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

message: Could a line item be added for bridges? The topic is currently in debate here.  I'd suggest, "Historical, current, and highly-likely future named bridges plus unnamed bridges that cross a major waterway are inherently notable."--Appraiser 12:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bridges

message: I've been seeing a lot of articles on memorial highways lately. Articles like "the Bob Politician Freeway is a section of Interstate 2 running from Interstate 38 to the Exitville interchange". These articles will probably be stubs forever because there's not much to say about them other than why Bob Politician had a freeway named after him (which should be in his article). Anything covering routing is generally kept in the numbered route article.
So I propose that we add something to the notability guidelines saying memorial highways should redirect to the numbered route in most cases. There's so many "Trooper J. Random "Clem" Speedcatcher Memorial Highways" out there and we don't need articles on all of them. Mention it in the article on the person, and on the article about the road (redirects are awesome), but we don't need a whole separate article on it. Of course, this doesn't apply if it doesn't exactly correspond to a numbered highway or is the common name of the road. I'm sure you understand what I'm getting at here. How does everyone else feel about it? —Scott5114↗ 00:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds perfect to me. I can't really think of any multi-numbered route memorial highways, but even then, an article isn't warranted.  --MPD T / C 00:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Couldn't agree more. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Certainly redirect to the route, except maybe in a few cases. If Interstate 95 in Baltimore, Maryland is named something, it might make sense to move the article there, kind of like Tom Moreland Interchange is not at Spaghetti Junction (Atlanta). --NE2 01:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memorial highways 

message: I move to close this as accepted, since there has been no opposition to this specific proposal. This has remained dormant for a while. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I have no objections to the present language. Hopefully this will stop the flood of non-notable county routes. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 01:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Common-sense and has been applied in the field already. We definitely need a "what's in/what's out" guideline like this. Support proposal as is. —Scott5114↗ 01:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stamped for support master sonT - C 02:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus?

message: Think we could move this to Wikipedia:Notability (roads) or some such? —Scott5114↗ 17:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to that specific name, because then we'd get the same issue that's plaguing the ELG: the name implies it covers all roads, when in reality it's geared predominantly toward U.S. roads. "Notability (U.S. roads)" could work though. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 18:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Wouldn't we just get into the same kind of oppostion as what happened before at Wikipedia:Notability (highways)? I'm not sure making the guideline of even smaller scope so as to apply only to U.S. roads would help sway people who dislike subject-specific notability guidelines. --Polaron | Talk 19:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the reason I brought this up was because I saw a template that listed a bunch of notability criteria, so I thought we could add ours to the list...but then it occurred to me it probably wouldn't work in WikiProject space. Maybe we should try to revive Wikipedia:Notability (highways)? —Scott5114↗ 01:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Polaron brings up a good point. I wouldn't bother reviving the old one myself; instead, let's focus on putting this into practice first. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 02:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to Wikipedia space 

message: Just to let others know, there is a CfD concerning :Category:Grand Street (New York City). I guess the question there may be when is a road notable enough to have a category. Vegaswikian 00:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category noability 

message: This category was way, way to broad and subjective, IMO.  Feel free to comment.
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 2#Category:Derivative highway designations -- KelleyCook 02:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  cfd [[:Category:Derivative highway designations]] 

message: Maybe the system itself is notable, but individual roads probably are not.  I ask because Interstate 80 in Iowa has a large number of redlinked county roads and I doubt you can make a good article about any of them.  DandyDan2007 19:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say not - and there may be too many to note on a list also - but that's just me master sonT - C 01:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   Having taken a closer look at it, I think there is a problem with Template:Jct which forces it to redlink any road, even if it isn't notable.DandyDan2007 11:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are Iowa county roads notable? 

message: Several articles exist for these, but all they really say is either "This is a spur road into city X" or "This is a link road connecting Highway Y with Highway Z".  While I think the system is notable, the individual roads are probably not and can probably be covered in the List of Nebraska Connecting Link, Spur, and Recreation Highways article. My question is what to do about the original articles. DandyDan2007 (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What I would do is redirect the articles to the list, but add named "divs" to the list so that the individual articles can be redirected to that row in the list. Since I know New York best, I'll use a New York example, but the same practice applies. New York State Route 940U is a redirect to the reference route list; however, it also has "#940U" as part of the redirect link, which means that the link (New York State Route 940U) will redirect and jump to an anchor named "940U". In the list, the row detailing NY 940U has an empty div block titled 940U, which acts as the anchor. The practice of making divs and redirecting articles to those divs is a lot simpler than I'm making it out to be, so if you need help, let me know. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not really sure how I would do that.  You might have to look at it in order to set it up right.DandyDan2007 (talk) 11:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did Spur 11A as an example. See  and . --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 11:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that idea.  I think it is quite workable.  I wouldn't mind taking on that task as soon as I finish creating articles for the NE state highways that were lacking them.  :)  --Dbm11085 (talk) 08:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

text: As of right now, the spurs on the list have been done (as in, the spur pages themselves have been redirected to the list page using div tags).  Links will be next, followed by Recreation Roads.  --Dbm11085 (talk) 06:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nebraska Connecting Link and Spur highways 

message: Should we have an individual article for every state highway?  In general, I would say that we should; the mere fact that it is part of the state highway system satisfies at least my personal criteria for needing an article of its own.  But, occasionally, I run into a case like Colorado State Highway 110 that makes me question that.  CO SH 110 is only 740 feet long and simply connects US 550 to a CDOT maintenance yard.  Should this have its own article?  I can see two side to this.  On the one hand, I believe the great majority of state highways should have their own articles; very few of them are as small as CO SH 110.  Thus, for the sake of consistency, it might seem beneficial to simply state that all state highways definitely should have their own articles and thus CO SH 110 should have its own article.  On the other hand, it does seem rather silly to create a 1,000 byte article to describe a 740 foot long stretch of concrete that hardly anyone outside CDOT ever even uses.  But, if it does not deserve an article, then what do we do with it?  Should there be a List of minor state highways in Colorado or similar list to cover CO SH 110 and others like it?  If so, what should be the criteria?  Shorter than a mile?  Shorter than five?  It's a tough call.  I'm actually leaning towards giving CO SH 110 an article for the sake of simplicity.  Trying to decide which state highways don't make the cut when most do could prove to be a thorny issue; I for one would prefer to avoid such a debate by declaring all state highways automatically deserving of their own articles.  Still, I can easily see the other side of this question, too.  I seem to go back and forth on this one.  Ask me tomorrow and I may have changed my mind.  Anyone have any thoughts on this?  Is there already a consensus of which I am simply unaware? OlenWhitaker  • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 22:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Connecticut and New York do have minor lists like you suggest. I'm not sure how CT determines it, but NY uses the number of junctions, I think (2 or less junctions is "minor"). Oklahoma merges lettered spur routes to the parent articles (e.g. SH-74B → SH-74) except in cases where they can be adequately covered or no parent exists (SH-77H, SH-40A, SH-251A, SH-17A are the only lettered spur routes that have articles). Perhaps you could borrow one of these methods for Colorado. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the New York list is in the process of being disbanded due to its subjectivity. – TMF 03:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Simply serving to connect a major highway to a maintenance yard (or state park, college, etc.) is a pretty objective criterion that can be used to make a list. --NE2 14:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been looking at various objective criteria and the only one I could come up with that seemed to work in all cases was a low, firm distance limit (e.g. all route under five miles are minor.)  The rugged terrain of Colorado makes junction count a questionable criteria for this state; for example, CO SH 149 is well over 100 miles long, crosses two major mountain passes including one over the continental divide, provides the only access to many campgrounds and other recreational sites in two national forests, and provides the only paved access to two towns, yet has no junctions besides its termini.  I also considered a combination of junctions and distance (e.g. minor if under fifteen miles and less than two junctions,) but that criteria would exclude CO SH 5 at 14.9 miles and no junctions, but CO SH 5 is the highest paved road in North America making it perhaps the most notable of all SHs in the state.  All things considered, I think a flat distance would be the best criteria.  How would everyone feel about saying that all state highways in CO that are shorter than five miles will go on a list of minor state highways? OlenWhitaker  • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 20:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a bad idea for the reasons you just gave: it's setting an arbitrary line. Can you give some examples of routes that you don't think are notable that don't simply connect a highway to a government facility? --NE2 21:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: CO SH 11 for example--it's less than a mile and a half long and connects US 138 to a county road in Nebraska.  Then there's CO SH 36, less than a mile long, which connects I-25 to Buisiness Loop I-25 in Colorado Springs.  Also, there's CO SH 100 (connects us 160 to Main St. in Vilas; length:0.41mi), CO SH 53 (connects I-25 to CO SH 224 on Denver; length:1.66mi), and CO SH 26 (connects I-25 to CO SH 95 in Denver; length:2.8mi; entire length is a named city street.)  There are about a dozen others of a similar nature, if slightly less egregious, and I'm sure there are others that I have not yet encountered (I only had about half the routes in front of me.)  These are the kind of roads that I don't think merit their own articles, but I'm having a difficult time forming an objective criteria for inclusion that isn't also so complex as to almost make a case by case selection which would move into the subjective realm and undoubtedly cause disagreement.  Should we just do them all individually for the sake of completeness and objectivity?  This is a tough one. OlenWhitaker  • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 02:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would probably say all should have articles. Those highways will at least have some history you can write about, even if they're not extremely long. Maybe OK SH-130 and SH-133 can provide some inspiration to you. But by all means, they don't need to have articles right now. You could take time off from making new articles to devote time to expanding some of the stub articles to B-Class, then come back to it later, if you wanted to.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article for ''every'' state highway?

message: I have a concern with the notability of this article. This article is currently a GAN, and a previous editor who reviewed this article questioned its notability, placing a  tag at the top of this article and suggesting that it be merged into New York State Route 321. There are many well-written articles for New York reference routes and I just wanted input into whether this route is notable enough to have a stand-alone article that I can promote to GA status. Dough4872 (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved the discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads. Dough4872 (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[New York State Route 931F]] 

message: I have transcluded the following from the article's talk page. --Tckma (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Virginia State Route 655 (Fairfax County)]] 

message: In order to reduce the number of stubs we have, I propose we start treating special routes much like we treat state-detail articles.  That is, place all of the information in the parent article unless that article can stand up on its own.  Then, and only then, would an article be split off.  Until then, we have articles like this: U.S. Route 6A. --Fredddie™ 23:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely. Unless a bannered route has a history that is substantially independent of its parent route, it really doesn't need its own article. By substantially independent, I mean something like M-28 Business (Ishpeming–Negaunee, Michigan), where its own history goes back to the 1930s. – TMF 23:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is my opinion on the issue. Special routes with little to say about them or a lack of significant independent history should be merged to the article of their parent route. The only special routes that should have its own article is a longer route with an independent history, like M-28 Business. For special state routes, they should be merged to the main article route. The question is what to do for specioal U.S. routes and Business Interstates? Should they be merged to the main article or state-detail page of their main route (like I-83 Busienss in Interstate 83 or US 30 Business in U.S. Route 30 in Pennsylvania) or to a list of special routes for that particular route (like Bannered routes of U.S. Route 13)? ---Dough4872 00:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The bannered routes of X articles were designed to hold the short route description that most of these loops and spurs hold. They also get a specialized infobox. That's the appropriate place to store them, IMO. Most spur routes don't have any independent history and don't intersect anything other than the parent route and maybe one other highway, so a jctlist isn't really needed. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

text: My take is that they should be covered in the former (the article/S-D article) if possible; however, if the state detail article doesn't exist or the route is too short to have state-detail articles and the route has many spurs, the list of bannered routes is the better way to go. – TMF 02:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: However, there are special routes that have many major junctions and are several miles long. These may not fit in a "list of bannered routes" well. ---Dough4872 02:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, there are a few in the southern U.S. that are upwards of 30 miles long. I guess this presents the need for another criteria to deal with these routes, since a one or two paragraph description in a bannered route list or the article of its parent really doesn't do the route justice. I'm not saying we need to put a hard-and-fast rule in place, like all bannered routes over 10 miles long gets an article; instead, I suggest using just common sense. If it has a long routing or a substantially independent history, it is probably better to leave it as its own article. Otherwise, if it can be merged to a bannered route list or the article of its parent without losing much information, go ahead and do it. – TMF 02:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In regards to "In order to reduce the number of stubs we have, I propose we start treating special routes much like we treat state-detail articles." - I think we're way too lax with the way we treat state-detail articles, so we should be stricter with special routes. (The state-detail article problem should be resolved eventually, but that's for another time...) --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special routes having their own articles