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 article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to 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.

US 66 in California[edit]

There are currently 3 articles which discuss US 66 in California: U.S. Route 66 in California, California State Route 66, and Foothill Boulevard (Southern California). Having 3 articles for similar stretches of road seems to be overkill. The problem is, what should be merged to what? --Rschen7754 08:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

All three are different in their own right. I don't see how it could merge into one or two and not have a disjointed article as a result. --WashuOtaku (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
My vote, Merge US Route 66 in CA into CA Route 66 (I believe at one time they were merged, but somebody broke the former off). I disagree with the above comment, these two are highly redundant. However, I think Foothill Blvd. is going to have to stay a separate article. Although a significant portion of Foothill Blvd. was and/or is used for Route 66, there is a significant portion that was never part of 66. With that said, although Foothill Blvd. predates Interstate 210 (California), it is today essentially a frontage road or alternate route for the freeway. It may be possible to do some merges with that. Dave (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
And I will take the opposite view. The SR 66 article should summarize the US 66 history and carry the story forward once it was designated, but the US 66 history should exist someplace in expanded form. Also of note: a lot of former US 66 in CA is not SR 66, and that fact heavily works against merging 316 miles of cross-state highway into the 32-mile rump left over in the Los Angeles area. If there is overlap with other articles, so be it. Because of concurrencies or redesignations/decommissionings, we will have overlapping articles.
This would be very similar to U.S. Route 16 in Michigan vs. Interstate 96. In that situation, the former article handles the 19th century history through designation as M-16, to the year US 16 was decommissioned in favor of I-96. The latter article summarizes some of that backstory but concentrates where the I-96 story begins in the 1950s and continues through the modern day. Imzadi 1979  15:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you on the condition that there is enough quality content in both articles (CA 66 and US 66 (CA)) to justify separate articles. Currently CA 66 has no history section and US 66 (CA) has no route description. As such currently we have two half-articles about two highways where one is a remnant of the other. Dave (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Then the answer is to improve the articles. Merging them now would make a disjointed mess because most of the history of US 66 doesn't apply to SR 66, and most of US 66 would be missing from the SR 66 route description. Even if they matched up closer in length, any merged article would need a significant expansion just to be coherent; at least the two partial articles display their weakness up front by just omitting the missing sections. Imzadi 1979  16:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
With content improvement either scenario works, and we have examples of both. I.E. California State Route 91 is an example of a merged article that is in descent shape, while you listed one where they are split off. If we're talking about improving articles, I'd leave that decision to whomever actually makes the improvement. Dave (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd merge SR 66 into US 66 (and also cover the recently-designated CR 66 in the latter). This is not comparable to US 16/I-96, since Historic US 66 signs are posted on the old surface road, not the last freeway alignment. --NE2 17:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I think US 66 is enough of a special case to merit keeping it separate from SR 66. There's easily enough history to justify giving US 66 (CA) its own article, and since SR 66 only covers one section of the route, merging US 66 there wouldn't cover the entire route description of one of the most significant highways in the US. On the other hand, the state of California thought the section of US 66 which became SR 66 was important enough to sign and maintain, while the rest of the route wasn't; that itself is significant, and is a similar situation to OK-66 (also a separate article). I could see merging SR 66 into Foothill Boulevard, though, since the former is a subset of the latter (though Foothill has a different enough route from US 66 to merit keeping those two separate). TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 20:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I would keep all three articles, and use summary style to properly direct the emphasis in each article. The CA 66 article would be the main article about the stretch that is the state highway. The Foothill Boulevard and US 66 CA articles would summarize the stretches that are CA 66.  V 00:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I say that US 66 CA should have its own article with a complete history and route description, summarizing the points covered in CA 66 and Foothill Boulevard route descriptions with hatnotes to those articles. Meanwhile, CA 66 and Foothill Boulevard should also have a complete history and route description, with the history summarizing the points covered in US 66 CA with a hatnote. The junction list for CA 66 and Foothill Boulevard should be present-day while US 66 CA should be at its longest historical extent (similar to U.S. Route 80 in California). Dough4872 19:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I mostly agree with Dough. In my view, Foothill Boulevard isn't under USRD's scope. I honestly think Foothill Boulevard's notability comes from, or at least should come from, its status as a major thoroughfare in the region, not from part of it being signed as US 66. Therefore, I think it should be part of USST. All in all, CA 66 and Foothill should focus on their respective present-day routings, each briefly discussing the history of US 66. US 66 can then focus on the pre-1964 route and history, plus the post-1964 history of the remainder of the former route. -happy5214 07:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Simpler case: U.S. Route 99 in California[edit]

Perhaps we should start with a simpler case then: U.S. Route 99 and California State Route 99. Should there be a U.S. Route 99 in California? Or should it all go into CA 99? --Rschen7754 17:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The one thing that is certain is that we are not consistent in how we handle these cases (i.e U.S. Route 66 (California), U.S. Route 99 (California), and U.S. Route 91 (California)) are all handled differently, and frankly I'm ok with that. I think its futile to be consistent with a project with a complex as scope as the US highway system.
In the case of US 99, there is no doubt that the reason why the powers that be in California chose the number 99 for CA 99 was to pay homage to the former US highway (same for CA 66, CA 60, CA 91 and I'm sure a few others). Even though CA 99 is not 100% identical to US 99, a redirect is appropriate. The fact that the CA portion of US 99 ran from Mexico to Oregon, while CA 99 does not, can be explained in the history section. However, I would argue that US 99 is not necessarily a simpler case. While the bulk of former US 99 is now CA 99, there are probably a dozen other CA state highways were at one time a piece of US 99. Dave (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, there's a lot of extra details in US 99 that should probably go into a state-detail article. Where that winds up, though, is open to interpretation... --Rschen7754 19:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
My apologies I was only referring to the California portion, I have clarified my response above inline.
Regarding 60, 91, and 99, I say we have the US route article focus on the historical US route designation and the state route article focus on the current state route designation with a brief mention of the former US route it replaced with an appropriate hatnote. Dough4872 00:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Dough on this. Imzadi 1979  00:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
There's quite a bit of US 99 in California which not only isn't part of CA 99, but is signed as Historic US 99, so the historic route should still have its own article. A more complicated example would be U.S. Route 99 in Oregon, though; almost the entire route is part of a state highway, but because of the 99W/99E split, it's divided among three state highways. Where should that title point if US 99 was ever split into state-by-state articles? TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 03:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
In the case of Oregon, U.S. Route 99 in Oregon should probably redirect to the Oregon Route 99 article as the former OR 99W/OR 99E was once US 99W/US 99E as opposed to mainline US 99. U.S. Route 99W in Oregon and related titles should redirect to Oregon Route 99W while U.S. Route 99E in Oregon and related titles should redirect to Oregon Route 99E. Dough4872 03:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The thing about US 99 is that current SR 99 is at least as important as it was back when it was US 99. SR 66, on the other hand, is a relatively minor local street that's remained in the state highway system for whatever reason. (Also note that north of Sacto, US 99 split into 99E and 99W, neither of which followed SR 99 entirely.) --NE2 05:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that in the California case US 99 and CA 99 should have their own articles as they are both important in their own right and had wildly different routings. But in the Oregon case, most of US 99 is now OR 99 while US 99W is OR 99W and US 99E is OR 99E. Therefore, for Oregon it would be best to cover US 99, US 99W, and US 99E in the appropriate state route article. Dough4872 00:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I will go ahead and split the article in a few minutes. But next... --Rschen7754 02:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Another case: U.S. Route 70 in California[edit]

Should that have its own article? The problem is, most of this was multiplexed with US 60, but not all of it... --Rschen7754 02:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

No, since the rest was also US 99, and then it was all I-10. Maybe Interstate 10 in California#History would be a better target. --NE2 03:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

How to code a junction on the border between two independent cities?[edit]

On U.S. Route 58#Major intersections, the Norfolk-Virginia Beach city line exactly follows SR 403 (mile ~497).

More complicated would be a junction on a border between an independent city and a town within a county. --NE2 07:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

This edit solved that after the missing |indep_city_special= was added to {{VAint}}. As for your second example, U.S. Route 101 in California#Major intersections gives an example: the Golden Gate Bridge is listed as spanning the line between San Francisco and Marin County in one column and the line between San Francisco and Sausalito in the other. That works, in part, because it is the City and County of San Francisco, but the idea could also work for your hypothetical situation. Imzadi 1979  08:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Some of the independent cities in the Hampton Roads area are more like counties. For example, Suffolk has a whole bunch of rural communities. Would a county_special=City of Suffolk be a good idea here? --NE2 15:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

RCS lists[edit]

Are WP:USRD/RCS lists considered articles or lists? I'm doing Mississippi Highway 145 (still not finished) and I wasn't sure which class it would belong in.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 00:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I feel that RCS lists should be treated as articles because they are prose listings of various routes. The main purpose of RCS lists was to be a collection place for articles about short and/or non-notable roads that would not be able to sustain an article on their own. In many cases, the RCS lists have the "big three" in condensed form similar to what a standalone article would have. A true list simply lists entries with links to other articles and is often presented as a table or bulleted lists. In the case of MS 145 it is simply an article on a highway with multiple segments that should still has a route description for each section, a history section, and a junction list for each segment - the "big three" that constitute a highway article. We have other highways such as Mississippi Highway 198 and Maryland Route 7 that are similar to MS 145 in that they have multiple segments and are presented as articles. Dough4872 00:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
The case of Mississippi Highway 145 would not fall under RCS lists. This is an article about a single highway designation, and as such does not warrant the RCS list style format...although if there's more separate sections than what's currently in the article, putting it in RCS format might make it more readable.
The RCS lists were meant to consolidate several short "permastub" articles into one place (most notably with county routes, typically considered non-notable, in order to condense and give a better degree of notability as a collective whole). As such, these became more detailed list pages and have been classified as such. While each individual route may make mention of the "big 3" sections in some cases, they don't really give much detail and the overall article should be considered a list. In my opinion, if an RCS section is providing more than a paragraph in each of the major sections, we should look at splitting it out of the list as a standalone article. -- LJ  02:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that where an article is serving the purpose of relating the Big Three about a highway or a discrete subset of highways, then it isn't really a list anymore. List-Class, IMHO, is more for something like List of Interstate Highways in Michigan than Business routes of U.S. Route 10 in Michigan. In the former case, the purpose of that article is clearly to list entries, usually entries that have their own articles, and give some background to put those entries into context. In that latter case, the page's purpose isn't to list entries, or else they'd be rows in a table, but rather it is a basically a page of prose. In those cases several years ago, I had advocated that we treat each L2 section as if it were a self-contained article, assess each section against our criteria and then average those assessments like a simpler WikiWork calculation to gain an overall classification. Using my US 10 example, the five sections would basically be a start (5), C (4), C (4), B (3) and C (4), for an overall C ( 5+4+4+3+4 = 20, divided by 5 = 4). Imzadi 1979  05:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't recall seeing that assessment proposal (an off-wiki discussion perhaps?), but that would make sense if it were implemented. As it stands right now the RCS page says such entries are typically classified as list-class, so maybe it could stand to be revisited at the project level... -- LJ  06:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea if it was discussed on- or off-wiki. All I can say is that I probably had the idea in 2008 when I first got really active editing articles. Settling on List-Class just simplified things, but in reality it oversimplified and distorted things. The best way to resolve this is to improve one of these prose-based articles and see what happens when nominated at GAN/FAC. Imzadi 1979  08:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to update project banner template[edit]

Please see Template talk:U.S. Roads WikiProject#Cross-project tagging, part deux to comment. Imzadi 1979  08:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

List of unsigned state highways in Mississippi[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unsigned state highways in Mississippi --NE2 19:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

List of unsigned state highways in Mississippi is nominated for deletion. Here's the discussion.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 19:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Junction lists[edit]

On Tennessee State Route 73 Scenic in junction lists when it appears it doesn't list "scenic" beside it. I am wondering Why it does show "scenic" after SR 73.

For example:

SR 73 Scenic

--ACase0000 (talk) 05:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done The Lua module has been updated to display the word "Scenic". Imzadi 1979  06:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Imzadi1979!!!!!!!!!! --ACase0000 (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Using writing or markup on documents as a source[edit]

I recently found a bunch of scanned materials in the Maryland archives online that I wish to use eventually to add more detail and more accurate dates and to support facts I cannot support currently with the sources I have been using. Most of these materials are memoranda of action or excerpts from state roads commission minutes that discuss road transfers between the state and counties or cities. The documents themselves have a clear date on them. However, many of these documents are marked up in pen, pencil, or marker with some clarifying information. Often this clarifying information is just the route number in question, a list of county inventory numbers, or a contract number. However, sometimes dates or an explanation, such as that the road transfer was rescinded on a later date, are written into the scanned documents.

As an example, in the Washington County set of memos, on page 573 of the PDF (warning: 36 MB), is an excerpt from the commission minutes of June 29, 1954. This excerpt concerns a project in Hagerstown to transfer control of US 40 from the city to the state and elevate the railroad to eliminate a bunch of level crossings near downtown. After the excerpt is the text of the actual agreement between the state and city. Written in hand on the excerpt on page 573 is (1) that this concerns Franklin and Washington Streets in Hagerstown, (2) that the streets are transferred to state control upon completion of the project, (3) the contract number, and (4) text saying "Contract Completed 11-30-61."

(1) and (2) are pieces of information that do not require significant scrutiny, and this information can also be gained by reading the excerpt and, if not in the excerpt, the contract. (3) is not something that would be included in a Wikipedia article. I am not sure how to handle (4) in terms of supporting facts in an article and writing the reference. I do not know how reliable someone's handwritten notes are. Yes, these are official state documents, so it is almost certainly a state employee doing the writing, but it is still an uneasy situation. In many cases, the handwritten information is the only support I have for when an event took place.

What suggestions do you all have on how to handle this?  V 13:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Layout consistency[edit]

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#Layout consistency regarding the layout order of non-standard sections (ex Tolls, Services, unique top-level sections etc), which I have come to notice varies even between Featured Articles. Your input is appreciated. - Floydian τ ¢ 21:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Another great news article resource[edit]

is another good news article that would make a good source in the appropriate articles. Imzadi 1979  23:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata update[edit]

Well, it's been a while since we've had these, but now we have a change that will affect our project directly

Badges will be deployed hopefully on August 19th. This will allow us to store what articles are a GA and a FA on other wikis on Wikidata, so we will no longer need {{LinkFA}} and {{LinkGA}}. (For an example of this in action, see Nevada State Route 375). Similar things will happen on other wikis. We will either need to add the ~1000 badges for our articles ourselves, or wait for a bot to do it for us.

This will be a breakthrough as a lot of other language Wikipedias (French, Dutch, German, Spanish) have been copying and translating our articles recently, and they will know what articles are GAs and FAs and translate those first and with more effort. --Rschen7754 18:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

2 spotchecks needed[edit]

The following two reviews need spotchecks:

I have done the vast majority of the spotchecks at ACR, so if others (including those I have done spotchecks for) could step up, that would be helpful. --Rschen7754 23:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Vehicle pileups revisited[edit]

I wanted to reopen the discussion from February because it appears not to have been resolved, but I wanted to wait until a time of the year when there would probably be no bias regarding winter weather, at least in the Northern Hemisphere. Mapsax (talk) 09:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm still of the opinion that only if the accident results in permanent changes to the highway, it warrants a mention. That could be a redesign or rerouting of the road, for example. Another would be the case where a stretch of roadway was given a memorial highway designation. With the modern 24-hour news cycle, it's common to find a large car accident making national news the day it happens. It's also common for the story to be picked up internationally, but the story fades from the media within a day or so. Unless the DOT makes changes, these aren't worth mentioning.
There is an exception, for cases like M-15 (Michigan highway)#"Death Alley" where the highway gains a reputation for accidents, and the news media specifically reports on that reputation. Wikipedia editors shouldn't string together a series of articles and then declare a reputation or pattern; let the media do that for us. Another case would be Northwest Airlines Flight 255, which crashed on Middlebelt Road and Interstate 94 in Michigan after take off from Detroit Metro Airport in 1987. Jetliners do not crash on highways as often as cars or trucks do. Imzadi 1979  10:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree, with an emphasis on its a reputable source giving the road a moniker, such as "death alley", for a documented series of accidents that is statistically abnormal or an accident severe enough that it creates national news. As sad as it is for those involved, traffic fatalities are literally an everyday occurrence, and that a wikipedia editor could string a few together for an article does not equal notability for a project with a global scope. Dave (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
There should be a clear and notable pattern of accidents over time (see Death Alley) before we start listing them. One particularly bad accident, however tragic, should not be mentioned just because it was bad. –Fredddie 16:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Disagree. I've got plenty of notable single-case pileups of 75, 100 odd vehicles. I suggested a good set of circumstances in the previous discussion. I'm too lazy to go get them now, and I will be following them regardless because I'm stubborn today and I took the time to come up with them and then nobody bothered to respond. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Meh, I disagree with Fredddie in one point. Some singular accidents certainly are notable enough to merit entire articles, not to mention passing mentions in the articles on the highways where they occurred. The Chappaquiddick incident comes to mind. However, I also disagree with using arbitrary internally chosen criteria for notability as mentioned above, to see where that will lead, look no further than these articles List of road accidents, Pile up#Major pileups, etc.Dave (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I believe accidents should only be mentioned in road articles if it leads to changes in the design of the road. Everyday accidents, even if they are huge pileups, should not be mentioned. Remember, WP:NOTNEWS. Dough4872 00:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Chappaquiddick was less about a car accident and more about a political coverup that may have prevented a second Kennedy from becoming president. That situation proves my point though: major and enduring national or international media coverage makes an accident notable, both for its own article and inclusion in the history section of the appropriate highway article. Chappaquiddick is still the subject of historical debate 45 years after the fact and 5 years after Ted Kennedy's death. Sadly, a 50-car pileup on an Interstate gets press for a day before it drops off the media's radar. Imzadi 1979  00:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


Looks like a lot of crap being changed on New York exit lists (the Florida change is BS and has been reverted). Anyone want to double-check? --NE2 00:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Taken care of. Mitch32(Protection is not a principle, but an expedient.) 01:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)