Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads

Attention!
	If you are here to post something about... notability, please do so on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Notability. Assessment and Importance, use WT:USRD/A. infoboxes, navigation, and article standards, post on WT:USRD/STDS. shields, use WT:USRD/S. the exit list guide, use WT:ELG. state highways specifically, post at the respective WikiProject's talk page. If you do not receive a response within a few days, then please move the discussion here.
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, WT:IH: 1, 2, 3, 4 WT:USH: 1, 2, 3

{{USRD}} categories

I'm clearing out Category:U.S. road transport articles without a state parameter and I've noticed a few things: —Fredddie™ 19:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• The category, project, and template classes should not require a state parameter, but accept one if there is.
  •  Fixed. Also, the subtopic template was missing support for by-state Book-Class categories; that has also been fixed. – TMF 22:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• There should be some additional types, like type=I or type=US
  • Non-roads articles, like Button copy, possibly type=non-road or type=NR
  • Government organizations, like state DOTs and AASHTO, possibly type=DOT.
  • Federal roads and laws, like Forest Highway or Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, possibly type=fed

A single category would be useful for grouping all the non-highway articles together, especially so that we can see the overall status of these for statistical purposes. Subgroups can be further discussed, as we should probably ascertain what all the different types of these articles are before multiple types are created. -- LJ ↗ 23:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I was just listing the groups that appeared when I was going through the category. —Fredddie™ 23:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:USSH noncompliance

No joy on education of DanTheMan474. Request backup and escalation if necessary. --NE2 05:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You are right here with respect to WP:USSH, but I think the issue is minor enough that if it continues to be a problem then you should just ignore it and let it go. You and Dan are doing quality work in expanding articles, and anything that distracts from that right now is inherently damaging to the encyclopedia. The last thing we need is more drama at WP:AN. If it really bothers you, I'd advise just shifting your efforts to another state (Florida has 389 stubs, for instance). —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I've changed to using SR for the Ohio project, NE2, so this should no longer be a major problem. The need right now is to start clearing out stubs on projects like Ohio, and my goal is I'd like to have 200 of these Ohio stubs upgraded to Start, C or higher by year's end. The stubs that currently exist are in horrendous shape, and it's important that we move toward improving these...and yes, I will be doing so using SR. I think that should be the key focus right now, and I'd welcome any help any other editors could provide in moving toward goal, whether in the Ohio project or elsewhere. DanTheMan474 (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Yet you're still using "Ohio State Route". This is unacceptable and any further such actions will be cause for termination. Have a nice day. --NE2 17:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I will use State Route. Would you be interested in working on improving stubs, though? DanTheMan474 (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. My work is done here. --NE2 17:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

As long as we still have articles to expand and fix, all of us still have work to do... —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of which, you skipped answering a previous question, NE2. Would you be interested in helping to (generally) upgrade stub articles for state routes in Ohio, some of which you actually started years ago? Just curious. Thanks. DanTheMan474 (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedia? What encyclopedia? --NE2 17:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

What value does the browse box add for highway articles?

Discussion at Template talk:Infobox road#Why previous and next routes?Dave (talk) 01:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Dab pages

Looking at the highway disambiguation pages, I came across two for numbers that are only used once: List of highways numbered 20SY and List of highways numbered 6563. Is it really necessary to have a dab page that lists only one item? Is it possible for these dab pages to be redirected to their respective listed articles (NY 20SY and NM 6563)? Dough4872 02:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this take. The dab page (and the "Route x", "Highway x", etc.) redirects could be pointed to those pages, and if another like-numbered route is found or assigned at a later time, then the dab can be restored and the redirects can be retargeted. – TMF 03:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:DAB, as a rule of thumb, a disambiguation page should not be created until there are 3 topics with the same title. It does provide some examples where a page may be acceptable for 2 topics with the same title. Dave (talk) 03:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

According to that, we shouldn't have dabs unless there are two routes of the same number (following the "two item, no primary topic" guideline, as there are few routes where a number is widely associated with a specific route). So...AFD the one-route pages? Delete outright? – TMF 03:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Delete baby delete =-) Dave (talk) 04:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at all the suffixes and all of the unsuffixed numbers above 400 and found these other single-route dab pages: 104B; 9C-D, F-X; 7C; 28B; 28N; 25D; 23A-B; 228T; 22B; 20B-N; 1D; 17D; 13A; 60A; 5S; 35A; 439A; 46A. If anyone knows of routes that should be added to them, please do; otherwise they should go. – TMF 04:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Silly. Why delete when you can redirect? --NE2 22:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I think deletion is best for a dab page with only one entry per the suggestions at WP:DAB, even though there is nothing wrong with redirecting either since that route is the only highway with that number. Dough4872 00:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Long-term project priorities

I've been thinking about this idea for a while, and I think that we should develop or coordinate some strategies for long-term goals with Featured Articles. I'd like to see us develop a list of articles that the project places some priority on getting featured. The current stub-count reduction drive is great, but I'd like to see some brainstorming on where to go with future FACs within the project. From a Michigan perspective, my priorities in the UP are to work on the US 2 article and transition to some of the LP articles like M-1 (Woodward Avenue) and the Interstates like I-75 and I-96. On a national level, I'm sure we could come up with such a list, and the list would start with US 66. What other national articles should we as a project plan to collaborate on to get featured? Imzadi 1979 → 21:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

As an article I've done some research on, I'd like to see Lincoln Highway promoted. Project-wide, I'd like to see United States Numbered Highways and Interstate Highway System promoted since I consider them the capstone articles for the project. —Fredddie™ 21:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Not in any specific order, here is where I think our priorities should be:

• Top level articles (as suggested by Fredddie) such as: Interstate Highway system, U.S. Highways and National Scenic Byways
• Major U.S. Highways that are now extinct or on the endangered species list, such as: US-66,US-99,US-91, possibly including US-80 and US-40
  • As an aside, I'm considering US-91 as my next project to work on
• The true transcontinental highways, such as: I-10,I-80,I-90,US-2,US-10,US-20,US-30,US-40,US-50,US-60)
• Highways that have been internationally recognized for engineering or scenic value, such as: most of the highways on National Scenic Byways, the Utah and Colorado portions of I-70, US-550, Historic Columbia River Highway, Blue Ridge Parkway, Pacific Coast Highway.
• The most well known of the Auto trails, such as: Lincoln Highway, Victory Highway, Dixie Highway

Dave (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

One other item to consider is the popular pages report. One example if here. If you concentrate on the pages with the most page views, you are reaching the largest number of viewers. Getting an article that very few people read to FA status is likely not the best use of time. Also consider any top importance from the project's assessment. If these were rated correctly, you have already identified what articles are important for a focused effort like this. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe I will go ahead and make a request for one of those page view list generators. Perhaps it would be of use to help retool the importance scale, in addition to picking targets for future FA expansion. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The true transcontinental highways were mentioned, but the following north-south highways deserve consideration, too: I-95, US 1, US 11, I-75, US 41, I-35, I-15, I-5, US 101. That being said, I strongly concur with Imzadi that US 66 should be at the top of the list for its historical and cultural value. Viridiscalculus (talk) 00:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The importance rating for this project has always meant very little. According to Category:Top-importance U.S. road transport articles, our biggest priority as a project are the by-state route lists, a couple of system and agency articles, and a few old auto trails. Only one numbered route is identified as being Top-importance, the aforementioned US 66. So, the importance scale isn't the best of barometers at all here. – TMF 01:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I think a long-term goal is to try to get one featured article for every state, so every state can boast having a quality highway article. Dough4872 02:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This is interesting to plan out as our goal for 2011, after the stub count target date has passed. If you're trying to coordinate something where everyone is helping to work to get specific articles through FA, the big problem is getting people interested in the topic. Roads editing is extremely regional; people don't like to work on roads outside their comfort zone. (For example, I'm wary about doing any serious work outside OK, KS, MO, and SD). You also have to have their priorities in mind; although US 66 passes through Oklahoma, I really don't have too much interest in it, since it's been done to death in mainstream press and there's little new to discover through research. My priorities are instead on getting the bog-standard state routes up to snuff.

If someone is planning on setting this thing up, a look at the similar WP:USRD/AID, with a specific eye to conducting a post-mortem on it, can be instructive. In hindsight, a lot of this drive's failure was due to the article selection: oftentimes short state highways or intrastate highway articles were nominated. Due to the provincialism of road editing, you're not going to attract much collaboration with these types of articles in the docket.

Perhaps a better way of doing this is for each editor to throw out their list of things that would interest them in taking to FA, and the other editors sort of pair up with them to help achieve the goals. I have over 100 sources for Creek Turnpike, which I've been wanting to take to FA since 2008, but haven't ever really had the time to sift through and apply other than limited sandbox stuff. Maybe reciprocal "pacts" could be done ("I'll help you with Creek Turnpike if you help me with K-32"). —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

A template that is not a good idea IMO

Just ran across a good faith definition of a specific highway template that lists all major cities it interconnects. This seemed like a truly bad idea. I am discussing it with this third world editor, and may not get anyplace. It may actually make sense for a country like Haiti which has a single four lane highway, with median, dirt, running around the crescent shaped country. I don't know about others, but I would hope to keep it out of the u.s. and, hopefully all G10 nations which cities would have hundreds of these things at the bottom of the article, potentially. Even Mexico city. Wikipedia appears to lack a specific template policy. Here's one item that should be covered. Student7 (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

What is a "third world editor" and why is that relevant? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If you go to WP:TFD there is a newly-opened discussion on the template there. Since the template is for a Turkey highway, this probably isn't the best place for a discussion about it. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 16:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)A couple of tidbits. This project used to have templates for major cities. We got rid of them because we couldn't find any consistent, objective definition for what is major, see WP:USRD/STDS under depreciated sections. Second, the use of a template for a single article is inappropriate. The purpose of a template is to centrally maintain content that will be used on multiple wikipedia articles, per Help:Template. Last but not least, could you provide some links to the discussion in question? Without any links to the relevant discussion, this post is just a rant. Dave (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

TFD for Virginia "articles-in-county" navboxen

TFD discussion is underway. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 16:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Maryland related routes

I have noticed there have been some concerns about the minor related routes in MD articles such as Maryland Route 313 and whether is redundant for these minor routes to be mentioned in the history pertaining to a realignment and in the related routes section describing the minor route in question. Any thoughts? Dough4872 03:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Certainly those 3 routes are not notable enough to have separate articles. Beyond that, I don't know the situation in Maryland well enough to say if they should be listed in the article of a related road, or in a list of minor routes type article.

As a side comment, the infobox for this article is misusing the alternate name parameter (as do many USRD articles). Alternate names implies the entire length (or almost the entire length) of a road is known by that name. This list looks like the names various small segments are known in various cities. Dave (talk) 03:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Not only implies that, but per the {{infobox road}} usage instructions, the alternate name param should only contain names that apply to the entire road. Any names that don't apply to the entire route should be removed on sight, even if it results in there being no alternate names at all. – TMF 05:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

If they're already covered in the history, then IMO that's all the mention they need. The related routes section in those cases just seems like something used in order to display shields for the routes. I find that unnecessary for signed routes, and is somewhere between wrong and misleading for routes that are unsigned, such as MD 820. – TMF 06:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's my problem with it. Not only with MD 619 & MD 313, but MD 485 with MD 404, and MD 674 with MD 413, which I pointed out to User:Onore Baka Sama was really unnecessary. Now, the problem I think its spreading like wildfire is this: Maryland 375 was merged into Maryland 374. According to the shrimpy section, its 0.06 miles from termini MD 374 and MD 818. The fact that we can't cherry pick the article to cover it in is one problem. Two, I don't see a relation to MD 374 outside of that at all, meaning if we need to cover it elsewhere, we'll have to. The final example is Maryland_Route_313#Related_routes - I have seen no mention of the section mentioning what relation off of MD 313 these have. The real question is its precedence and consensus ever coming to it. In theory doing this you could cover New York State Route 418 in U.S. Route 9 in New York or New York State Route 421 in New York State Route 30 because they spur off of it and randomly end (like most of MD does), yet they have no relation internally. I know I am being very hostile on the situation but this isn't the best. Mitch32^{(Growing up with Wikipedia 1 edit at a time.)} 11:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

At WT:MDRD, we had decided to split up the minor routes list as that is the way our project seems to be going. It was suggested that most minor routes be merged with a longer related route as several MD route numbers are associated with former of short branch alignments of a route (for example, Maryland Route 7 with U.S. Route 40. However, there are the few cases where the minor routes have no place to logically fit in, and MD 375 is a perfect example that could lean to either MD 374 or MD 818. In addition, it does not seem right to just passingly mention routes like MD 619 in the history of MD 313. MD 619 is a current route that can have a short section describing its length and where it goes from to from. In addition, more detail could be added to the description of MD 619 in the related routes. If we cannot agree on how to handle these minor routes, then maybe it would just be better to keep the minor routes list for MD. Dough4872 01:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue with MD 619 and similar routes was that the MD 619 section was repeating what was already said in the history section. It's not that more can be said, it's that it wasn't being said. —Fredddie™ 02:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I could always add a few details for the MD 619 entry in the related routes. Dough4872 02:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Traffic - Seven Corners

I am guessing that the topic of "traffic" comes under this project. There is an intersection (and an article) on Seven Corners, Virginia. There are five roads which intersect with bumper-to-bumper traffic during the day. Mostly four lane each road or more. Not a trivial problem, nor is it unusual. The article itself really needs enhancing with that information. Right now, it only discusses the surrounding "community."

This is about the worst intersection I have ever seen, yet it is handled amazingly well all with stoplights. Somewhere, a traffic "expert" ought to explain how, superficially with maybe a more esoteric article somewhere else which addresses problems of this nature.Student7 (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd redirect your query to the Virginia or U.S. Streets wikiprojects. This project focuses mostly on state highways in the US. As for "traffic experts", we're all amateurs and none of us work in transportation planning or for any state departments of transportation, at least to my knowledge. Sorry to disappoint. Imzadi 1979 → 18:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually there the roads are mostly US and state highways with only one local "street." If you are saying that the Project "Streets" handles traffic considerations and "Project Roads" does not, then fine. But traffic should be considered in either project I would think. That is the only reason for highways and streets, after all. I appreciate that editors are mainly not professionals but some have taken classes or been exposed at their employment or know of a book. Or that is what I am hoping. The problem is not unique to Virgina though it does have the advantage of exposure - there is hardly any driver in Northern Virginia and nearby DC area that has not been through there at least once. Student7 (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Busy intersections in and of themselves aren't that encyclopedic and this intersection doesn't seem any more important than any other busy intersection. I'd say check the library to see if they have a copy of a traffic study that was done on that intersection. —Fredddie™ 17:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

To clarify on my earlier comments, technically this project is misnamed. It should be US Highways, not US Roads, but at the time, there was a project called that. That other project was devoted to the US Numbered Highway System. (Recently, that second project was merged into the parent project along with the national project devoted to the Interstates.) In having a focus on highways, and not all types of roadways, specific intersections aren't always in our coverage. The closest we get to covering traffic in our articles is to quote traffic volume numbers from DOT traffic surveys. As for intersection design in a situation like this, we don't have that knowledge base. As Fredddie said, you'd be better off getting ahold of someone in Virginia (we have no active editors that specialize in that area) and looking for a traffic study on the intersections in question. Now, if we had an active Virginia editor, I could point you in his direction since he'd know where the DOT in VA would have the information you seek. If you would like a map created of the Seven Corners, it's possible that our Maps Task Force could do that for the article, but outside of current situation, we just don't have the resources to do much for non-highway articles like this. We're in the middle of a stub-elimination drive, working to reduce the number of stubs we have in the 10K+ articles already tagged in our project scope. Sorry, Imzadi 1979 → 19:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to let you off that easily. The only raison d'etre for roads or highways is the relief of traffic. The only reason. If I could get from point A to point B without running into another car, I would not need a roadway or traffic signs or lights or anything else. You should consider starting a superior Project WikiProject Traffic which would roll up both Roads and Streets.

Please don't tell me that traffic and road control is unique to the state of Virginia. I realize you don't feel comfortable with the subject/topic, but don't blow me off for that reason!

You might take a look at this sucker BTW (copies probably exist worldwide that are much much worse, but I would hate to encounter one). http://www.mapquest.com/maps?city=Seven+Corners&state=VA&country=US&latitude=38.871899&longitude=-77.155602&geocode=CITY

This type of article is not in our scope, and we don't have the apropos knowledge to help out. Try User talk:NE2; he may be able to be of more assistance, as he's done Virginia work in the past.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not blowing you off, I'm telling you that what you want is related to traffic engineering. Yes, highways are the project of traffic engineers, but we don't have the kind of specialized knowledge. NE2 might, I don't know. Additionally, while traffic control is not particularly unique to one state, most of us are specialized to our geographic regions. If this were an intersection in Michigan, I'd e-mail my contacts at MDOT to get an answer. The rest of us aren't based in Virginia, so we don't have DOT contacts to tap for your answers. Sorry, Imzadi 1979 → 01:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

USSH question

Is Route 54 (Delaware-Maryland) titled properly? The parenthesis remind me of the losing "P2" from SRNC... —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that this doesn't match the naming convention established. However, there is precedent for it, see State Route 74 (New York-Vermont). Dave (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Why highlights a flaw from P1, there's no good way to name bi-state highways. Unless of course it were renamed Delaware–Maryland Route 54. Imzadi 1979 → 21:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any reason that we couldn't use that naming. USSH already says we should be referring to it as "Route 54" in prose anyway. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

We had a go nowhere proposal discussion here already: here. Now if I had to choose I know what I'd change from SRNC, not going to happen though.Mitch32^{(Growing up with Wikipedia: 1 edit at a time.)} 22:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any consensus either way there; it mainly got sidetracked into a discussion of when these type of merges should occur. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Well we do have this too: North Carolina Highway 106 and Georgia State Route 246. Those are two separate numbers though, as opposed to two Route 54's. Eh, I don't have a problem with the status quo. I don't want another SRNC and well, such articles are so few and far between that a few anomalies shouldn't cause too much of a fuss. --Triadian (talk) 04:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)