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.

State Route to Route I understand, but what was wrong with the succession/precession boxes? It made the named highways fit better with their route numbers (which are, understandably, quite unimportant up there). — Rob ( talk) 12:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You mean the boxes like at the bottom of [1]? I don't see the point; if you want to follow AK-1 you can go to the AK-1 article. -- NE2 15:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This is true, but I'm of the opinion most readers will go from main article to main article, skipping the intentionally stubbish AK 1 article completely most of the time.

While optimally, this information would be in the first paragraph or infobox, the succession boxes make it clear without having to make room for it on the infobox, or something otherwise unnecessary. — Rob ( talk) 17:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

See /Notability#Memorial highways. — Scott5114 ↗ 23:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to start systematically weeding out this neologism. Are there any objections to "overlap" as the standard replacement? It seems like the simplest term, is used by many DOTs, and can be easily conjugated. -- NE2 05:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Use concurrency. I don't believe there's anything wrong with duplex, triplex, multiplex, and so on, and in fact seem more descriptive, but that doesn't seem to be the prevailing opinion.— Scott5114 ↗ 06:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong is that they're neologisms only used by roadgeeks. Why do you say to use concurrency rather than overlap? -- NE2 07:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Concurrency is a term in use by at least Caltrans (see ref № 1 in the linked article) — Scott5114 ↗ 07:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, and other places use overlap, such as New York (as TMF says below), Virginia, the FHWA (including in the MUTCD), and Ontario. -- NE2 07:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Concurrency or overlap works. I know NYSDOT exclusively uses overlap; can't speak for other states. -- TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 06:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I prefer concurrency (clarify: as the noun). But only on the basis that it sounds better. I think overlap is a good verb, concurrency is a good noun. Let's not get nitpicky though. -- MPD ^{T / C} 19:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm okay with either "concurrency" or "overlap", however please use concurrency more as it is the noun. The word "overlap" should be used when the prose starts to get boring. — O ( 说 • 喝) 20:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? Overlap is a noun too. -- NE2 09:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

So if we do go with what's suggested above:

• A and B multiplex → A and B overlap
• A multiplexes with B → A overlaps B
• A has a multiplex with B → A overlaps B
• A joins B and C, forming a multiplex → A overlaps B and C
• the multiplex of A and B → the concurrency of A and B
• the A/B multiplex → the A/B concurrency
• end of multiplex → end of concurrency (although in my personal non-semi-automated edits I'll keep using overlap here)
• A triplexes with B and C → A overlaps B and C
• the only triplex in the state → the only three-route concurrency in the state

Do these examples all look good? -- NE2 13:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. -- MPD ^{T / C} 15:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me, although like you, I use overlap in the "end of multiplex" case. -- TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 19:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to make the edits. Please let me know if I'm doing anything wrong. -- NE2 18:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is important to note that this it not a rule as to what we can or can not say- except "multiplex", which is not acceptable. As long as it makes sense and gets the message across, it's all good! -- MPD ^{T / C} 19:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Certainly; anything that's used by a DOT or is a simple word is fine: overlap, concurrency, overlay, join, ... -- NE2 19:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought you might get a kick out of [2]; pre-manual changes it would have been "concurrent with U.S. Route 52 (concurrent with U.S. 62 concurrency) from Aberdeen to Ripley, Ohio". And I edited myself, heh. -- NE2 19:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm a little bit late to this party, but in my opinion: (a) "multiplex" is not a neologism, but rather a somewhat unconventional use of the word (this use is inspired by the description of a multiplex in electronics, in which multiple signals can be sent along the same conductor or bus); (b) "overlap" is a less unwieldy (more wieldy?) word than "concurrency" in all cases. -- Dachannien ^Talk _Contrib 16:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

An "unconventional use of a word" is a neologism. -- NE2 17:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

See talk page - it's a bit more than I can handle on my own, I think. — Rob ( talk) 08:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

A situation that some may be interested in: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 September 8, provincial highway templates... -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 22:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw this on the US 31 page and besides not being a non-conforming/non-collapsible box nor being a part of the project, I really just don't like the idea of it. Other much larger cities don't have it. I was about to TFD the thing, but don't want to run afoul of the project. What say you? -- KelleyCook 05:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks likes it's based off {{ Chicagoland expressways}}. I made that template because it would ease navigation and present what could be confusing (I-90 has 4 different names?) in a sensible manner. That said, my preference is to have it be collapsible, and start off collapsed, but I haven't looked into that yet. — Rob ( talk) 12:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Simple fix, collapsed now. I don't see the problem with it, easy way to navigate highways in a particular city. -- Holderca1 13:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, it was easy enough to fix but are we going to do this for all the cities now? Having 15 collapsible boxes at the bottom on the I-80 page seems like a not good idea (on par with Movies starring XXXX which were eliminated). It is better suited by a Category. -- KelleyCook —Preceding unsigned comment added by KelleyCook ( talk • contribs) 14:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, these would best be suited on an "Interstate X in State" article rather than the main article. But a case-by-case basis in best in this. -- MPD ^{T / C} 16:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, I would only include on the state specific pages. -- Holderca1 17:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be collapsed; just remove the shields and bolding. -- NE2 13:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

How does it look now? -- Holderca1 14:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

How about now? -- NE2 15:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of State Highways in Kentucky (1001-2000) -- NE2 13:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Should anything be changed or added before I nominate this as a good article? -- NE2 04:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. If only you had mentioned this project, I could have gotten some pictures. I was in Charlotte today. -- MPD ^{T / C} 05:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You were probably already on the road when I decided to expand the article. Basically I decided to check the Google News archive to see if it had anything on the route, and a decent article came up, so I ran with it. -- NE2 06:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If you happen to travel on the Fairfax County Parkway, some photos would be nice. -- NE2 10:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Anything specific? I may have some Wiki-worthy. -- MPD ^{T / C} 20:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Nah, just general views of the road and what it looks like. A photo showing the signage for the HOV ramps might be good. -- NE2 22:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link to my general road-photo album. Mostly includes signs of various sorts and some roadways. It's not organized at all, and not all are good pictures,, but some crappy ones have interesting stuff on them. This is another one of my pages. That one doesn't have a lot of stuff though. At the bottom of the first linked page, you'll find two photos from I-95 NB approaching Fairfax Co Parkway. I have some somewhere of parts of 7100 and 7900, but I'm in the process of moving all my photos to different hard drives, so it's all a mess. I'll definitely get a few of 7100 and 7900, including from HOV, next time I'm home, which will be soon. You can go ahead and use any of those pictures that you find fit and useful. Just credit me. They're all licensed under cc-by-sa 3.0 or Wiki's closest equivalent for Wikimedia, cc-by-nc-nd for off-Wiki work. I'll see what else I can find on one of my four hard drives. -- MPD ^{T / C} 05:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

For clarification: you're willing to release them under template:cc-by-3.0? Wikipedia doesn't accept nc or nd, though it does accept sa, if you want to go with cc-by-sa. -- NE2 09:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the 166A-B looks great for illustrating the gap in the parkway. -- NE2 09:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Indent reset. The 3.0 tags on Wiki are new...last I knew they only had 2.5. Yeah, cc-by-sa is fine for here, I wasn't sure which ones they had now. -- MPD ^{T / C} 13:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You understand that once images are posted here under a license, anyone can then use them under that license for "off-Wiki work"? -- NE2 20:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I knew that, but forgot about that. It happens. All my images are released under cc-by-sa. I like that one better after thinking about it. But yeah, if there's anything else you want pictures of, let me know. Central NC, central VA, or northern VA are easy. Maybe WV eastern panhandle if it's east of I-81. I'll see what I can do. -- MPD ^{T / C} 21:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Does Image:I-95 north at SR 7100.jpg look good? -- NE2 23:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Participants there is a new list. We're combining all the USRD participant lists here. Membership will now be universal. Please go and update your info ASAP; if you do not do so by a date in mid-October you will be removed from the project list. All project members will be spammed with this news within the next week. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 17:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of auxiliary Interstate Highways unconnected with Parent -- NE2 13:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boston Bypass -- NE2 07:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Towson Bypass-Burke Avenue-Putty Hill Road-Rossville Boulevard, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windsor Mill Road, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collar City Bridge -- NE2 04:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Street (Baltimore) — Scott5114 ↗ 05:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to create a subpage of this project, or WikiProject Highways, to bring to others' attention and discuss news, like new roads and decommissionings? I'm thinking of something like this:

November 1, 2007

• The four-lane New Brunswick Route 2 is scheduled to open. [3]

  New Brunswick announced that the old route will become Route 879. --Canadian guy

• Interstate 238 will be closed for two years, with an official detour via I-338. [4]

  Where should we mention this? Should we add artificial reef to our project? --Gullible dude

Essentially it would function both to keep us up-to-date of happenings and to ensure that articles are updated. -- NE2 08:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

How about doing it through the portal? It could use a steady maintainer if you'd like to take it on. — Scott5114 ↗ 05:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking of something that others can comment on, but I'll look at and think about the portal. -- NE2 05:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Please add anything relevant to Portal:North American Roads/North American Roads news or discuss at Portal talk:North American Roads/North American Roads news. -- NE2 08:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll go on record as saying I don't like the move of the portal to NA Roads. We have trouble keeping it updated for US roads; we don't need the hassle of having to worry about other countries as well. And what about the selected article? That was supposed to be for US roads only. -- TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 10:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I also fail to see where this move was discussed. -- TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 10:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It was boldness; I was asked to maintain it, and I decided to. -- NE2 11:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Then have fun maintaining it. Don't expect much help on the international front. -- TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 12:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see why USRD should be lumped together with a crappy project such as CRWP. I'm splitting our portal back out. You can do whatever you want with the North American roads portal. Next time, please discuss. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 22:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

How does the "crappiness" of the Canadian project, which would also apply to a number of states, affect the portal? -- NE2 22:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

USRD is an established project. CRWP is not. We shouldn't distort things to make CRWP look better than it is. Furthermore, the portal was specifically created to highlight USRD accomplishments. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 22:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Portal, "Portals may be associated with one or more WikiProjects; unlike WikiProjects, however, they are meant for both readers and editors of Wikipedia, and should promote content and encourage contribution." Portals do not exist to "make projects look good". -- NE2 23:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I would consider "promote content and encourage contribution." making a project look good. USRD does not want to be associated with CRWP by any means. USRD, being much larger than CRWP and the Mexican roads and being drastically different, deserves its own portal. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 23:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Portals should encourage contributions to articles, not WikiProjects. Projects do not "deserve" anything; they exist simply to help write articles. -- NE2 23:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily object to a North American portal, or even a global Roads portal, but I think having a separate U.S. Roads portal makes finding things simpler. Less to pick through and all of that. — Scott5114 ↗ 23:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting a discussion on Portal talk:U.S. Roads, the obvious place to discuss the portal. -- NE2 23:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion's open, I guess. -- NE2 23:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

See /Notability#Major arterials. — Scott5114 ↗ 23:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Bannered routes are a bit of a problem, in being that they're generally too short to get a good article out of. Of course, they're state-numbered highways, which makes them notable enough for an article. So what to do?

Well, I've merged all the bannered routes articles from U.S. 71 into Bannered routes of U.S. Route 71. Notice the fact that {{ Infobox road}} is not used - a smaller custom infobox ({{ usban}}) was created to keep huge infoboxes from spilling over onto other highways, causing stacking and other problems. This infobox only has location and whether it's decommissioned or not, which is all you really need to know about a business loop - the termini are most always the parent highway. I'd like others' thoughts on the proposal and if anyone else has alternate suggestions (no pun intended) of course feel free to bring them to the table. — Scott5114 ↗ 17:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I would do away with the "Active?" line, just looks unprofessional to have a question mark in there like that. I would suggest using a created row and a decommissioned row with the years of each. If there isn't a decommissioned row, then obviously the road is still active. A mileage row would probably be a good idea as well. -- Holderca1 17:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems like a lot of times mileage is missing, which is why I left it out. Also, instead of separate rows for commissioning/decommissioned, we could do something like they do for people, like (1939-1944) or (1932-) for still active. (The green "Active" template I discovered through a sheer coding accident and thought it looked good there because it highlighted the still-active routes, but it can go, obviously.) — Scott5114 ↗ (logged out), 18:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Generally in the case of Georgia, the vast majority of bannered routes are simply covered in the article for the parent (and redirected as appropriate). A couple, like SR 138 Spur and SR 25 Conn, have enough information for their own articles, but most don't. – Pedriana ( talk) 19:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. I've been thinking of something like that for some other routes (especially those that have 10 or 12 bypasses/business routes in a state. I think it's a good idea, and can only be expanded upon. But where does it go from here? "Bannered routes of U.S. Route X in State" for those that are very long? Or for routes like US 50, we have a LONG article? I don't really know...-- MPD ^{T / C} 20:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, the long routes with long articles are why we have a separate list, rather than merging with the main article (which I could see doing for U.S. routes with only one bannered route). This proposal doesn't really deal with state bannered routes (which are up to the state to decide). As for splitting it up by state, I'm not sure...— Scott5114 ↗ 20:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the "active?" line is necessary; you can have current routes first, and then the last section for former routes, with level 3 headings for each of those. -- NE2 23:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I was just doing them in highway order because that's how I tend to think of things like this. — Scott5114 ↗ 01:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, implemented those suggestions. Anything else, especially about the general proposal (anybody that loves business loop articles)? — Scott5114 ↗ 03:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Full support of this proposal, plus the consolidation of Interstate business routes in the same manner. -- TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 06:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

What do we do with U.S. Route 101 Alternate (Washington)? The other alternate is U.S. Route 101 Alternate (California), so it's not enough for a bannered routes article. Also note that the state detail article U.S. Route 101 in Washington does not exist. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 00:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Also found U.S. Route 101 Bypass (California). -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 00:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

merged to Bannered routes of U.S. Route 101. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 01:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't support this proposal, and in fact, as far as the Michigan routes go, when I can devote the necessary time, I would propose reversing all the redirects back to the previous pages. Once the individual listings can be fleshed out further, as some have, they would be too long to be combined all together. Also, there is now information removed from some listings since the junctions were only in the full infoboxes, the links to other specific articles on [5] weren't moved over. For instance on the US 31 Bannered article, only the link to BUS US 31 - Pentwater was included, not the others. Why should bannered routes be singled out for combination when in Michigan each is as valid as a single designation as I-75, US 41 or M-22 are, albeit shorter? Some can't be combined, since there is only one BUS US 223 in existance. Does BUS US 223 - Adrian get spared the ax? What's next, pushing all the BUS M-## highways into a single article, regardless of parent route? Or what of the fact that several business routes have existed under different parent routes, I-##, US ## or M-##? Where do these previously separate articles fall when all of the proper redirects are currently in place?

As for the truncated infobox, all the current Michigan business loops/spurs had accurate mileage listings, as well as commissioning/decommissioning dates, and even when the designations were changed (i.e. 1960 as BUS US 12, 1963 as BL I-94). Shouldn't they be reinstated? The current box looks, well.. puny. Imzadi1979 20:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

However, merging the pages gives us fewer pages we have to maintain. There's generally not a lot you can say about bannered routes, and combining them makes for a fuller article. All articles are combined, regardless of the type of banner (ALT, BUS, BYP...etc are all put in the banner route article). Single bannered routes would be combined with the parent highway (for an example of how this is done with some projects already, see Oklahoma State Highway 74 and its spur section).

The infobox is "puny" by design to save space, as it is used in each article multiple times. The lengths should have been moved to the prose of the article, and the (de)commissioning dates should still be in the infobox; if those two are missing, the pages were merged improperly and the information should be retrieved from the history and placed in the combined page. And before you mention termini - most bannered routes begin and end at the same highway in the same vicinity (covered by the location param). (Anything regarding {{ usban}} should really be placed on its talk page rather than here.)

If a highway has had multiple parents it should be placed with the most recent parent. Other parents should be mentioned in the prose.

We're currently trying to clean up the vast number of stubs around the project, and this is part of the initiative. "Necessary time" to maintain articles is quite low, so we need to concentrate on getting full routes up to their potential before devoting time to bannered routes. If you can expand a banner route article enough that it would be Start-class or higher, by all means, split it out. But bannered routes are a cause of a great many stubs that need to have something done to them. — Scott5114 ↗ 21:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Many of these BR/BLs are stubs that will remain stubs. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 23:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that most of these will never be more than stubs, but why force a merge on an article that has enough info to sustain itself, why not just stick a {{ main}} at the top of its section of the list? -- Holderca1 23:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If you can write a sufficient amount and you can get the article past the stub phase, it's not a problem to keep it separate. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 23:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you give some examples? I'd hope Virginia State Route 337 Alternate (Portsmouth) is long enough for you guys, and U.S. Route 1/9 Truck (Jersey City, New Jersey) should be, but currently isn't very long. I'd have thought U.S. Route 31 Business (Muskegon, Michigan) would be long enough, though much of it is original research. -- NE2 23:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Single bannered routes can't really be combined with the parent, at least with the "current administration". I tried that with Interstate 27, and a number of people here all disagreed with it. -- NE2 23:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with keeping all the information (try to find a better source though; Michigan Highways isn't a reliable source). Template:- can be used to avoid problems when the infobox is longer than the text. -- NE2 23:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Michigan Highways isn't a reliable source? WTF? If you know of a better source of information online about the highways in Michigan, please let me know! Short of making a bunch of FOIA requests with MDOT in Lansing, or spending days attempting to find arcane documents that MDOT might not have posted online for external verification, there is no better source of information about the trunklines in Michigan. Period.

As for administration, I guess I don't see a big deal. I have every (and yes, I mean every) Michigan state trunkline and county-designated highway designation on my watch list. Even the red linked bannered routes and CDHs. I did that right about the time before they were renamed from Michigan State Highway ## to M-XX (Michigan highway) before the great article name debate. I keep tabs on my watchlist nearly daily, so I know when things are changing, and I reverse the garbage as necessary. Granted, I don't try to keep track of every Interstate and US Highway out there, just the ones that exist in Michigan. Maybe people should be appointed to watch the various state projects. That way the overhead for the overall Roads project is decreased. Just a thought.

The advantage to Wikipedia over a traditional printed encyclopedia is that we don't have to count pages. Pages are "free". Lumping them all together, neutering their infoboxes by removing half of the information only makes it harder for someone to look just for one routing. Yes, you can include all of the information in the prose, but for someone looking for a commissioning date, the infobox is much faster than reading through several paragraphs or more. Why else would we have the infobox? Plus, the Bannered M-## had maps created. Does this new format for bannered routes support such a thing? Imzadi1979 01:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Not every source needs to be online. There may be newspaper articles about the changes. -- NE2 01:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Two things, before anyone merges any more: please redirect to the section, not just to the page (so U.S. Route 31 Business (Muskegon, Michigan) would be #REDIRECT Bannered routes of U.S. Route 31#Muskegon, Michigan, for instance), and please keep the categories, at least the "U.S. Highways in State" ones, on the redirect (see Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects). -- NE2 23:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

NE2, could you link me to the I-27 discussion? If I remember correctly, that had to do with merging state highway spurs with an interstate, which isn't covered by this. This only has to do with bannered routes of the national systems; bannered routes at the state level are still up to the individual states as to decide what to do.

Regarding Imzadi's points about administration: sure, the articles can be expanded a lot of times, but nobody is doing it, and these are low importance articles. It's not that we need to watch for vandalism, we need to put a lot of work into just about every article to get the overall quality of our articles up and the work is going to more easily salvaged articles. The fewer articles we have to maintain, the easier improvement is. I've written an essay for tomorrow's USRD newsletter about this; hopefully it can get my point across a lot clearer than I can now with a professor shouting about something in my ear. — Scott5114 ↗ 19:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Here it is: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Archive_7#Another_article_improved. -- Holderca1 20:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

These were state highway loops that serve exactly the same purpose as Interstate business loops: giving the old alignment of US 87 a number. In fact, one of the two business loops - Interstate 27 Business (Plainview, Texas) - was once a state highway loop. The same amount of information can be said whether or not the road carries business route shields. -- NE2 20:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless there are any substantial objections to Loops of U.S. Route 87 in Texas, I'll start redirecting there. -- NE2 22:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, but I think that perhaps a better one would be to put the U.S. bannered routes in Bannered routes of U.S. Route 87, keep the state loops separate, and merge I-27 BUS into I-27. The U.S. 87 bannered routes article will probably be created eventually and thus saves from having to go to a separate article for the Texas one, and keeps them all nicely separated by system. Merging routes of separate systems was probably the deal killer with your previous merging proposal. — Scott5114 ↗ 02:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Almost every business route was once a state loop, and some state loops were once business routes. There's considerable overlap, and not much actual "system" separation in actuality; everything's maintained by the state, and only the exact location of the loop determines what it's named. -- NE2 02:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be preferred that types of routes be kept separate. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 02:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Why? The actual designation is only a "final coat"; the road is much more than its designation. We should group roads by their function. -- NE2 03:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This keeps things consistent and neat rather than dumping everything into a Loops of Texas article. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 03:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

How is it more "consistent and neat" to separate the loops of a single road among three articles? -- NE2 03:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I hate the setup of it (lumping different classes together), but I guess it's acceptable if it's linked to as a see also or similar from the future Bannered routes of U.S. Route 87 and if no one from Texas has any objections to it. -- TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 03:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Why would people from Texas get ownership over it? -- NE2 04:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Did I ever say they did? What I said was that they may have insight that editors from outside of the state, which most commenting in this discussion are, do not. -- TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 04:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable to keep the full Texas list, but for the ones that are currently business routes, use template:main to the bannered routes of US 87 page, and for the former business routes, use template:main from the bannered routes page to the Texas list? -- NE2 04:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That works for me. -- TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 23:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Returning to the possibility of including bannered routes with state-detail articles, I have done so on U.S. Route 219 in New York. If this looks good, I'll add a section to the article structure at WP:USH, but I wanted to collect some thoughts on it first. -- TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 23:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

What of something like New Hampshire Route 28 Bypass? It's the only bannered route of NH-28. Should it be merged into New Hampshire Route 28 or left as is? -- Tckma 17:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It might be better to merge that with NH 28 unless the road has a history separate from NH 28. Depending on how much information can be said, I would even include minor suffixed routes for merging. -- Polaron | Talk 18:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There has been a lot of craziness going across the roads projects lately. This threatens all of them. Here is a summary of the problems, as unbiased as I can make it, and listed in order of importance:

1. Disrupted community spirit The community spirit has been disrupted through the alliances taken on various positions, as well as uncivil remarks.
2. Functional unit What should the functional unit of the roads projects be? In other words, which level of project should hold all the power?
3. Leadership Many criticisms have been raised about the current "leadership" of U.S. Roads.
4. Participants list Some disagree with the proposal to merge the participant lists. Others suggest merging the list to other WikiProjects.
5. Portal The portal got moved yesterday to Portal:North American Roads.
6. County routes / Notability stuff There is a debate and several AFD's relating to this.

Can we at least agree that these problems exist? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 20:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Completely. — O ( 说 • 喝) 20:37, 22 September 2007 (GMT)

100% agree. Mit ch32 ^contribs 20:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. — JA10 Talk • Contribs 20:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree... — Scott5114 ↗ 22:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think WP:HWY should hold the power, with each individual country's roads having some power, standardization (possibly individual standardization per project), and editing standards over its own area...such as WP:WPCR for the Canadian roads, WP:USRD for the American roads, and so on. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 00:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The power should be held at the national level, simply because roads in different countries are so different. Canadian roads and American roads use totally different standards, and British roads are based on a totally different paradigm (alphanumeric numbering system, with no "shields" as used in North America). WP:HWY should only exist to coordinate between the national projects. If it should exist at all. — Scott5114 ↗ 00:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it should return to state project control. US Roads should be for US Highways, with a separate project for the Interstates. That system wasn't broke, so why is it being "fixed"? I never joined on to the US Roads or Interstate projects, just the Michigan project, and that's where my membership/participation should stay, period. Imzadi1979 01:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree 100%. I have not interest in even a national level project having power. I joined CACR and CASH and that is where my interest lies. This "centralized" control has brought no end of trouble since it was established in my view. And has driven people away. Gateman1997 03:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok - my take: yes - we have problems. Why should the portal be moved? There was nothing wrong to begin with. We're definitely not a functional unit. Did the participant lists have to be merged? No. There's no reason to - users that are part of a state WikiProject now feel compelled to contribute to USRD - The functional unit is grey right now when it comes to USRD - primarily because only less than 1/3 of the states have their own projects - and many of those are inactive. and since when do we need to check - right now USRD is struggling because of many issue - many of which definitely point to the "leadership." Too many of us are stepping on toes when we shouldn't and its making things worse. Perhaps we should get back to editing articles and not worry so much about the administrative side anymore. That's what Wikipedia is for nowadays. I certainly will be doing that. master son ^{T - C} 02:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me put it this way, any project that is set up as a WikiProject, should be entitled, and expected, to function on its own. There should be no need for another project, related or not, to step in and control it. Let individual WikiProjects govern themselves. -Jeff ^(talk) 02:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that anyone seriously talking about any wikiproject in terms of holding "all the power" is poorly informed about how a wiki works. older ≠ wiser 02:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Very, very true, and I completely agree with that. The status quo (before this mess) was fine before, but after some changes, everyone started complaining. A feasible way for this to go back to normal and not escalate into an SRNC-like debate is to revert to the status quo and actually discuss large-scale changes before making them. The two RFCs were bad enough, and this should not have to go any worse than what has already happened. Let's all please go back to writing articles whether you're in the project or not, and also to put this mess behind our backs. Remarks? — O ( 说 • 喝) 03:08, 23 September 2007 (GMT)

Agree. After the state highway name dispute was resolved everything was running smooth. Let's revert back to the status quo with states having their own control in the US and everyone else going about their business as they were. No need for any centralized control. It's just going to continue to cause these problems. Gateman1997 03:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

As long as a state's WikiProject is in good shape (which both CASH and CACR are), USRD's policy is that it will not interfere with that WikiProject's operations. Departments of USRD such as shields, infoboxes and nav, map task force, assessment, etc. may have special requirements for projects, but you need to take those issues up with those departments. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 04:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think a lot of the problems began late in 2006 when I took a break from Wikipedia. When I left, there was a lack of organization within USRD. When I came back, there was a lot of organization, and USRD began assuming control over most of the state wikiprojects. This bothered me at the time, and, on some level still bothers me now. I think a lot of the standardization is good, however, I think there have been too many occasions where WP:USRD has made a decision without consulting the wikiprojects. The lack of discussion over merging project participants into one list is a good example. Unfortunately, this is the way things have changed within USRD. -- Son 18:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, part of that problem is that this page is the easiest way to reach everyone. It's just so much easier to post here and trust that the state projects are watching this page. We could probably post to each subpage, but then we might end up with 17 different conversations at the same time. — Scott5114 ↗ 19:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Primary goals of the "high-up" project coordinators should be to ensure consistency, to the best realistic standard. We all know that different places have different systems and paradigms, so consistency can't be universal. Relax, edit road articles for content, and let templates do their job for formatting consistency. Nimur 22:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This has been the goal of us for a long time. However, some editors ignore WP:USRD ... -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 22:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

And that's because they're part of a subproject, but not USRD. There is only one way to effectively solve the problem - merge WikiProject state route into WP:USRD. This would effectively fold everything into USRD, as opposed to everything feeding into it. When I created WP:PASH, I never intended it to be a subproject - I intended it to be a WikiProject, just as CASH and CACR were. I thought it was a bit crazy not having a PA roads WP, so I started it. But now, it's been more or less usurped by USRD. This is fine, I have no problem about that. But has there ever been a time where there has been state-project wide consensus to make USRD the standards of all state WPs? Yes and no. Operationally, yes, because it's been going on for a while. However, in the most straight forward manner, no. Obviously there has been general support for what's been going on, because no one has tried to challenge the (for a lack of a better word) "authority" of WP:USRD. And there has never been a formal process to tell every editor working on the state WPs that USRD would become an umbrella WP, and standardize everything. It has happened naturally over time, without too many complaints.

I'm not suggesting that USRD shouldn't be doing what it's doing, however, we are approached with two problems. Firstly, anyone who wants to join a state-level project does not have to contribute to WP:USRD. For USRD to effectively operate, this simply cannot be. Hence "problems" we face, such as when Jeff2 reverted the participants list on his WP. I say problems, not because anyone is causing a problem, but because this situation slows down the operation of every state route WP. Currently, if someone doesn't want to participate in WP:USRD they don't have to. Secondly, if someone is participating in a state route WP, and not USRD, why do they have to follow the standards of USRD? Because USRD said so? Unfortunately, this is Wikipedia, and while democracy doesn't exist, there's nothing to actually force a state-level WP from following it. And while there is a nation-wide consensus, there's nothing to say that someone might roll in, start a WP for Wyoming and start doing articles the way they see fit. So, they follow the naming convention, but use a different infobox. People at USRD are going to be jumping up and down because the new WP:WYSR isn't following USRD standards. But, as it currently stands, who can really stop WYSR from doing what they're doing. They've started a WikiProject on their own accord - at what point does a WikiProject go from being a WikiProject to a subproject of USRD?

That's what also needs to be resolved - and hence why I'm proposing a USRD Constitution (so to speak), something that establishes, and passes by consensus, that all of the state route WPs are subprojects of USRD, and that all WPs would be folded into USRD, running under the same guidelines. If it doesn't pass consensus, then it is my opinion that USRD should operate as a shell, only creating nation-wide standards and that's it. No USRD-wide participants list, nothing of that like. In my opinion, this is the only way to get USRD to work better - to actually establish it as the WikiProject, and put up for discussion whether USRD should maintain that status or move to the shell-like status I described. I think this is the impasse USRD has reached, and it's not going to be resolved until something as I've described is discussed. Otherwise, there's going to constantly be debate about the role of USRD. This would definitively decide what role USRD would fill. -- Son 13:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Not saying that your idea doesn't have merit (it does), but when I read that I just started laughing. The idea of a USRD constitution is a bit too surreal, even for me. :P — Scott5114 ↗ 15:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought the same thing. I wasn't trying to make a POINT by writing such a long message, but I think my meaning still gets across. -- Son 20:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The idea of WP:USRD being the subproject for all states without an associated project was a good one, and about all I turn to the WP for. — Rob ( talk) 15:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally think that if a project exists, it should function as every other project exists and not have to submit to another project. I believe USRD should be here to assist the state projects and to consolidate functions such as shield and map making that wouldn't make much sense to be done at the state level. I think it was mentioned above that there are 28 state level projects, I don't think it would be difficult to spam those with a link to the discussion here if it is going to be something that affects the state level projects. I don't think anyone is asking anyone to spam every user. -- Holderca1 19:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's time to move towards a resolution.

I agree with Holderca1. I think this is what WP:USRD should be used for. We have IH, USH, and the state WPs. USRD should keep standardization for all 28 state WPs, and have direct control over the remaining 32 states that doesn't have a WP. That's my proposal. -- Son 20:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like the status quo. I'll take it. — Rob ( talk) 20:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

My take on things has always been that the USRD standards exist as a baseline applied everywhere, and the subprojects exist to adapt that baseline to the particular circumstances of their state's system (e.g. MO's lettered routes, OK's spurs, TX's many systems). In the hypothetical situation of Wyoming breaking USRD guidelines, I'd say that they would have the right to do that if and only if they can prove that breaking the standards so badly is necessary for their particular state. I'm talking about breaking them badly, not like having an extra section or two, more like renaming a section or mandating all route descriptions are to be north to south or using a totally different infobox. Oklahoma still has {{ Infobox Oklahoma Highway 2}}, which exists because it can handle duplicated route numbers (of which Oklahoma has many) better than Infobox road can. Basically, states have the latitude to do whatever as long as they don't totally flaunt the standards, and they can even do that if they show it's necessary. — Scott5114 ↗ 21:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Scott. Seems like status quo to me, and I have no problems with that. An observation as well: if anything is discussed on USRD regarding a change to state projects (like the lists), a link to the discussion should be spammed to all of the projects. Otherwise, we get the situation above after the change has already been completed. A spammed link and a pre-combination discussion may not have prevented the discussion itself, but it would've prevented the hassle of having to break apart what's been done. -- TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

And I just realized Holderca1 made that point above... -- TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What Son and Holderca1 said. master son ^{T - C} 21:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 22:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• 27 September 2007 - expires 2 October

US Highway 231/431 (via WP:PROD)

--User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 21:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I reorganized and partially rewrote this several-year-old featured article, and would like comments on whether I did a good job. Please comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Pulaski Skyway/archive1. -- NE2 01:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone has vandalized U.S. Route 50 in Nevada. Well not really, they vandalized a page that is getting called by the info road box in this page. Instead of the US 50 shield, an advertisement for a band's website on myspace is displayed. But only on the Nevada page, the Utah, California, and National pages display fine. I can't find the affected page. Can someone more familiar with how infobox code works help? (and let me know what they did, I almost want to congratulate this vandal for their ingenuity =-) ). Davemeistermoab 19:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I got it. Someone vandalized Template:Infobox road/NV US shield. Davemeistermoab 19:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh, he probably searched Google for NV-US. -- NE2 02:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

He he, in other words the vandal was incredibly lucky, not smart =-) Davemeistermoab 02:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Jeff02 reverted Rschen's change in the MDRD participants list, with a summary of brought back participants list, I don't mind there being another "main list", as long as there is still a list here containing only this project's members. Was there any real consensus to merge all members' names into the USRD participants list? All I know that every other project except Maryland didn't mind the change, but we have one that does. Remarks, anyone? — O ( 说 • 喝) 20:30, 21 September 2007 (GMT)

I asked in the section above. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 22:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it is this, a new list was added to contain all members who are members of USRD and/or one of its subprojects, that I have nothing against, like I said. The only thing I have a problem with is the actual removal of the participants lists from the subprojects. I was actually surprised to have my edit reverted and brought into question, especially considering it wasn't a full revert, all I did was readded the list and changed the message, still telling potential members to also add their name to the main list. I just feel it's a bit more convenient to have a concise list of members of the individual project right on the project page, rather than having to sift through the main list trying to find the members that have listed "MD" as a subproject. Also, I don't see how simply adding the list back will hurt anything, the main list can still serve whatever purpose it was intended to serve with or without a separate list on any subproject page(s). -Jeff ^(talk) 01:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

However, this provides for content forking, which will be a pain to manage. I'm sure that there will be users who have added their names to WP:MDSH only. Furthermore, this reinforces the idea of universal membership across USRD. And the participants table is sortable... -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 02:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this is… pretty ridiculous. I fail to see the logic in getting rid of each state's participant lists. Then again, I haven't seen the logic in a lot of stuff that's gone on here lately. -- Sable232 02:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This makes it easier to manage the USRD project (such as posting inactivity notices, handling username changes, etc.) -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 02:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is only the U.S. merged? Oh, don't tell me, the Canadian project is "crappy"? -- NE2 02:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Do I really need to answer this? CRWP is not a part of USRD by any means. However, the state highway WPs are a part of USRD. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 02:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

But both are part of WikiProject Highways. Is there a reason that wasn't used as the "parent"? -- NE2 02:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:HWY is a shell project that simply exists and nothing more. Furthermore, the same editors edit nearly all the USRD projects, whereas there are only two or three editors that edit both CRWP and USRD. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 02:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You're saying you've never edited a Canadian road article? Or are you including yourself in that "two or three"? -- NE2 02:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm no longer a CRWP member... -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 02:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? I never joined most of the WikiProjects I contribute to, yet I listed myself as editing "all over the place" on the participants page. -- NE2 02:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

So you are now a USRD project member. Correct? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 03:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm on the list. I'd also put myself down as editing Canada if those participant lists were merged. -- NE2 03:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

By your logic, we should merge the Antarctica participants list with CRWP and USRD. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 03:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If it weren't a joke project, sure. -- NE2 03:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the point you are trying to make? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 03:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That, assuming the current merge makes sense, there's no reason not to also merge Canada. -- NE2 04:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Because CRWP has absolutely nothing to do with USRD? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 04:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It has as much to do with USRD as the various state WikiProjects. -- NE2 04:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

(Indent reset) Um, no? Do I need to explain that the United States is not part of Canada? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 04:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

And Virginia is not part of Maryland, yet those lists were merged. -- NE2 04:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

What are you trying to accomplish? The destruction of USRD? Those lists were merged into USRD. Virginia was not merged into MDSH, which is basically what you are proposing. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 04:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about; I'm proposing having one contributors list under WP:HWY. USRD would not be "destroyed" any more than the individual state projects have been "destroyed". -- NE2 05:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that proposal is being rejected. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 05:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember any discussion about the merge of state project participant lists into USRD; why couldn't someone do the same with HWY without discussion? -- NE2 05:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Except there was a discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Archive_7#User_list_revamp. Just that noone saw fit to respond. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 05:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I wonder if anyone would have noticed if I had proposed it on WT:HWY. Seriously, I have no problem with the merge, but I understand where others are coming from, and think a merge with Canada would make just as much sense. -- NE2 06:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Merging the participants list into a shell project would make little sense. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it shouldn't be a "shell project" then. I may do some work on it. -- NE2 06:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me and probably for the rest of USRD, but USRD will not submit to any conflicting standards or subordinate to HWY or CRWP. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do you apply USRD standards to its subprojects, if you're not willing to have standards from HWY applied to USRD? -- NE2 08:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Because those are child projects, parts that make up the whole of USRD. They were started with the understanding that they are such.— Scott5114 ↗ 08:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

USRD was started on September 18, 2005, HWY on January 27, 2004. -- NE2 08:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

<- I don't see MDRD as being a "part" of USRD any more than it is a part of WikiProject Maryland, and yet it seems that USRD is trying to claim ownership of all of the individual state-level projects. The state-level projects are each their own project, and if a change is to be made that affects those projects, I expect it to be first discussed on their talk pages rather than just throwing up a notice here, waiting a few days and applying it. I think the fact that I didn't know about this until I checked my watchlist to find that the participants list had been removed, really says something about how things are being done around here. I find this especially disturbing considering a recent post promising more openness. Despite that, to use a term from the letter, I feel this is an example of the "walled garden" phenomenon, decisions are being made here without consulting the individual projects they affect. -Jeff ^(talk) 15:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious - what defines a child subproject - and I'm referring to the view of Wikipdia as a whole? master son ^{T - C} 15:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I say this because I am growing concerned of the actions that have taken place that caused this debate (such as the subject of this discussion - the universal lists) I don't see WP:TROP getting its list userped into WP:METEO at all - the claim that this userping is because its "easier to maintain" or similar things seems ludicrous to say the least. Some projects use additional attempts at communication and want to reach the subprojects - and think that merging the lists help - but it again leads to the same problem we have here. master son ^{T - C} 15:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

As noted before, I waited a long time- at least a few weeks- before carrying this change out- so long that the post archived. Furthermore, there are so many subprojects that it would have been unreasonable to post on every single one. (And you claim that this is not being open...) The projects will remain independent; this is just a consolidation of the participants lists for a variety of reasons. The same 3-4 people are on just about every single participant list- which is redundant and means nothing, for example. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 16:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want an example of not being open, then look at the sudden move of our portal to Portal:North American Roads. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 17:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason that the participants lists were removed is because we will get users like this [6] who don't follow directions. They didn't even follow the directions to go to the main participants page; how will they notice the same directions when there are duplicate participant lists? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 16:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Why should I join the project for all of U.S. roads when I'm only editing Maryland roads? - Algorerhythms 17:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Then you join the USRD project, indicating that you only edit MD roads. This is so we have one list of everyone who edits the MD roads. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 17:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yah, just say on the USRD list that you will only edit Maryland roads. It's almost the same thing. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 17:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

section break

Ok - if this is going to happen - then lets suggest that all U.S. State Wikiprojects all merge their participant into one list under WP:USA Now do you see where I'm going? master son ^{T - C} 18:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC) :This is WP:POINT. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 18:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That suggestion does not help the discussion at all. Rather, it is inflammatory. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 19:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

He makes a good point, though - if consolidating all of the participants lists of the state roads projects under the U.S. roads project is a good idea, why isn't consolidating the participants list of U.S. Roads under its parent project? As for WP:POINT, how does simply suggesting that disrupt anything? Disruptive behavior would be actually doing that without discussion. - Algorerhythms 19:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

We have to draw the line somewhere- otherwise, we would have Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiProject with all few million Wikipedia users. We are drawing the line at WP:USRD since the rest of WP:USA tends more towards geography articles. Road editors should not be combined with geography editors. Also, United States road editors tend to clump and consult together, thus justifying our consolidation together and our separation from WP:CRWP, WP:USA, WP:HWY, WP:MXRD, WP:NARD, and any other stupid suggestion that can be fielded. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 19:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think what Master Son means is projects like WP:WPMD being merged into WP:USA, not the state roads projects, and he makes a valid point. Even though WPMD is a subproject of WP:USA, much the same way that MDRD is a subproject of USRD, I have never had any experience with someone from WP:USA coming into WPMD and redirecting our project banner to theirs, removing our participants list, and in general performing actions that imply that they "own" our project. WP:USA, just wouldn't do those things, and if anyone asked them and the state projects to all merge their participants lists, they'd probably be laughed at. -Jeff ^(talk) 02:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jeff02 for the clarification, and I apologize to Master_son about that. However, there are several users that edit all the USRD states, which USA does not have. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 04:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• I have to agree with the OP in this section. I too don't see the logic of removing all subproject's participants lists. For instance I am not a USR WP contributor. Only a CASH and CACR contributor. Why should I be moved under the general heading. Both projects I joined predate WPUSR. And by removing the local list, finding the other members editing the particular projects I'm actually a member of has become that much more difficult. I for one support reverting or at the very least amending this centralization with the old lists as well. Gateman1997 03:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • If we kept the old lists, my concern is that there would be users who don't read the directions. Then we have two lists of the same thing. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 03:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Not necessarily a bad thing. For instance I come on tonight and find I'm going to be automatically deleted from the central USR list if I don't do such and such to it. Fine by me. I didn't add myself to that list to start. Just the CACR and CASH ones. I'm not a member of WPUSR, or at least I never joined it. If people only want to join the state level projects I say we let them. It has worked for years and makes it much easier to find people actually working on what you are. If anything I see the central list as the duplication of effort here. Gateman1997 03:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

Since apparently people are complaining, I'm going to propose a compromise. States that wish will have their own participants list, but it should be transcluded into the main participants list. There will still be the option to join all of USRD and not be attached to a specific state, and the "national" users will be discouraged from joining all 28 state projects. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 03:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

How about we just edit articles? Unless I'm mistaken, the only thing the participants list actually matters for is newsletter delivery, and we can compile a separate list for that. -- NE2 04:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

No, there are reasons for the combined list. For example, I needed a list to spam everyone tonight. For users who change their names, we can change the name one place. Or if a user leaves a project. This is so we don't have 15 different projects where we have to fix everything (like Vishwin and Myselfalso who changed their names over the summer). -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 04:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You only "needed" to spam everyone because of the change; I can't remember getting anything else except for the newsletter confirmation (which was of course newsletter-related) in my year or so of being here. So why can't we let people add or remove their names wherever they want, and just keep a combined list for newsletter purposes? -- NE2 04:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:SRNC involved spamming. Also, when people add their names to a separate list, they don't get added to the newsletter list automatically; they have to go to another page and sign up themselves. It takes too long to get all teh new editors from every project. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 04:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That was what, once over a year ago? Just add something to each participants list saying "sign up at this link for the newsletter". -- NE2 04:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we should keep all the lists separate, even being sortable, it is very difficult to find participants from a specific project since it sorts by the first project listed. I say have a separate list for each state, have that transcluded to whatever master list. In addition, have a link to those that work on all the projects. Only problem will be with editors like myself that don't edit nationally, but do contribute to several projects. May just have to deal with those situations. -- Holderca1 19:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal 2

We undo the combination of the participant lists. However, someone else will need to do the reverts. Also, let's let the inactivity notification run its course, since the messages have already been spammed. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 17:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, but why should someone else do the reverts? -- Son 14:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If someone really wants to have it done, then they should have to do it. I don't have all the time in the world. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 22:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

First I've heard of this from the newsletter. I support doing this, however I don't have time to do any of the reverts. However I like the transcluding idea of Prop 1 better. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 17:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Simple question: should browsing be placed on both the multistate article and the state-detail articles or just on the state-detail articles? This question was asked once before at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Highways/Archive 2#Subpage technicalities; however, nothing came of the discussion. -- TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 03:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're using the browsing, you're either already in the sequence, or you're specifically interested in the highways of that state. Either way, you'll be at the state-detail article. -- NE2 10:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

So I assume you want it on just the state-detail article. Hopefully others can comment on this issue. -- TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be on the state detailed article if it exists, on the main article if the state article doesn't exist. -- Holderca1 23:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I was looking over the importance scale today and noticed something. This freeway was built to interstate standards per MDOT. It is of major commerical importance in that it has commerical truck volumes as high as the interstates 96 & 196. It is more of a bypass of Grand Rapids proper for 96-196 than just a local or state important route. Given that both 96 and 196 are rated as high on the scale and that M6 is a bypass of those routes I would think its assestment for importance is rather low considering these facts. If this is the wrong place to put this feel free to either move this to the proper location or just tell me. -- Mihsfbstadium 15:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree; change it. -- NE2 09:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

We have an article on the main page, albeit as a Did you know?. I created Wurzbach Parkway several days ago, something that I had planned on doing for awhile and never got around to doing it. I hand't even thought of nominating it for DYK because it is more of a forgotten freeway in San Antonio since it's hard to get to it and mainly used by residents that live near to it. Thanks to User:NE2 for coming along and expanding it and nominating it. Lets get back to what we came here for, writing and improving articles. -- Holderca1 18:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that I found the article via User:AlexNewArtBot/USRoadsSearchResult. I go through there regularly and add project tags, and it's a decent place to look for DYK nominations. -- NE2 19:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

On Interstate 84 in Oregon, the mileposts (and thus the exit numbers) jump over two miles at I-205 due to a change in planned alignment. How should I show this in the exit list? -- NE2 00:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

My guess is how CA handles it when there is a postmile equation. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 00:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean using two columns where they differ, kind of like Interstate 580 (California)? I can't find any postmile equations on a quick look through the major Interstates in California. -- NE2 00:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Aagh, it's taking forever to find one. Basically, you use a colspan saying something to that effect. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 00:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Like the one I just added to I-84? -- NE2 01:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe using more words instead of symbols, but yeah. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 01:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? Replace = by equals? If so, why? -- NE2 01:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Or just say is, and replace "back" and "forward" with eastbound and westbound. It just makes things more clear for the non-roadgeek (or non-CA-roadgeek). -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 01:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Eastbound and westbound don't make sense to me; the mileposts on both directions of I-84 skip from 7.37 in the numbering west of that point ("back") to 9.70 in the numbering east of that point ("ahead"). I'd hope that the article at milepost equation would include details so we don't need several sentences each time one of these occurs. -- NE2 01:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I created a stub at milepost equation. -- NE2 04:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

There are quite a few of these out there and they have different structure, different naming convention, different inclusion criteria. I created a cat to put all of these in since most of them didn't have a cat to begin with. Here is the cat: Category:Metropolitan area highway templates. I am sure there are many more that I have missed, feel free to add them to the cat. Should we come up with a design standard for at least the US navboxes? Which cities get them, those larger than a million? What do we include, just freeways, or more? -- Holderca1 14:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Since it looks like they're here to stay, developing some standards for them is probably a good idea. Right now, we have templates that are compact and collapsible (like the NYC one) and others that are clunky and lack any type of hide/show support (like the LA one). -- TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

...think again. I did some browsing through the deletion log tonight and noticed that a hefty number of Ohio state route articles with literally an infobox, an external link, and a category had (correctly) been speedy deleted under criteria A1 (no context). It should be noted that these "articles" also lacked a lead, or, for that matter, any prose of any kind - your classic sub-stub. IMO, if this doesn't provide incentive to expand some stubs, or at least ensure our existing stubs aren't substubs, I don't know what will. -- TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Are those the ones where I removed the only text as being a copyvio from John Simpson's site? -- NE2 06:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I don't think so, actually. It looks like Milktaco wrote the substubs; Ohio State Route 369 at least is still around. On the other hand, the copyvios I removed, such as [7], had other text. -- NE2 06:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, there were some: [8] That means that they had only an infobox and history anyway. -- NE2 06:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should put these "permastubs" into a "minor highways (or whatever) of..." article without infoboxes or something (or just let them go and put brief detail (no infobox) on the highway list. If these articles are going nowhere - why keep them? master son ^{T - C} 15:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

These weren't permastubs. These had room for expansion: they just had an infobox and an external link, and categories. No prose at all. — Scott5114 ↗ 17:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What is a problem is edits like [9]. If you see any of those on your watchlist, please let the editor know not to do it and go through the contributions and revert. -- NE2 06:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe A. Gonsalves Memorial Interchange -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 23:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

What should we do about templates that pop up like this one? I am concerned that we will have pages half full of templates such as this and would like to see it go personally - but prior to a tfd I'm requesting opinion on it master son ^{T - C} 01:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Considering that we might merge these into one article, delete. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 02:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The notion of a template that organizes business connections seems useful, but it should be genericised to work for any interstate and any set of towns. ++ Lar: t/ c 02:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow... that blue link is almost impossible to read. -- NE2 05:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lar. I see potential as useful, but a better way to do it is needed. -- MPD ^{T / C} 05:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

If we merge the individual route articles into one for all bannered routes of that route number as Rschen suggested - that template will be useless - otherwise yeah it is useful - if the template remains - a redesign should be needed. -- master son ^{T - C} 13:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This template is more likely not useful than useful to most other Interstates, since there are almost no coverage of Interstate Business routes. Even though Michigan editors have created lots of business route articles, we have began to see that merging coverage into one article has a better result than just having permastubs across the board. I am nominating this for deletion. O ₂ ( 息 • 吹) 00:28, 08 October 2007 (GMT)

{{3di old|95}} Can't we compress this? -- NE2 19:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much the only way is to reduce the font size (90-95%?). AFAIK, the hide/show functionality was removed a while ago. O ₂ ( 息 • 吹) 00:23, 08 October 2007 (GMT)

Hide/show would be good. -- MPD ^{T / C} 00:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

So what makes this fine that wasn't fine about Template:Ontario King's Highways? I think we can abbreviate the state names here and improve the formatting; there's no need for four separate lines to list four spurs on the I-96 template. -- NE2 00:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. This was an improvement over the old 3di template. Go ahead and make a mock example template so we can comment on it, work on it, and if it works, then we can change them. -- MPD ^{T / C} 00:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict] State names are not supposed to be abbreviated since it does not conform to MOS:ABB. The Ontario's King's Highways template is different from these because that lists all King's Highways. Here, it only lists auxiliary routes for one Interstate. If the auxiliary template were to be the same aspect as the Ontario template, then it'd list all auxiliary routes in the Interstate System. O ₂ ( 息 • 吹) 00:55, 08 October 2007 (GMT)

Why do we abbreviate the state names in browse boxes at the bottom of articles like Interstate 82? -- NE2 01:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Because they are supposed to be boxes contained in infoboxes, which are supposed to be small. This (3di 95) isn't. O ₂ ( 息 • 吹) 01:10, 08 October 2007 (GMT)

I can split up CT/RI/MA if that's an issue, or add a few line breaks. -- NE2 01:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Good start. Maybe arrange by state (horizontally)? O ₂ ( 息 • 吹) 01:26, 08 October 2007 (GMT)

If you mean each state in a separate row, I tried that and for I-95 it's as big as the old one. -- NE2 01:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not bad. The presentation seems a little thrown together, but I guess it's a compromise between the old one and no template at all. -- TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 04:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the old one to Template:3di old. The old style will still be used except where [[Template:I-{{{1}}} aux]] exists. -- NE2 13:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I like this new idea. Very creative. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 21:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read and comment at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (exit lists)#Proposals for clarifications. -- NE2 05:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstate 495 (North Carolina) -- NE2 12:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Basically, a user has taken it upon himself to a) remove shields from all exit lists and b) convert WP:ELG into an essay. Discussion started at WT:ELG then went all over the place. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 01:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I recently merged Interstate 195 (Florida) and Interstate 395 (Florida) into their "hidden" state road designations because (1) the Interstate designation in both cases is a small segment of a larger freeway and (2) it doesn't make much sense to have two articles on the same roadway, especially when one or both articles is a stub. I even cleaned up Florida State Road 112 for the sole purpose of merging I-195 with the article. I was reverted by an editor, who called the designations "separate". Comments requested. -- TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 03:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say keep them all separate. I can't form more to back that up, but for now, that's just my opinion. But I'd like to see more opinions. -- MPD ^{T / C} 03:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure; I think the way in which the western extensions are tolled might make them different enough. Do you know the history of their construction? -- NE2 06:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The articles don't give me the impression that the interstate portions were constructed at different times, though this fact is unclear. I suppose I-395 may be distinct enough to deserve its own article (that is, if someone can expand it enough to be a decent standalone article), but I can't say the same for I-195. The portion of the freeway west of I-195 is SR 112; the at-grade roadway extending east of I-195 is SR 112, with I-195 sandwiched in the middle. That, combined with the sorry state of the article, was enough reasoning for me to merge them.

To me, it comes down to quality. If we can have quality (B-class) articles on both the SRs and the Interstates, then I'm all for it. But as it is right now, the two interstate articles are awful and I don't see any way how merging the two with the state roads is detrimental. -- TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 07:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say keep them separate. Since Florida gives its own state road designation to every interstate and US highway, I have always treated this as if the hidden designation didn't exist at all on deciding where to have articles or where to have a redirect to, etc... {{ main}} would probably be the best way to go on the SR articles. -- Holderca1 12:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

So you endorse keeping two stubby articles on the same stretch of roadway? -- TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

By default yes, I don't think an interstate article should ever be merged into a state highway article, only the other way around. And since the state highways exist separately from the interstates, we have no choice but to have them separate. If they happened to have the same name such as Ronald Reagen Expressway, then a single article under that would work, but that is not the case in this situation. If they are stubby, then expand them. Actually, both aren't stubs, the interstate portions are the only stub articles. -- Holderca1 21:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, then that just makes the situation more glaring then. I see no benefit to keeping the articles separate, as there is nothing about the Interstates that can't be covered in the SR articles. Keeping them separate will only lead to an unnecessary duplication of information. And do you really believe that the Interstate articles can be turned into B-class articles? Personally, I doubt they can. -- TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, how would having the same name make any difference? -- TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 06:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Never mind, I see that point, although that type of thing seldom happens. Usually, one name = one designation. -- TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 06:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like I-395 has some urban planning issues to write about. -- NE2 22:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I dunno anything about that, so I wouldn't be the one to write it. Keep in mind my comments are based on what I see right now, and what I see right now are lousy articles. If other editors improve them, so be it, but at the present time, it boggles my mind as to how they're allowed to be separate. -- TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

What about merging into Interstate 95 in Florida? -- Holderca1 13:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a bad idea. -- NE2 18:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

How would that be appropriate and what I did not? -- TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Because they are spurs of I-95. Interstate 345 was merged and redirected to Interstate 45, so I thought logically the same would be okay here, if that isn't a good idea, than we should split I-345 back out. -- Holderca1 20:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I-345 is an unsigned continuation of I-45 that was built at the same time and is commonly called the "I-45 overhead". -- NE2 21:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well that is only half right. It is signed I-45 southbound and US 75 northbound. Officially I-45 ends at the south end of I-345 and US 75 ends at the north end, why they just don't continue the US 75 designation to I-45, I don't know, not that anyone would actually notice. Not sure how common "I-45 overhead" is, google hits came back with mostly Wikipedia and its mirrors. Google News came back with no hits. -- Holderca1 13:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record, TMF, not every "hidden" Florida State Road is hidden beneath the same Interstate or U.S. Highway, and many of them extend beyond those Interstates & US Highways, which makes merging them all a bad idea. One example of this is Florida State Road 595, which has an exposed extension between US 19 and US 92 in St, Petersburg, and Pasco & Hernando County Roads 595 are considered County extensions of SR 595. Not all of US 19 is Florida State Road 55, not all of Interstate 75 in Florida is Florida State Road 93, not all of US 41 is Florida State Road 45, not all of Florida State Road 112 is Interstate 195 in Florida,... you get the idea, right? ---- DanTD 04:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh, where did I say that every single one should be merged? -- TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 04:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You mean you're not proposing these mergers for other Interstate & US Highways in Florida besides I-195 and I-395? Well that's good, although I think Florida State Road 93 & 93A should be merged with Interstate 75 in Florida. ---- DanTD 04:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That is correct; my comment far, far above was limited to only I-195 and I-395. As for SR 93...you could try tagging it for a merge. -- TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)