Talk:List of minor state highways in Utah

Removal of SR-13 from list
When I created the SR-13 page and linked to it from here, I wasn't expecting it to be removed from this page. I created pages for most of the routes on List of minor state routes in Connecticut, and the decision there was to link to the new pages while maintaining the list. Dan ad nauseam (talk) 07:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know, what do you think? When I first created this list, I had all the state routes that were former US highways, somebody else deleted all the ones that had their own pages. So I kept the tradition. I could be convinced either way. If you want to re-add it, might as well re-add at least SR11, SR105, SR106 too. Consider re-adding SR-186 and SR-201, although those are not "minor" routes. I had assumed the purpose of a list such as this was a placeholder for routes that do not have an article and are not likely to have one. Davemeistermoab (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is probably a matter that can be discussed once the project gets re-invigorated. I'd suggest leaving roads on this page pendung a final decision. Dan ad nauseam (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I've been working on Utah route articles for over a year. You and I are pretty much it, for now at least. User:NE2 and User:Glennfcowan occasionally works on Utah routes, but their interests are primarily elsewhere. So I'd say just have a debate between you and I and move forward. if anybody else wants to chime in, they would be most certainly welcome. Davemeistermoab (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I say remove them, unless we delink all of them and once created we link them over to the article so the reader of the article knows if the page actually exists instead of a redirect. Another reason for removal: these aren't officially "minor" state routes, just ones that connect a road to an interstate or something similar to that. CountyLemonade (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh and I found out that the Connecticut list is a list of defined "minor routes," not like the Utah list. CountyLemonade (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'm going to try to get some more input on this.02:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

What purpose does this page serve
From the discussion above, I think the bigger question is what purpose does this page serve. When I created it, I intended it to be a catch all for Utah routes that did not have articles and would not likely have them given the pace of article work for Utah routes at the time. The situation has clearly changed. So does this page still serve that purpose, does it serve a different purpose, or no purpose at all? I think that's the question that needs to be answered first, the rest is easy.

My own $.02. The page still serves as a placeholder for routes with no current article. Given that, as articles are created they should be removed from this list. However, with some work this page could be modified to serve as a list of routes that are remnants of US highways decommissioned in Utah. I am open to this idea. Davemeistermoab (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * See List of minor routes in Pennsylvania. Before WP:PASH faded out (more or less), we created this page to merge the very short, "permastub" articles into a list - specifically for routes that are less than 10 miles in length.  Hope this is any help! --Son (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure, while I'd prefer each article eventually to have its own page, which can be done, we could perhaps do this. We've already created articles about routes less than ten miles, so what do we do with those? Redirect them to here? This is Wikipedia after all, all we have to do is be patient, and one day the day will come where every state route in Utah will have an article. Then we would have to get started on the deleted routes :P CountyLemonade (talk) 03:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems redundant to List of Utah State Routes. It doesn't make much sense to have them listed twice. Also, what is a minor route? Is this a list made up by UDOT? Is it highways under a certain length or less than a certain traffic volume? I say merge to List of Utah State Routes if there is anything to merge there and redirect this page. The list doesn't currently work under its current name since it doesn't have a set criteria for inclusion. If it is less than 10 miles than length, then a hypothetical freeway in Salt Lake City that is only 7 miles long, but has 5 lanes in each direction should be listed here and that really isn't a minor route in my opinion. It also can't be just a list of routes that we don't feel like expanding past the stub stage. --Holderca1talk 13:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If we do this we need to have an admin delete all the redirects of "minor" state routes such as SR-78 so they're redlinks again at least IMO. CountyLemonade (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * HolderCA1's and Son's comments have partially changed my opinion on this. I now am leaning towards it was a mistake to create this page and it should be overhauled. However, I disagree about "It can't be just a list of routes that we don't feel like expanding past stubs..." Most of the Utah state routes in the 290 and 300 series are just maintenance designations for parking lots at government buildings, universities, etc. It would be a joke to try to create B class articles about those (does anybody really want to see a major intersections guide for the U of U's library parking lot? didn't think so).


 * So how about this proposal?
 * Remove the table entries on this page that have legitimate articles or have been converted to mini-articles as below.
 * Completely delete the table once the number of entries is down to 5 or so.
 * Entries to this page will be in a mini-article format similar to List of minor routes in Pennsylvania.
 * Entries on this page will be articles that would be difficult or impossible to take past stub status. Examples include, routes with no intersections (other than the termini), business spurs and loops that are not part of a notable route, and routes that aren't really routes (the Governors Driveway, maintenance yards, parking logs, etc.)
 * What say you all? Davemeistermoab (talk) 02:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for it, but I want to see what other states have done with this; have they created articles out of routes that are parking lots to state government buildings? Should we go ahead and create them? I say why not. Then again it would be hard to create an article of anything so perhaps we should keep those in a list. But how do we define that list, how do we make it an official definition, if needed? CountyLemonade (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind, I think what you really want to wait for is see how "states with a similar roads philosophy to Utah have done with this".  For example, California has amazingly few numbered routes for a state its size. CA plays all kinds of tricks with using one number for what most states would use 3. (see California State Route 190 for example, any other state this would be at least 3 different route numbers). So I doubt CA has this problem (of short stubby routes). Nevada on the other hand has hundreds of numbered state routes and the DOT there has no qualms about assigning a route number to a city street 3 blocks long. If you notice the Nevada State Highways wikiproject is in terrible shape, primarily for this reason. The Nevada DOT website has state route numbers assigned to roads people who've lived there all there lives don't know exists.Davemeistermoab (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually SR 190 has only two sections, and there are other states that assign numbers to two ends of a proposed route. Virginia is the only one I can think of that has numbers for state driveways, but I never really decided what to do there when I was working on that state. --NE2 20:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think there are two different types of routes: those that serve as driveways, and those that actually go somewhere, such as being a business route. The former could fit well as a list in an article about those routes; there has to be something out there talking about why these routes exist. --NE2 09:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. Davemeistermoab (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)