This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
portal aboutU.S. roads. Content dispute discussions should take place on the appropriate article's talk page.
For discussions about general portal development, please see the WikiProject Portals talk page. If you are a regular maintainer of this portal, please add yourself to this list.
The U.S. roads Portal is a
featured portal, which means it has been identified as one of the best portals on
Wikipedia. If you see a way this portal can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, please feel free to contribute.
This page is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to
state highways and other major
roads in the
United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Streets, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
streets in the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. StreetsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. StreetsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. StreetsU.S. city street articles
This page is a
portal. Portals are within the scope of WikiProject Portals, a collaborative effort to improve
portals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
discussion and see a
list of open tasks.PortalsWikipedia:WikiProject PortalsTemplate:WikiProject PortalsPortals articles
The following suggestions have been automatically generated as content that might be suitable for the portal, subject to review by a human editor. Please do not mindlessly copy items to the portal page without first checking that the suggestions are appropriate.
Recent Did you know? items
No recent additions
Recent In the news items
No recent news
Featured, valued, and quality images (on Commons)
Open a link, then click the "Do it" button. If there are results, you can click the "Thumbnails" button to preview all the images.
Is that number still correct? I was managing stubs yesterday and we might have more than that. --Rschen7754 (
talk -
contribs) 20:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't be shocked if the actual number is now double that figure, honestly. --
TMFLet's Go Mets -
Stats 04:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Headline of the netherlands motorways are all wrong
In the early morning of
September 21, I moved this page to
Portal:North American Roads and enlarged the scope. (The portal currently reflects the expansion, despite the name.) My thought process was sparked by
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#Possible "news" page?, where I was told that the portal needed a "steady maintainer". With the interconnectedness of North American roads, it seemed like a logical move. As other editors (presumably) woke up, they objected, and Rschen7754 started moving pages back in preparation to split. That explains the present state, left as a "compromise" to stop the threat of an
edit war. --
NE2 23:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)reply
There seem to be three options:
Change it back to U.S. Roads
Keep it changed to North American Roads
Split it into two portals
Please discuss the benefits and drawbacks of each below:
U.S. Roads only
Advantages
Status quo
More of a focus can be placed on U.S. Roads
Portal was adequately maintained by one familiar with the subject
Disadvantages
North American Roads only
Advantages
Expands the scope so more people may be interested in helping
Combines interconnected road systems
Encourages improvement of Mexican and Canadian road articles
This would happen under the third proposal as well...
Not as much, especially if nobody cares to maintain a largely duplicate portal... --
NE2 00:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Why? Because CRWP would be piggybacking off the publicity of USRD? --Rschen7754 (
TC) 00:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)reply
This has nothing to do with projects. Portals are about subjects. --
NE2 00:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Unless of course, consensus decided that it is time to elect a Project Lead team (ala
WP:MilHist's example). Either just for CRWP or the entire portal project. Is that a "road worth traveling"? Exit2DOS2000•
T•
C• 14:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Disadvantages
Groups the "crappy" Canadian Roads WikiProject with the supposedly better U.S. Roads WikiProject
There are less than 20 Mexican road articles
But it would create 'CookieTemplates' for them to draw ideas from when they do get larger
Both portals
Advantages
Supposedly a compromise
Compromise to what?
master sonT -
C 00:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Between U.S. roads only and North American roads only. --
NE2 00:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Disadvantages
Splits effort among two portals, when one was apparently not being maintained well
I'm curious as to what's wrong with it that its not being maintained
master sonT -
C 00:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)reply
I echo Master_son's comments. The portal was maintained on a regular basis. --
TMFLet's Go Mets -
Stats 02:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)reply
So Scott5114 misspoke on
WT:USRD? --
NE2 02:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)reply
I believe so, TMF did keep the portal maintained. --Rschen7754 (
TC) 02:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)reply
So should I start the "news" page? I have no interest in running a duplicate portal. (To avoid misunderstandings, I'm not saying I support moving it back; I'm just asking what the "USRD collective" thinks.) --
NE2 02:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Are you referring to the USRD news page? --Rschen7754 (
TC) 02:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Apart from the roads portal, potentially. --Rschen7754 (
TC) 02:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Why not do it as a subpage of
WP:HWY? Or you could just read MTR...—
Scott5114↗ 03:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Discussion
Go back to U.S. Roads only. I could support two portals, but under no circumstances should the USRD portal be merged into the NA portal. --Rschen7754 (
TC) 00:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)reply
My preference: retain the U.S. road one, then create a generic road portal if necessary. --
TMFLet's Go Mets -
Stats 02:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)reply
I saw no problems with the portal the way it was as the USRD portal. I think it should be moved back. -- JA10Talk •
Contribs 22:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)reply
It should remain as is - if someone wants to start a Portal:Canadian Roads I'm fine with that. But NA roads seems kind of silly. There's not even a NA Roads project. --
Son 13:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep P:USRD as-is, since it seems clear that nobody likes the NA Roads idea. I'm all for a world roads (highways) portal, since there are hell lot more roads in the world, especially Canada and China. —O (
说 •
喝) 23:18, 24 September 2007 (GMT)
This portal never had any problems as it is - by renaming it - it becomes more prone to problems - and the portal's scope was well established already. Why fix something that isn't broken. That said - if CRWP wants a portal - they can create one. This one shall stay as is
master sonT -
C 03:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)reply
clarification - this one shall be U.S. Roadsmaster sonT -
C 02:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)reply
I've created
Portal:Roads yesterday, with a scope set on roads around the world. This would be a child portal under the Roads portal. Comments? —O (
说 •
喝) 00:05, 28 September 2007 (GMT)
I think that consensus should be pretty clear now. I'll move the portal over the next few days. --Rschen7754 (
TC) 00:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)reply
With the exception of the news section and maybe DYK, we select the content for the portal a month ahead of time. The advantage is that if on 2/1 we know what article will appear on 3/1, that gives someone 4 weeks to edit the blurb, find a photo (not the shield graphic, please! that gets old) and put it in the templates so it goes live on 3/1 at midnight. Then while the March content is being readied, we can be deciding on the April content. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Can we rotate out the shield graphics at the top of the portal occasionally? Maybe 2-4 times a year?
I don't want this to be a rule, but maybe a guideline, to try to find seasonally appropriate photos for the portal? I know that snowy scenes aren't the most common way we roadgeeks photograph the highways, and many areas don't receive snow in the winter, but maybe some fall color in the fall would be nice? I know there are some winter photos out there, those of us in the northern states should seek some out, and add them to the articles.
Maybe we could even create a gallery space on Commons or here where anyone can add promising photos at any time, and we'd have a gallery to look through to simplify nominations. If I'm working through a random article, and I see a good photo or two in there, I can add it to the gallery so non-Michigan editors can see some things I like from Michigan. Then when it comes time to make some nominations, there might be a Florida photo in there that catches my eye that I could nominate?
Just my $0.08 for today.
Imzadi1979 (
talk) 18:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Know that WPUS is up and running and the US Wikipedian's collaboration is rebuilt, I wanted to focus on cleaning up and revamping
Portal:United States. Per a comment on the talk page I have added this portal to the list of US related portals.
I was also wondering if anyone would be interested in adding a Selected article related to the US roads to the list of featured articles. If not perhaps you could suggest one and I will add it? --
Kumioko (
talk) 17:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)reply
There are some suggestions at
WT:USRD. --PCB 04:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)reply
April Fools Day 2011
All right, who did the Portland joke? That's the best material I've ever seen on here. :) —
Scott5114↗[EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 13:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)reply
There is a move discussion in progress on
Portal talk:Molecular and Cellular Biology which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —
RMCD bot 07:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)reply
The project was rebooted and completely overhauled on April 17th, 2018. Its goals are to revitalize the entire portal system, make building and maintaining portals easier, support the ongoing improvement of portals and the editors dedicated to this, and design the portals of the future.
As of May 2nd, 2018,
membership is at 60 editors, and growing. You are welcome to join us.
There is a move discussion in progress on
Portal talk:Canada Roads which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —
RMCD bot 14:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Requested move 24 May 2018
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: moved per consensus, and per
MOS:CAPS. Consistency with other wikiproject/portal titles, by following
MOS:CAPS. The sole opposer did not provide any logical rationale, nor any policy. —usernamekiran
(talk) 17:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose all—for the fourth time, no. Imzadi 1979→ 05:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Your position that "they're named for their corresponding WikiProjects and follow the proper names of those" has been explicitly rejected wherever tested; why not go with that consensus?
Dicklyon (
talk) 20:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)reply
I can still register my continued opposition even if I accept that my position may not carry the day. Discussions like these do not have to be unanimous in the end, and my objections can still be noted for the record. Obstructionism would be to launch a filibuster or some other action not possible in these forums where one person can't prevent a consensus. Imzadi 1979→ 21:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Yes, your opinion is welcome, though I can't resist trying to sway it.
Dicklyon (
talk) 21:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Side comment, but there is a proper name for the highway system in Michigan, the
Michigan State Trunkline Highway System, so a possible slight tweak of the scope would allow us to name the portal after that name. Furthermore, I do have an objection now to the inconsistency that's being created in portal names now that we have
Portal:Roads of Canada but
Portal:Australian roads. Also, no comments regarding whether or not to drop the periods in "US" in line with modern style guides, or to expand the abbreviation to "United States"? Lots of discussion to be had before enacting any of the proposed moves. Imzadi 1979→ 21:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't think that changing the scope in order to fit a proper name would be a great approach in general. Maybe
Portal:Michigan roads would be good? I'm open to other consistency changes, though I think finding a universal happy format might not be so easy.
Dicklyon (
talk) 21:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)reply
As for changing U.S. to US or United States, I don't have an opinion except that such side issues should not derail the progress of case fixing that we're trying to get done here. That can be discussed and implemented as a next step.
Dicklyon (
talk) 23:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC
The last two editions of Chicago Manual of Style have removed their previous insistence on U dot S dot. But it's not a big deal for me if people object to the modern version in specific cases. @
Imzadi1979:: it would be helpful to hear your substantive reasoning, briefly—as frustrating as it must be to have to repeat it. The reasons for downcasing are still hanging around, even if you disagree with them.
Tony(talk) 15:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Tony1: I have two reasons. One to which
Dicklyon alluded above is that this portal is named consistent with its parent project,
WP:WikiProject U.S. Roads, and it would look wrong after 13 years to capitalize that name differently, and I regard both as proper names after this length of time.
The second reason is much more substantive. I regard portals as akin to a publication as a collection of content. Until the MOS says that we have to call it the New York times, then I don't see a problem with these portals remaining titled as they are.
As for "U.S." vs. "US", I do have a preference for dropping the periods in the context of highways going forward, because the abbreviated version of highway names already omits them. See the mixed up mess that is "
U.S. Route 41"/"U.S. Highway 41", which is abbreviated "US 41" and compare that to the text within
U.S. Route 41 in Michigan. (
WP:USSH says we consistently title those highways as "U.S. Route X" but notes for prose that in some states the correct name would be "U.S. Highway X".) The Michigan articles dropped the periods to comply with CMOS 16 and
MOS:USand to be consistent between the full name and abbreviation. Imzadi 1979→ 21:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)reply
We agree on U dot S dot. But your reasoning for retaining the cap is very weak.
Tony(talk) 02:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Support—since when did we allow portals to defy our capping guidelines for general text and article titles???
Tony(talk) 05:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Support, for the fourth time yes, because that's where the consensus is. Continuing to oppose just to oppose out of stubbornness after repeatedly not getting one's way is anti-consensus obstructionism. WP is a sentence-case site for all public-facing material, from articles to categories. Portals are not a magical exception. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 15:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
@
Usernamekiran and
Dicklyon: there's still outstanding questions left to be resolved, "U.S." vs. "US" vs. "United States", so it's a bit premature to start moving anything just yet since it would be highly disruptive to move things multiple times. Imzadi 1979→ 20:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)reply
It's really no harder to address that question now rather than later. Probably easier, actually. But we can go ahead and do the case fix moves in any case; moves are easy, even with sub-pages.
Dicklyon (
talk) 03:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Usernamekiran and
Imzadi1979:—I wonder whether there would be any more than the odd traditionalist objection to removing the clunky dots. They remain in officil titles (U.S. Department of ... etc), but Chicago Manual of Style has been saying it's fine to drop them—for years now—having insisted on them until the start of this decade. I think many Americans don't use them; and hardly anyone in handwriting. Who would bother?
Tony(talk) 04:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)reply
It's uncontroversial by me.
Dicklyon (
talk) 04:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Does every road in America deserve an article? People go crazy over notability for people. Does it apply to what roads are important and those that are not?
Eschoryii (
talk) 08:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)reply
I read the portal page. No one needs to respond to my inquiry.
Eschoryii (
talk) 09:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Historic list of "roads made, or in progress"--where should this go?
On January 23, 1818, President
James Monroe issued a list of information on "roads made, or in progress, under the authority of the Executive of the United States"[1] that describes--perhaps loosely--the precursors to the American highway system, or at least, Federally-built roads. I can't seem to find a good place for this data, any thoughts on where it could be useful?
Wrecksdart (
talk) 14:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)reply