Category talk:Transportation in the United States by county

RfC: Should historical highways get county/city-specific transportation categories?
I don't believe former highways should receive transportation categories for counties/cities at all, but since  respectfully disagree with my stance, I'd like to get a broader community consensus on this. Since there's no basis in policies or guidelines regarding this matter, I have nothing else to say. ToThAc (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Also pinging and  to solicit their thoughts on the matter. ToThAc (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes—the highway was still in the county, and as a matter of historical record, it should be classified as such.  Imzadi 1979  →   17:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC) To follow up with assertions being made in edit summaries, all of the former highways in Michigan have, or should have, their county categories. This was done years ago when all 83 county categories were made and initially populated. So M-76 (Michigan highway) and U.S. Route 27 in Michigan, two designations now decommissioned appear in their appropriate county transportation categories, just to pick a pair of examples. Almost half of the state highways in Category:Transportation in Roscommon County, Michigan (US 27, Bus. M-55, M-76, M-144, M-169) have been decommissioned.  Imzadi 1979   →   17:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * An alternative might be to use a different sortkey for categorizing them. ToThAc (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see the point of a separate sort key. Using " " as the key puts the articles at the beginning of the category, calling unnecessary attention to them. It's also not clear that they're been moved up because they're decommissioned.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on the matter. Generally the only category I care about is Interstate/U.S./State highways in . –Fredddie™ 20:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm kinda indifferent on the matter. I understand that the highway (or other transportation infrastructure) doesn't exist anymore, but it did exist in the county/city before. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 06:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * DISLIKE - think present-tense title should lead to actual current transportation, not ghost roads or things bulldozed decades ago. But I see no good way to fix things, and the defunct do not yet overwhelm the category so suggest just live with it.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Section break: Alternatives
After some additional thoughts, I've come up with some alternatives that could possibly be used:
 * Option 1: Group under a different sortkey, maybe to sort at the beginning of the category. However, as has pointed out, it might call unnecessary attention to the historic routes.
 * Option 2: Sub-categorize under something like . For example, U.S. Route 81 in Texas would receive, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and . This is also the option that I would recommend, as it allows leeway for routes only partially decommissioned in a certain area. ToThAc (talk) 02:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Also pinging to hear their thoughts. ToThAc (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose both—remember that these categories are used for all forms of transportation infrastructure, so former railways, former rail stations, former airports, etc would also be swept up, yet there's no issues with them in the same category as current railways, current rail stations, current airports, etc. I think this is a solution in search of a problem.  Imzadi 1979  →   02:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you absolutely certain about that? It could be that there hasn't been enough discussion about it. ToThAc (talk) 04:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support option 2. I'm not sure about the category names, but that sounds like a good idea. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 06:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support for option 2, if we actually need to do anything. Like Imzadi, I'm skeptical there is a real problem to solve here. However, if consensus agrees there is one, option 1 is obviously a no-go; we do not fudge sort-keying just for pseudo-categorization of stuff no one really cares about. The only time we don't use the real sort key is for pushing one or more truly key articles to the top of a category that has a lot of stuff in it.  —&thinsp;AReaderOutThataway&thinsp;t/c 05:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support for option 2 I agree that it makes sense that you'd put historical roads in a different category. Perhaps they should be named "Former roads in..." instead of "Historic transportation in..." for reasons of clarity and specificity, but I support option two in spirit. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @  04:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes and No - a historic category seems plausible as a generic, in addition to the transportation tag. Not as an alternative instead.  Cheers