Talk:U.S. Route 421

message: In an effort to reduce the number of stubs in WP:USRD, US 421 in VA should be merged into US 421. --Fredddie™ 00:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Merging US 421 in VA here simply to reduce the stub count is unnecessary, and would make this article very unbalanced. I already reassessed US 421 in VA as a start-class article, which it clearly meets the criteria for. On this basis, I've removing the merge tags. --LJ (talk) 08:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Why are the NC, TN and KY information boxes gone? How is it unsourced? Can i be given a chance to finish a wiki article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerseyman4 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed them because this is an article about US 421, not a list of street names.  Please see WP:USRD/STDS for what should go into this article. --Fredddie™ 00:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Street name tables

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on U.S. Route 421. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101125145111/http://members.cox.net/ncroads/us421.html to http://members.cox.net/ncroads/us421.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Projections of new highway realignments in the planning stage are not definitive. Many proposed highways and realignments never come to be, and even if they are on a highway planner's map, the new, realigned, or upgraded highway falls short of certainty unless some commitment of effort such as condemnation of property in the right-of-way or grading of a route begins. Lines on a map of a proposed highway are not proof that the highway will even be started. Pbrower2a (talk) 04:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Such additions are encyclopedic if they can be verified. You're correct that the proposal is not proof that the changes will be made, but if the proposal comes from an appropriate actor in a reliable source that can be verified, it's worthy of inclusion. If the proposal is later cancelled, then we update the article to reflect that fact at that time. By appropriate actor, I mean an agency that can actually have some authority in carrying out the changes, like a state DOT, AASHTO or the FHWA. Imzadi 1979 →  05:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: True. Usually there is some question of which will be the preferred route, and even the debate, should it appear in an authoritative source such as the state DOT, will be encyclopedic. Rejected routes (if verifiable) would be encyclopedic data, as has been shown on other highways There might be contests. "Proposed routes" on unofficial maps are often guesswork by a cartographer. Even "reasonable" guesses without verifiability are not encyclopedic. Even I can draw lines on a state highway map suggesting corridors for proposed highways. There would of course be no verifiability. Pbrower2a (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  future in Indiana