![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The result of the debate was no objections; moved. A dmrb♉ltz ( t • c • log) 01:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Besides the numbering (Utah State Route X, Utah SR X, Utah SR-X, State Route X (Utah)) what do you all think about this for replacing the current list on List of Utah State Routes? A dmrb♉ltz ( t • c • b • p • d • m) 17:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Its been updated to include everything at the moment, please comment. I will move it pending any feedback. A dmrb♉ltz ( t • c • b • p • d • m) 01:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Many articles covered by this WikiProject lack photographs. As part of a subcategorization of the requested photos category, there is now a category for Utah articles needing photos - to use it, just add {{ reqphotoin|Utah}} to the article's talk page. I have only added a few articles to the category so far, but it would be an easy way to make an extensive list California-related articles lacking photos. I hope you find it useful! TheGrappler 05:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Your state is invited to participate in discussions for its highway naming convention. Please feel free to participate in this discussion. If you already have a convention that follows the State Name Type xx designation, it is possible to request an exemption as well. Thanks! -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 00:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
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 23:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
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 16:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
All of the USRD Clean-up Templates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. master son T - C 16:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
In response to a few issues that came up, we are giving a reminder to all state highway wikiprojects and task forces:
Regards, Rschen7754 ( T C) 05:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Is there interest in the repromotion of this project? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 20:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I am proposing the repromotion of the project at WT:USRD/SUB. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 04:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#State law sections -- NE2 21:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on here: Talk:List of minor state routes in Utah that may interest all editors interested in Utah highways. Davemeistermoab ( talk) 02:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a result of a discussion at: Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/Interstate 70 in Utah. The Template:Jct for Utah routes formats abbreviations for U.S. Routes as "US-491". It is one of the few states to do so, as most states use the format "US 491". The rationale given by the editor who changed the jct template to respond this way is "UDOT uses a dash". While I have not found a style guide on UDOT's homepage, this appears to be true, UDOT's website does consistently use a dash. The problem is for multistate articles, the Utah section looks different. So... should we follow UDOT's standard, or the "consensus" of other projects under WP:USRD's umbrella? Davemeistermoab ( talk) 04:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The stated reason for the 1977 Utah state route renumbering was to simplify the state route system by using the same number in the state law as what is signed for U.S. and interstate routes. I.E. Interstate 15 will now also be state route 15. Although the UDOT highway resolutions only talks in general terms, I had often wondered if there were one or two specific instances that had spurred the momentum to renumber the routes that could cause confusion. I had often speculated that the primary source of confusion was state route 15 which existed in SW Utah and came within 15 miles of Interstate 15.
However, while helping user CountryLemonade with Utah State Route 126 (which was formerly state route 84) I now suspect that if there was a specific instance to motivate the legislature to renumber routes, it would have been this one. Then SR-84 crossed then I-80N at least 3 times according to my 1974 map. 1977 is also when the discussions got serious to renumber I-80N to I-84, meaning SR-84 and I-84 would have ran parallel and crossed each other for a significant length. Does anybody know of any newspaper articles, etc. from this period? I'm now wondering. That would have been a confusing mess =-) Dave ( talk) 23:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
You guys might find Wikipedia:WikiProject Utah State Highways/Early state roads useful; it has some information that's not in the history PDFs. I also have the file that used to be at http://www.udot.utah.gov/download.php/tid=1348/StateRouteHistory.pdf , which includes the histories of routes without scanned resolutions, and have temporarily uploaded it to http://www.sendspace.com/file/dnz06x ; once that goes dead, email me if you want a copy of it. -- NE2 12:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I finished off the last few conversions to the US Roads infobox. I don't know if the plan is to delete it or not, but the pages that link to it are mostly user pages or project pages. -- Glennfcowan ( talk) 17:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Routes numbered between 281 and 320 are designated specifically to serve state facilities. Although some (such as SR-313) have significant portions outside those facilities, most are merely access roads or parking lots within the state property. I recommend that we merge the majority of the routes into a list (possibly named list of state highways serving Utah state parks and institutions?), with a few retaining separate articles in addition to a mention in the list. At the top of the list we will include information that pertains to all routes.
The following such routes exist:
Former routes are:
This would mean that only SR-313 and SR-315 remain separate, with SR-300 continuing to redirect to SR-8. Does this sound reasonable? -- NE2 11:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
http://www.lib.utah.edu/digital/unews/
This should be useful for early history such as auto trails. For instance, there are 510 matches for the Pikes Peak Ocean to Ocean Highway. I started a list of articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Utah State Highways/Useful newspaper articles. -- NE2 19:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 21:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I had a bot pull a report for us on our most popular pages by hits and their assessment, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Utah State Highways/Popular pages. -- Admrb♉ltz ( t • c • log) 08:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Interested in attending a Utah Wikipedia Meetup? |
---|
If you are interested in a Utah meetup, please visit
Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Utah and voice your interest. |
··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey, we need to get rolling on getting these C class articles to B or GA class. We lead USRD in C class articles, and if we want to stay ahead of Michigan in Wikiwork score, we need to get a ball on this. Category:C-Class_Utah_road_transport_articles lists 91 C class articles currently, including Legacy Parkway & Legacy Highway, I-15 and I-80. -- Admrb♉ltz ( talk) 17:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
A
proposed deletion template has been added to the article
Mountain View Corridor, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Admrboltz ( talk) 00:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Hold on everyone. To answer NE2's theory about SR-172, I doubt it. MVC was not planned in the mid-80s; rather, due to the growth of the area at that time, they probably transfered maintenance to the state (Sandy city officials wanted to do this to SR-151 in the early-90s but were never granted the transfer). Anyway, Legacy Highway is more of the concept of a highway running from Nephi to Brigham City (though I doubt it will get built south of Provo and north of Ogden). MVC is a portion of this concept from Lehi to west of Salt Lake City, mainly serving the west side. This will begin construction soon, in less than five years I believe (I think I heard 2010 or 2011). As you can see, Legacy Parkway is being treated as a totally different road than just a part of the Legacy Highway, so we shouldn't delete MVC. Granted, the article needs updating and expanding, but yeah. C L — 02:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm willing to look for a way to expand this. I think the final route, with the exception of the Utah County portion, has been finalized. Funding of the MVC is one of the major transportation-related debates around here nowadays. I think this can be improved to the point of being a much better article, and we would just have to recreate this article soon anyway because this freeway is going to happen one way or another. bob rulz ( talk) 18:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Dan Stober's awesome resource, or at least the website it's hosted on, is going bye-bye. Simply put, what do we do? C L — 19:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
It's official, Dan Stober's page is no more. I did not archive any of it. Well, Dan, thank you for your contributions to roadgeekdom. CL, did you get any of it archived? Does anybody have his email address, I wouldn't mind sending a thank you. Dave ( talk) 16:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://members.aol.com/utahhwys/ -- NE2 23:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
If no one agrees to me changing the UTjct template back to the big shields object here. C L — 18:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Don't take my comments wrong. I like the "big" shields. Just wondering when the shield battle will ever end. Dave ( talk) 02:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
US-89 and SR-101 have been given a week to be raised up to true GA standards. Not sure why but I have asked at WT:USRD so stay tuned there and see what improvements could be made - we don't want to lose any good articles. C L — 16:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary:
-- Mr. Z-man 00:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
After looking for more than two years for pictures of Utah roads that pre-date this millennium, Alps Roads had a lot of them after all. Unfortunately, there's a lack of urban photos but - wow! Definitely a wonderful insight on how UDOT did it back in the day. Does anyone else have any links? CL ( T · C) — 03:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 04:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Is this an untagged independent {{ Project}} or a WP:TASKFORCE of WikiProject US Roads? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Back in September 2009, I posted about finding old pictures of roads in Utah. Back then, there was one website that had a handful of pictures from outside Salt Lake. Well, a lot's changed since then. Over the past few months I've been poring over boxes of photos at the state archives, and have encountered some excellent finds (a sign for I-415, anyone?). I've only gone through about a fifth of the total boxes so far, so there's more to come. Check them out. CL ( T · C) — 23:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
So I emailed UDOT about some of the highways missing from their resolutions page, and as it turns out, highways that aren't listed on that page are absent because they have never been changed by any resolutions. The specific wording in the email went:
“ | SR-141 and SR-244 have not had any resolutions and that is why they are not listed. Only routes that have had resolutions for whatever reason in the history of that route will be listed in the routes with resolutions. ... Some routes have never changed in history while others have changed for some reason. Only if a route has changed for some reason is a resolution written. | ” |
So, we should figure out a good way of citing this information or something, so that for routes with no resolutions, we can say that route hasn't changed since its creation and back it up with a citation of some sort. De Fault Ryan 16:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion taking place at WT:HWY regarding the potential use of coordinates in highway articles. Your input is welcomed. -- Rs chen 7754 02:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
There is a proposal to demote all state highway WikiProjects to task forces; see WT:USRD. -- Rs chen 7754 05:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)