Scott5114↗ 05:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That should work. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: That's one solution; the other is "South/West". --NE2 13:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[U.S. Route 202]]