Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads

Moving forward on project consolidation

Now that we provisionally moved forward on the consolidation (see #Closing the discussion above for the provision), we have some housekeeping yet to do to implement the plan.

1. Rename the topic-based TFs as departments. Y Done
2. Move all existing subprojects to their new titles. Y Done
3. Archive subproject talk pages, redirect them to this page, and link the archives to the search box above. Y Done
4. Shut down WP:USRD/SUB. Y Done
5. Restore the IH and USH pages as task forces. Y Done
6. Update the navbox. Y Done
7. Create task forces for the remaining states to act as landing pages. (Better name for the "dumping space" concept) Y Done
8. Decide on a structure of task forces for the territories and DC. Y Done
9. Create userboxes for the new task forces. Y Done
10. Standardize the various userboxes. Y Done
11. Catalog the barnstars in a central location, and discuss their fate. In progress
12. Move the various resources to the task force pages to centralize state- and territory-specific information to each state. Y Done
13. Implement a new participants list.Y Done
14. Clean the TF pages to remove duplicated materials, leaving only state- specific items. Y Done
15. Update {{USRD}} to reflect the new TF links.Y Done

Current status

Numbers 2, 3 and 10 have not been done for Maryland and Minnesota at this time pending the resolution of discussions at WT:MDSH and WT:MNSH. The navbox has been updated to the current state of affairs, but it will need to be updated further for all of the new TFs and to reflect the outcome of the MD/MN discussions. I've started some subsections below to discuss specifics for some of the tasks above. Imzadi 1979 → 06:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Task force creation

Someone should develop a form of a template that can be substituted into the new pages to create a structure for the landing space content. We have {{Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/TF header}} and {{Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/nav|sub=open}} to place on top of each page. What standard sections should we have and such? This template could be used as a format to guide reorganization of the existing pages. Imzadi 1979 → 06:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Sections each task force should have are Scope, Naming Conventions, Resources, State-specific Standards and Structure, Participants, Assessment and/or Recognized Content, Goals/Tasks/How You Can Help (specific to the particular state, such as article requests and systematic things that should happen), Templates, and Categories.  VC  18:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The newly-created Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Delaware task force could possibly serve as a model for the new task forces. Dough4872 01:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

There are a few things I want to see, beyond a standardized list of sections, in every task force page:

• A completion list page that contains all articles in a task force as well as all of the possible redirect article pages.
• Based on the route list, a Recent Changes page.
• A state assessment table.
• A list of recognized content, for those states with recognized content. My preference is to place the recognized content next to the assessment table in an Assessment section, but other ways of organizing it could work.
• USRD Announcements template at the bottom of each task force front page.

Is there any other content that should be included for every task force?  VC  18:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The {{U.S. Roads WikiProject}} banner "state" field options should be revised to reflect that all states except New York are now task forces. The "type" field options should be checked as well.  VC  17:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It appears all remaining U.S. states have been created. -- LJ ↗ 22:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Territorial TFs

The idea for a single territorial TF dates back to early 2008. How do we want to organize this? Imzadi 1979 → 06:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I say that DC and possibly PR have their own task forces while the rest can be lumped together. Dough4872 01:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

How different are guidelines, standards, and conditions among the territories? If they are significantly different, each territory should have its own page. However, I would make this lowest priority on the list of consolidation tasks.  VC  15:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts are that all of the territories save PR should be one TF. The Northern Marianas (MP) doesn't even have a numbered highway system nor any articles at present, and I'm not convinced that DC needs its own TF at this time. PR has several levels of highway classification, and it has a small group of editors. Imzadi 1979 → 15:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I still think is it awkward to lump DC, which is on the continential US, with the other territories, which are islands in the ocean far from the mainland. Dough4872 20:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that we just leave it out of the task forces entirely; there's only 1 "state highway" article and a handful of S-D articles. --Rschen7754 06:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

But then where will we put DC-specific information? Dough4872 01:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I am in favor of DC having its own task force, but to reinforce what I said above, this is very low priority.  VC  18:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: the three territorial TFs have been created: WP:USRD/TERR for AS, GU, MP and VI; WP:USRD/DC and WP:USRD/PR for DC and PR. Imzadi 1979 → 00:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Userbox transition

We have Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Userbox list. I already standardized the names and colors. Do we want to use the wording used in the DE userbox for all states, or go with the the style of AL? I'm kinda partial to the DE-style wording because it doesn't emphasize the TFs as separate from USRD; we're coming together in one project now in a more unified way, so it might be time to reflect that better in our userboxes. Imzadi 1979 → 06:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I like the IA wording myself; it mentions USRD first while also mentioning the task force. That said I don't think we need to create userboxen for TFs that don't have one yet; I know that if OK ends up with one it probably will never be used, since I barely touch my user page and don't use userboxen anyway. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem I see with the DE wording is that it applies to anyone who might edit the articles, and not necessarily members of the task force. It is indeed more inclusive, but the AL wording would encourage people to join the task force before placing the userbox on their page. The Iowa wording is the clearest, but it's a little long. Of course you could give users the choice of the three wordings on the Task Force page. — ★Parsa ☞ talk 04:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Something to remember is that we're going to be consolidating the participants' lists together into one project list. The TFs won't have separate lists at some point in the future. Imzadi 1979 → 05:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstars

I'm going to make a single listing of our barnstars. We'll need to decide what to do with them. Imzadi 1979 → 06:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The list is now at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Barnstar list. We only have three state highway project-specific ones, one CASH shared with WP:CA and the USRD/IH ones. Imzadi 1979 → 07:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

With the consolidation going on, I think one USRD barnstar makes sense. However, I think we should change the I-5 shield to our project logo to better reflect it representing all roads, not just Interstates. Dough4872 02:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Dough4872 on that point. If there will indeed be only one barnstar, then I would say that an SVG file could be created in which the USRD logo is superimposed on a good quality star. However, I think of barnstars as pretty casual pats on the back in most cases. I don't really mind that other versions exist. Perhaps if the USRD barnstar was awarded by group consensus via recommendation, then the others would serve as more casual personal awards, but is this actually done anywhere on WP? — ★Parsa ☞ talk 02:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

On IRC, I suggested having the ability to superimpose a state blank onto the barnstar, for when you want to award something state-specific. –Fredddie™ 02:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that's a cool idea. We could make it so different shields or markers could be placed on the base star in a similar way to the placing of numbers in the shields on userboxes. BTW, I worked up an idea for a USRD logo SVG barnstar. You can see it here: Barnstar_USRD.svg. — ★Parsa ☞ talk 03:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I like the logo. Dough4872 03:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the base star get a green tint, like MUTCD green since we seem to be standardizing to MTUCD colors. Imzadi 1979 → 03:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

We have {{Superimpose}}. We would just need a regular barnstar and then superimpose the USRD logo over it by default, leaving the option to replace the project logo with whatever shield we choose. –Fredddie™ 03:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Do we have a final decision on what to do with the barnstars? Dough4872 15:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No. –Fredddie™ 23:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

At this point, would you say it is best to go with one project barnstar or to do barnstars for each state? Dough4872 00:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘At this point, I don't see a need to create additional stars. Imzadi 1979 → 00:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

But should we keep the stars we have now or consolidate them all into one USRD barnstar? Dough4872 02:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, we can't do too much consolidation; the graphics can't just be deleted because they're used for existing uses. Hopefully all of the existing awards have been substituted so the templates could be merged/deleted/etc. I see this as really low-priority, lower than continuing to move the remaining resources out to the state landing pages. Imzadi 1979 → 02:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Example

The renewed interest in barnstar consolidation led me to create {{The WikiProject U.S. Roads Barnstar/Sandbox}} tonight. Currently, you can change the shield to whatever and the background to any MUTCD color, even the oddball colors (thanks Parsa!). –Fredddie™ 02:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

{{The WikiProject U.S. Roads Barnstar/Sandbox|color=yellow|shield=I-80 (IA).svg}} gets you:

The WikiProject U.S. Roads Contributor Barnstar

YOUR TEXT HERE

I like that. Dough4872 03:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Do we want to go with this as our new project barnstar? Dough4872 02:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I like the concept and versatility. I think it is quite large with a lot of dead space on top. How might it look laid out as a more typical barnstar award with the star on the left and vertical alignment of the text centered on the star? -- LJ ↗ 08:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I was going for the style of a big green sign, so there's naturally going to be some dead space. Nevertheless, I created a second sandbox. –Fredddie™ 03:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Contributor Barnstar YOUR TEXT HERE

I think this barnstar looks more like the standard barnstar still with the USRD twist. I like it as it has less empty space. Dough4872 03:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm starting to like it more than the first, myself. Anyway, I made the images link to WP:USRD since it was doing something weird where the only link over the image was for the barnstar image itself and hovering over the shield meant no link. –Fredddie™ 03:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly as I envisioned with my previous request. Still has the semblance of a road sign (more like a street name sign now with city seal on it), so the effect isn't lost. I like this. Nice work, Freddie. -- LJ ↗ 09:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I like the second, but I'm not particularly picky. --Rschen7754 13:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Before we deploy the new barnstar, we should proabably subst the ones that are out there, or is that unnecessary? –Fredddie™ 23:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd say we grandfather the old barnstars in and use the new ones for future use. Dough4872 00:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Are the barnstars for individual states going to be subst'd too? Dough4872 23:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but only if you help. –Fredddie™ 03:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Resources

Technically, we have a sixth department, the "Resources Department", but it will be superceded by moving the state-specific resources to the state TFs now that each state will have one. What do we do with items that aren't specific to one state? Do we make a template page for them that's transcluded to each state page? Imzadi 1979 → 06:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

If the resources are national, we can keep them there and rename the page Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/National resources. Dough4872 01:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a comment... that since the Auto trails resources are primarily pre-1927, the resources for these should be on the AT page, or a sub-page bibliography and maps list. I plan on putting some general resources on the main AT page. — ★Parsa ☞ talk 20:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

All state-specific resource links and internal information pages have been moved to the appropriate state task force pages. -- LJ ↗ 22:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Now's the time to move any additional resources to the TFs, even if that means we're duplicating regional or national items to multiple TFs. Each TF should have a link to any resource applicable to it so that an editor can find what s/he needs. Imzadi 1979 → 00:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Participants list and roll call

I've already started on User:Imzadi1979/SandboxUSRD, and it needs some revisions yet. (My focus tonight was on other things related to the consolidation.) I'm hoping to get the subtemplates coded so that a user's status is either an X on green or an O on yellow for active and semi-active, respectively. I also need to split the South into "Atlantic Coast" and "South Central" subgroupings. The plan is to get this done soon, and then we can include in the newsletter a roll call. (All listed project members would get this issue of the newsletter, regardless of subscription status). Each editor would have to add himself/herself to the unified list, and the remaining lists would be archived. Imzadi 1979 → 06:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Should we remain consistent with what WP:GA uses? --Rschen7754 07:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, going with AS/GU/MP as "Pacific" and PR/VI as "Southern", the charts I came up with already follow the GA listing; both are based on Census Bureau groupings. The thing is that there are so many jurisdictions that the table got so wide for the South. We discussed on IRC trying to split it in half, which is the "Atlantic Coast" (MD, DC, WV, VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, PR, VI_ and "South Central" (TX, OK, AR, LA, MS, AL, TN, KY) groupings. Imzadi 1979 → 07:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

We could always put the territories into their own group, with DC remaining with the south. Personally, we should reclassify some of the states in the south to other regions, such as moving DE, DC, and MD to the northeast and possibly TX and OK to the midwest. Dough4872 01:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not like the proposed grouping of states into regions for the purpose of filling out charts. The use of regions (not the definitions of the regions) is arbitrary and unequal in size, and there is a lot of whitespace between the small X's that indicate a person is a participant in a particular state. I would prefer we have a more traditional participant list, with the following headings:

• User: Self-explanatory. Admins would be in bold.
• Affiliations: List of task forces and/or departments within which the user works. I might also include other WikiProjects the user is affiliated with because that could be helpful for liaison purposes.
• Notes: User's interests, geographic specialties, etc.

I would like to have participant lists in each task force and have the task force list data be able to be substed to the national participant list, but I am not sure if we have the technology to do that. Even if we need to do it manually, I think it would be more useful and easier to read than the current proposal.  VC  15:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I oppose leaving participants lists on the TF pages because that defeats the idea that "we are one USRD". The idea behind regional tables with each TF listed as a separate column is to allow sorting/searching. We can't sort by a state that's second or third in a text list in one column; each sort term has to be a separate column. The status quo now is a subpage at each TF that's substituted onto the TF page and the national list, meaning that if a new editor wanted to sign up for three states, s/he has to edit three pages, not one. This proposal would allow that editor to edit one page. Imzadi 1979 → 16:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we're adding too many layers of difficulty with subtemplates and regions. All we need is a simple table where users can identify who they are and which states they edit. If someone wants to make a fancy sortable table after the sign-up period, great. –Fredddie™ 23:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Fredddie. Let's start simple so we are in a position to do a roll call without too much hand-wringing.  VC  18:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘For now, let's just make a table like the existing ones, but after the roll call period is over, we can transition it to templates. Imzadi 1979 → 03:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The newsletter went out yesterday, and people are signing up on the new list. One thing that I've seen is that people are signing up for the newsletter subscription and not adding their names to the participants list. I'll sent out a note in a month as a reminder that the participants list requires positive action going forward; in other words, we purged the membership roll. Imzadi 1979 → 00:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Memorials

Do we want to list certain editors as "editors emeritus" or a similar status if they've made significant contributions to the project, but no longer edit for whatever reason? Imzadi 1979 → 06:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, but IMHO we might need some standard or nomination process so people don't leave editors up at will. User:Vaoverland is one editor who could remain in this status though. --Rschen7754 07:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking of Vaoverland and Stratosphere as two that I'd grant emeritus status to. I know there are others, but until we do the roll call, we won't know exactly who'd be potential candidates. Imzadi 1979 → 07:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I said this on IRC, but it bears repeating. Emeritus means someone has retired. Vaoverland didn't retire; he died. I think a memorial section is the most respectful thing to do for him and for those who inevitably will follow. However, I do not think it's a good idea to "honor" those who left Wikipedia by choice regardless of their accomplishments. Instead, we should shower those we respect with wikilove and barnstars now and then hope they don't blank their user pages when they choose to leave. –Fredddie™ 00:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I say we stick to the memorial idea for editors like Vaoverland who passed away. I don't think we should go with the "emeritus" idea as some of these "retired" editors could always come back in the future. Dough4872 01:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. I was in a phase of "semi-retired" for a good year or so there, but I found more energy to start editing again. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Maryland Route 139 move to Charles Street (Baltimore)

There is a discussion going on at Talk:Maryland Route 139 about moving Maryland Route 139 to Charles Street (Baltimore). I am crossposting to WP:MD and WP:USST since this could be an interdisciplinary article.

US Routes navbox

Resolved: Went with one of the proposals. Imzadi 1979 → 21:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Currently, it looks like:

I'm proposing updating it to use the navbox meta tempate, along the lines of: {{U.S. Routes/sandbox}}
By doing so, it will match up with the existing navboxes in terms of width and collapsibility. Thoughts? Imzadi 1979 → 04:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Still needs a legend. –Fredddie™ 04:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

That works. –Fredddie™ 05:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the new navbox will work well in articles. Dough4872 04:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The only concern I would have is whether this will look good on screens that aren't wide. Maybe a dot or dash in the spaces where routes have not existed. Otherwise, thanks cause this template has needed an overhaul for some time. {{Interstates}} could use a similar treatment but would be understandably harder to implement. -- LJ ↗ 05:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

My idea was to replicate the original a bit. I did up another sample that uses 30 numbers per line:

As you can see, the fewer columns, the more they get spaced out because navboxes take up the full width of the window. Personally, I wouldn't go less than 30 numbers per line or more than 40. Imzadi 1979 → 06:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. Dough4872 14:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Would it be possible to add template parameters to this navbox, so that some of the other common navigation boxes can be merged into this one, such as the state navigation box present on many state detail articles? For example, I'd like to see a single unified navbox on all US highway articles that could replace the navbox at the bottom of both the national U.S. Route 50 article as well as the state detail articles, such as the two at the bottom of U.S. Route 50 in Nevada? Dave (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

They're two different boxes with two different purposes though, although both are for navigation. This one above binds the various national-level articles together, while the one on the state-detail articles is a succession box that links the state-detail articles together in order. I can't see how we'd combine them without polluting the incoming links in the "What links here" further. (There's really no reason that US 8's article should link to a s-d article for US 50.) Imzadi 1979 → 23:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Not to be unhelpful or anything, but I have no preference regarding the 30- or 40-routes-per-line version. Either is fine with me. –Fredddie™ 04:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I viewed both templates with various screen sizes, and the 30-column version looks much better across the board. My only concern is with the Lists row and how it's stuck off to the left, visually separated from the rest of the template, which spans the whole screen. It'd probably be better to put the list links in the footer along with the legend, something along the lines of "Lists: list1 • list2<br>legend contents" or the legend on top and the lists on the second line. I'm well aware that {{navbox}} is what makes the Lists row appear as it is, but I do think there's a better way to go about it. – TMF 05:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with TMF's comments. One other question: Is there a reason why the route numbers are using larger than normal text? -- LJ ↗ 08:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Text is larger than normal because at normal size, it was difficult to discern the difference between normal, bold, and italic text. (see this diff, also US 1 is bold for reference) –Fredddie™ 18:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The 30-column works much better. The other one gets very compressed when you resize the window to a narrower size. The main advantage of the old version is that you can better see the relationship of the more principal (pink) routes. — ★Parsa ☞ talk 02:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I tried to figure out a way to embed the table from the current version inside of {{navbox}}, but it wouldn't seem to work. I just tried something else, and I got:

Either way, the current version is not using a standard meta template, it's not stackable with other standardized navboxes and it doesn't collapse. However, using the current table inside a navbox wrapper still has a lot of whitespace on either side of the table. Attempting to maintain the grid will have some tradeoffs no matter what we do, how many columns there are, and the current template does not explain what the pink coloring is for at all. Imzadi 1979 → 02:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't like that, the numbers are too squished and there's too much white space. Dough4872 03:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't like it either, but it's there for comparison. Imzadi 1979 → 03:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Since {{Interstates}} didn't have a grid before, just highlights for the "major" routes, I redid it using the meta template. This is what we got:

So I did the same with the US Highways, and got:

This last sandbox will not have a grid, and it will scale in width based on the reader's window. So, we have some tradeoffs to consider. Imzadi 1979 → 04:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

That looks better. Dough4872 04:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Putting the old grid into the navbox doesn't work. I'm of the opinion that the grid is not completely necessary, but if a grid format is kept the 30 column version would be better. -- LJ ↗ 06:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Of all the proposals so far I like the last one the most. Dough4872 16:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I like the 30-column grid better. — ★Parsa ☞ talk 23:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I prefer the latest designs that are not trying to be a grid.  VC  23:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, the non-grid designs are more in line with the navbox style that's used elsewhere on Wikipedia, and there's no scaling issues to boot. – TMF 07:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Should we split the list up such that the highlighted routes and the italic routes are on separate lines? That way, we wouldn't need to highlight them in any way. –Fredddie™ 12:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, that would have the disadvantage of requiring the reader to know what sort of route they're looking for before reading the article. It may not be at all intuitive to most people that US 50 is a "major" route or US 66 is a former route. Having them numerically listed makes sense to most people. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 15:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Scott, the routes should be listed in numerical order. Dough4872 20:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

For sake of discussion, I reused the first sandbox and made it look like what I was talking about. –Fredddie™ 01:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't like the ideas the roads are split based on type. They should be in numerical order. Dough4872 01:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

They are in numerical order. –Fredddie™ 02:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I think this is substantially harder to read. --Rschen7754 01:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not in love with it either, but I didn't know how much I'd hate it until I saw it. –Fredddie™ 02:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there any consensus for what proposal to use? Dough4872 21:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

There are more people (myself included) in favor of the fourth sandbox (no grid, but all numbers in one list together) that that is what I implemented. Imzadi 1979 → 21:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

No banner Auxiliary Plates?

Are there still no banner auxillary plates around? Because I could use some for the time being. ----DanTD (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean? Dough4872 17:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The ones for blank spaces where alternate plates would be, so that you can put them on the left side of those that actually need to use them. ----DanTD (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

There are, most are named with a scheme similar to the following File:Alt plate.svgFile:Alternate plate.svg etc. Dave (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

There is an entire category of auxiliary plates on Commons. That being said, I really don't know what is being requested. –Fredddie™ 22:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm talking about a blank space over a shield for when you want to put it next to another shield that has a banner. This used to exist on Wikipedia, but I can't find it anymore. ----DanTD (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You asked for a banner plate and then for a blank space, thus my confusion. File:No image wide.svg is what you want. Example → –Fredddie™ 23:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

And {{jct}} will insert that blank graphic as needed, watch:

BL I-196 / BUS US 31

It should be rare that anyone needs to manually encode the graphics outside of some of the longer lists, so I guess I'm curious what the issue is here? Imzadi 1979 → 00:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Interstate Highway System

Anyone willing to help pitch in on the article? Moabdave (talk · contribs) started cleaning up some of the trivia, and I got to work on updating some of the citations. I think if a few willing people grab a section and work on cleaning it up, we could have a good shot at a joint nomination to get this article to GA status, at least. It looks like the library at Michigan Tech has copies of the old MUTCDs in print, so I could make a trip to check some stuff out to complete those citations. (I'll try to post here before I go in case there are additional requests for specific scans.) Imzadi 1979 → 12:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Forget the library. They're online: [1]. Imzadi 1979 → 13:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

KML requests

Is it possible to have KML files made for Delaware Route 261 and Delaware Route 300 for their GANs? Dough4872 19:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Since the process is nearly identical to making maps, should these go to WP:USRD/MTF/R? –Fredddie™ 23:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it can help to have a KML section there for future requests. Dough4872 23:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yet another Infobox and major junction discussion

Discussion going on Talk:U.S. Route 66. Posting here as whatever is decided would have implications for our other decommissioned highways (such as US-99). Dave (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

problems with U.S. Route 48

Moved from WT:HWY because this is US-specific. Imzadi 1979 → 22:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem, in a nutshell, is that there isn't any US 48 at present, but there were two previous incarnations, and there will be a third. The first version was a stretch of what is now US 50 in northern California, which was deleted in 1931. The second is what is now designated Interstate 68. The third is a mixture of new construction and redesignation of existing roads which is intended to run from Strasburg, VA to Weston, WV; however according to the WV DOT none of this route carries this designation yet, and some of it hasn't been constructed. There is also a very confusing pattern of redirects for "Corridor H" of the Appalachian Development Highway System, which depending upon exactly which of them you follow, ends you up at different articles. If anyone would like to help sort this all out, please join us at Talk:U.S. Route 48. Mangoe (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

From what I know the future US 48 is currently signed in VA, making it a current route there. I would keep the U.S. Route 48 article covering the upcoming route. The history of the two previous US 48's can either be covered there as well or presented with hatnotes to the U.S. Route 50 in California and Interstate 68 articles. Dough4872 22:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The degree to which it is actually "there" is obscure. The VA DOT website lists it as "overlapping a portion of State Route 55 from Interstate Route 81 near Strasburg in Shenandoah County to the Virginia/West Virginia State Line" here but the official highway map doesn't show it. At any rate the urge to merge this into U.S. Route 48 in West Virginia (none of which is so designated yet) seems problematic. Mangoe (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

US 48 in WV can be covered in the main US 48 article, which would overview the future highway. Since this future highway will become current someday, I feel it should remain the primary topic. Dough4872 17:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

US 48 was officially established by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the group that regulates U.S. and Interstate route numbering, in 2002. See page 8 of the report of their 2002 route numbering meeting. Despite the spotty signage, this route clearly exists. I agree with Dough that a good step would be to merge U.S. Route 48 in West Virginia into the main article. There is no need to have information about this U.S. Highway in two or more articles. U.S. Route 48 in Virginia redirects to VA 55; perhaps we should also figure out whether that is the best solution or to redirect US 48 in Virginia to the main article.  VC  17:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Much of it does not exist at all; according to the WV DOT two segments haven't even started final design work, and another segment hasn't started construction. All the extant segments are designated for other roads. From what I see of comparable routes, detailed route information is typically kept in the "by state" articles (I'm not saying whether this is a good idea or not, just that it appears to be the convention). If we folded this all back into one big article, it perhaps would make more sense to point back to the articles on the current designations of the extant segments for detailed information, and then describe what there is to say about the other segments in the main article for now. Mangoe (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me know if I am mistaken, but you sound like you are arguing against the notability of this US 48 designation, and thus whether this article should exist. As for more practical matters, I do not think it is practical to use summary style for the West Virginia portion of US 48. The completed portions of the U.S. Highway — referring to the completed Corridor H segments since Corridor H and US 48 will eventually be congruent — are followed by many different U.S. and state route numbers. It does not make sense to have six main templates and use summary style here when the reader is better served by the full Route description treatment. I am fine with using summary style for the Virginia segment because only one route number is in play there. I am not worried about the article being too large. Right now, US 48 and US 48 in West Virginia combined would be 41K. Article size would not be increased too much with a full Route description. As for state-detail articles, we no longer create state-detail articles for U.S. and Interstate highways that only pass through two states. There are a few remaining out there that we have yet to merge into one article, such as this one.  VC  22:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I would say that it is notable. I'm somewhat concerned with the double description, given that every extant segment is signed as some other road at present. But otherwise I would agree that it should all be merged together. Mangoe (talk) 06:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about duplication. We have three Featured articles that all have to describe the section of highway between Escanaba and Gladstone, Michigan because of the triple concurrency of U.S. Route 2 in Michigan, U.S. Route 41 in Michigan and M-35 (Michigan highway). Sometimes a level of duplication is acceptable, and other times it is needless; it's the needless duplication we need to eliminate. Imzadi 1979 → 06:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

National Parks Highway

I helped on the Yellowstone Trail article and somehow got on their email list (which is fine with me). Their latest newsletter [2] has an article on the National Parks Highway from the 1920s. I found it might be an interesting topic if someone was looking for an interesting new article. Royalbroil 13:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. This is a good resource, let's hope it gets put to good use. Dave (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

A change to the MOS with relevance to this project

I'm not sure how many people are aware of this - hell, I wasn't until a week or two ago - but the MOS was changed in mid-2011 to call for unspaced en dashes in any and all compounds, save for those relating to ranges. See MOS:DASH. (It should be noted that this change came about as the result of lengthy discussions, and it's unlikely that it's going to change back anytime in the near future.)

This obviously has implications for several articles, such as State Route 74 (New York – Vermont) and U.S. Route 40 Alternate (Keysers Ridge – Cumberland, Maryland).

Just wanted to post this here since I think this is something that flew under the radar of the majority of editors on Wikipedia, not just here. – TMF 05:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

So State Route 74 (New York – Vermont) will now be titled State Route 74 (New York–Vermont) and so on? At this point, should we move all the affected articles? Dough4872 19:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

1) Yes and 2) moving the affected articles is the only logical action to take at this point. We could either have random editors move them one at a time every so often, or we could stay ahead of the curve and move them all now. – TMF 23:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and started moving some of the pages. Dough4872 00:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Banner-related proposal

See Template talk:U.S. Roads WikiProject#Cross-project tagging for the discussion. Imzadi 1979 → 01:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)