Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject U.S. Roads (Rated Project-class)
U.S. Roads WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 Project  This article has been rated as Project-Class on the quality scale.

Category:United States metropolitan area highway templates[edit]

I feel this is getting out of control. I didn't even know where Valdosta was until I clicked on the template, but apparently we have one for that "metropolitan area". Do we need them for Peoria? Pine Bluff? This is concerning. --Rschen7754 06:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

In a similar discussion earlier, several of us expressed a desire to eliminate these. It might be time for a TfD to test the waters, like the by-county navboxes of old, and then get rid of the rest. Personally, I dislike them and find them to be little positive and lots of negative value. They pollute the "What links here" listings and they make visual clutter. The "Transportation in X" categories give us a more granular way to link between articles without taking up space in the articles. Imzadi 1979  06:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I am in conditional agreement, unless a functional standard comes along for templates like these. -- Molandfreak (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Imzadi beat me to mentioning that this type of thing would be better suited for categories. TCN7JM 06:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Another point that should be considered is the existence of templates like {{Lansing-East Lansing}}. I think that example is even worse because it's mixing 100 other articles together with the dozen highway articles. Imzadi 1979  07:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Categories for individual counties have little function when searching for roads in a entire metropolitan statistical area. Molandfreak (talk) 07:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

MSAs are based on the county level. In other words, the Grand Rapids-Wyoming Metropolitan Statistical Area comprises Barry, Kent, Montcalm, and Ottawa counties in Michigan, each of which has a "Transportation in X County, Michigan" category. Imzadi 1979  07:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Don't forget that we have a category intersection tool. –Fredddie 07:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I think a distinction should be made between those like {{Highways in the Capital District, New York}} that list all state highways and those like {{Expressways in Greater Orlando}} that have only expressways (and in this case it also serves to group CFX roads, and was originally at {{OOCEA}} (CFX's old name)). --NE2 07:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, I wouldn't oppose the deletion of the freeway-only ones. --NE2 05:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

PS: how many fucking boxes would go on Great River Road? --NE2 07:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said in the earlier discussion, delete all the metropolitan area templates. I'm okay with categories of transportation by county but the templates are overkill as they are clunky and pollute the "What Links Here" function. The Philadelphia template is getting too big with new additions of nearly every route, major street, and bridge in the combined statistical area. Most of these routes have no relation other than being within an area defined as the Census Bureau as being connected to Philadelphia by commuting ties. Really, what else do Pennsylvania Route 212 and New Jersey Route 49 have in common besides passing through counties that have commuting ties to the city of Philadelphia? The routes themselves are miles apart in different states and have no other common characteristics. Dough4872 16:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Even worse are templates like {{Reading, Pennsylvania}} where roads are included in a template along with points of interest, educational facilities, sports teams, and radio stations serving the city. Dough4872 16:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Those can be handled after the TFDs, by linking to the TFD to illustrate consensus for the change. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I should add that in editing thousands of articles, I believe that the city templates are used way too often, in many cases where they do not belong. Additions to the template itself to justify inclusion in more articles at the expense of polluting the link to lists is unacceptable. Use lists where they work better! Vegaswikian (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

At least 90 percent of these templates need to go. Which one should we start with?  V 02:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Probably most obscure ones first. --Rschen7754 05:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
{{Twin ports roads}}? {{Wyoming Valley roads}}? And then there's {{Unbuilt New Jersey Highways}} - wat. There's definitely enough difference between most of these that we can't really cite precedent for many. --NE2 05:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
What's so wrong about the Twin Ports one? I've never heard of the Wyoming Valley, so perhaps the title "Roads in the Scranton, PA Metro" would have worked better, but Twin Ports is a fairly well known name for that area... --Molandfreak (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
The Twin Ports is too small of a metropolitan area to warrant a template of roads that have no relation other than lying with the statistical boundaries of the area. But the templates are also unneeded for larger metro areas like Philadelphia. As discussed above, categories better handle the need to group roads and other transportation infrastructure within a geographic region. Dough4872 01:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I created the template not because it was a large metro, but for easy navigation between the bridges and highways of a popular tourist area. It is a small metro, but many travel to the area to specifically see some of the transportation infrastructure, so it is just as warranted as any other metropolitan template. --Molandfreak (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I've been a member of the U.S. Roads project for almost 10 years, and have never heard of the "Twin Ports". It may be well known in that area, but not in the rest of the country. I also agree with Dough about not needing templates for even the largest metro areas. --Rschen7754 01:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
The arguments about link pollution and clutter are significantly more persuasive for eliminating these navboxes than arguments about how important the geographic areas they serve are. These navboxes are no more appropriate in Detroit articles than in Duluth articles.  V 03:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete per above discussion. Famous river crossings in a particular area (which are basically the features that appeal to me about these sort of templates) can be handled in a similar fashion to the Mississippi River crossings. --Molandfreak (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Moving forward[edit]

Well, it's been a couple weeks since we decided to send most of these off to TfD. Since then, the Valdosta template has been deleted, and it appears as if the Lubbock template will be deleted as well. My question now is, where do we go from here? Do we send a bunch of the templates for smaller metros at once in a group deletion request, or should we send one or two more individually first? Also, at what point in population/importance of metro area do we stop sending the templates to deletion requests? Thoughts? TCN7JM 19:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd say first we send the templates for the smaller metropolitan areas (like Baton Rouge, Jonesboro, and Wyoming Valley) to TFD as a group based on the precedent of the Valdosta and Lubbock discussions. After those get deleted, we can send the templates for the larger metropolitan areas (like Dallas-Fort Worth, Philadelphia, and Washington) to TFD as a group, again citing past precedent. Once these get deleted, we can remove the roads from city templates such as {{Reading, Pennsylvania}}. Dough4872 01:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Probably the next step is to do 2-3 at a time, and then do the smaller, and then the larger ones. (If someone would be interested in taking the initiative on that and making the TFDs, it would keep things moving). --Rschen7754 03:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Sending templates to AfD? I don't think that'd bode too well. TCN7JM 04:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Oops! Fixed. Dough4872 05:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I looked through the remaining templates to see if any of them would make sense to send in the first small group, and I think I found a pretty good starter pack. There are three for random, small metros in Arkansas -- {{Roads of Fort Smith}}, {{Roads of Hot Springs}} and {{Roads in Jonesboro}} -- that are essentially the same template for different metros, and aren't too much different from the one that's already been deleted and the one that will be deleted soon. Would anyone oppose me shipping these three off to TfD once the Lubbock discussion closes? TCN7JM 06:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Go for it. Dough4872 06:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, the Lubbock discussion closed, so I went ahead and started the Arkansas discussion. It is located here. Feel free to comment. TCN7JM 16:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I added {{Roads of Pine Bluff}} to the discussion, as I seem to have missed it when I originally opened the discussion. I pinged all involved on that page, but am posting here as another reminder. TCN7JM 15:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Georgia templates minus Atlanta on deck. That's {{Athens, Georgia highways}}, {{Augusta, Georgia highways}}, {{Columbus, Georgia highways}}, {{Macon, Georgia highways}} and {{Savannah, Georgia highways}}. Speak now or forever hold your peace. TCN7JM 15:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

TfD is backlogged, so it looks like the Arkansas discussion won't be closed for a while. However, I think we have enough precedent regardless, so I've started the Georgia discussion to keep things moving. It's right here. Go ahead and comment if you want. TCN7JM 01:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Looks like the Arkansas templates got deleted after all!--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 00:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The next batch is up. My intent with this one was to get precedent for metros that cover more than one state (just to be safe). The discussion is here. Included are {{Quad Cities Roads}}, {{Twin ports roads}}, {{Roads of Northwest Arkansas}} and {{Roads of Texarkana}}. I think this is probably the last smaller batch we'll have to send. After this, I think we should start sending them in larger groups. TCN7JM 04:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

So, what's next? I vote {{Unbuilt New Jersey Highways}} and {{Puerto Rico Highways}}, probably the least needed of what's left. --Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 00:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The latter example has a different precedent that applies. Any other navbox that attempted to list all of a state's highways was deleted years ago as redundant to the list article(s) on that state's highway system. See WP:USRD/P#State highway system templates for that one. Imzadi 1979  00:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Ahh shoot, TFD is backlisted again. Any updates on what to send? --Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 23:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I think we have enough precedent to send the rest of the regional roads ones in one go. Any of those types anyone thinks we shouldn't send? TCN7JM 00:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Let's do it, get this over with! --Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 04:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Send the regional roads ones to the slaughterhouse, but leave the ones about streets, such as {{Streets in Washington, DC}}. Those ones should be deliberated separately because they likely fall under WP:USST rather than WP:USRD.  V 01:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Glossary of road terms[edit]

I started Draft:Glossary of road transport terms. Feel free to fill in where you see fit. –Fredddie 16:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I-495 (NC) Merger Proposal[edit]

Hello, just wanted to let you all know that there has been a proposal to merge Interstate 44 (North Carolina–Virginia) into Interstate 495 (North Carolina). Please share your opinion on this proposal. Thank you. --WashuOtaku (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Highway Local Road Names[edit]

I was looking at this page specifically: and wondering what was the local street name of a particular section of that highway as I believe such roads can change from town to town. If you notice, there's a table with a "notes" section so I'm wondering if adding local road names as a highway passes through various towns would be worthy of consideration. Or if its just *one* road name the whole length, maybe that could be emphasized right at the start. Thanks. -- uronlydreaming — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uronlydreaming (talkcontribs) 06:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Local street names of the subject of the article should be inserted into the prose of the Route description. The Notes of the Major intersections table is for information about a particular intersection, not for the route of the subject highway on either side of the intersection.  V 18:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Interstate 10 edit war[edit]

Help! I changed the junctions in the infobox of Interstate 10 to show the national-level articles instead of state-specific ones. However, at least one anonymous user keeps reverting my change. What can be done about that? Thanks. Charlotte Allison (Allen/Morriswa) (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Technically, both of you could be blocked for edit warring. --Rschen7754 22:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Yet another editor has reverted my edit. Can someone else revert them or put a protection template on the page? My edit is correct, and should not be reverted. Charlotte Allison (Allen/Morriswa) (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
"Yet another editor has reverted my edit" is not an excuse to keep edit warring, and neither is "My edit is correct, and should not be reverted". Please attempt to discuss it with them first, and then seek outside assistance if they refuse to cooperate. --Rschen7754 23:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
It's hard to discuss it with the other person when they use a different IP address for each edit. –Fredddie 23:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
It is hard, but it is still possible to try. And I certainly understand the problem of random edit warrior IPs (California went through years of those), but edit warring to the fourth revert is the worst possible option out of the ones available, because it leaves yourself open to being blocked as well, and it is no better than what the IP is doing. --Rschen7754 04:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
@Morriswa: part of the issue is that the IP appears to disagree with listing the concurrent US Highways along with the Interstates in the infobox, not the difference between the state and national links. You should read the edit summaries when you're reverted to see if they offer clues to a compromise. Imzadi 1979  00:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Is that what was referring to? Charlotte Allison (Allen/Morriswa) (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission[edit]

Is this list viable? Draft:List of state highways in Polk County, Texas. Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. No, just lists aren't really viable anymore, FoCuSandLeArN. We should be discouraging any more from being created in most cases. Imzadi 1979  17:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! Good to know. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Interstate 755 "controversy" and Interstate 570[edit]

There is a discussion on Talk:Interstate 755 (Mississippi) about what should be done with Interstate 755 (Mississippi) and Interstate 755 (Missouri). Could USRD weigh in on this?

Also, someone made an Interstate 570 page. Is this valid? Charlotte Allison (Allen/Morriswa) (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

That someone is clearly yet another sockpuppet of User:2006 December. (I'm about to log off so if another admin could deal with that, I'd appreciate it.) --Kinu t/c 23:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Clarification: the "someone" Kinu is talking about is related solely to the creation of Interstate 570 and not to what to do with Interstate 755. Georgia guy (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Interstate 755 (Mississippi) was created by this sockpuppet, so it does technically does qualify for deletion under WP:CSD#G5 since the only edits to the article itself have been the addition of categories. However, there is talk page discussion, so I feel that should probably determine the fate of the article. --Kinu t/c 06:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
@Kinu: Take a look at the deleted history - any connection to User:Jerman243? --Rschen7754 01:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. I think you might have found something there... --Kinu t/c 06:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment requested WA SR-410[edit]

There was recently a construction accident on Washington State Route 410 where a chunk of concrete fell off a bridge onto the road below, resulting in three deaths. There is some question as to whether this is worth of inclusion in the article. Please comment at Talk:Washington State Route 410#Bridge accident. Thank you, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)