User talk:BruhBoi44

MN 610
I understand that you think those two roads aren't important, but there are two reasons why I've restored the content. I have just made an edit to clarify something because US 52 isn't in Anoka County, and because it isn't signed, it doesn't quite need to be listed.  Imzadi 1979  →   23:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) CR 81 is mentioned in the next paragraph of the lead, so a bit of context about its location is important. That context is in the first paragraph.
 * 2) More importantly, the first mention of a highway of any level of classification should have its name spelled out in full. If you read through the content, the first sentence starts with "Minnesota State Highway 610 (MN 610)...", thus establishing that "MN 610" is an abbreviation for "Minnesota State Highway 610". By completely removing the mention of the county roads as you did, the first time a reader comes upon a reference to one, he or she only gets "CR 81", leaving that person unaware that it stands for "County Road 81".

Oh,I get it now, thanks Yadjilbe99 (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

US 10
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to U.S. Route 10 in Minnesota, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. --Sable232 (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to comment, but per MOS:RJL, we would normally include all interchanges along a highway. Ideally, those "see X" gaps need to be removed and replaced with the missing intersections and interchanges. Why should a reader have to look at three other articles to get the full list of junctions along US 10 in Minnesota?  Imzadi 1979  →   02:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no point in adding the junctions since it's not the main road.also U.S 10 in Minnesota is a highway from Anoka to Hastings,so don't add the end/begin freeway. Yadjilbe99 (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There is very much a point in including them. Firstly, excluding them doesn't comply with MOS:RJL, which says to include all interchanges. Secondly, by excluding them, you'll make a reader trying to follow along with the table jump to multiple other articles to see the missing junctions/interchanges. Then when that reader hits the other article, he or she will have to locate the appropriate concurrency, figure out if the overlap runs in the opposite direction, etc. In short, you're doing readers a disservice and not complying with the Manual of Style. Finally, don't revert again. Please follow WP:BRD. You were Bold in making a change, but you've been Reverted. The next step is to Discuss, not continue to revert to get your way. We're trying to discuss the situation here with you.  Imzadi 1979  →   18:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Ok,then why don't u add the missing exits from I-694, I-35E,I-94,US 61. Yadjilbe99 (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Just saying Yadjilbe99 (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been working on it in a tab here, but it's not just an easy copy-paste job.  Imzadi 1979  →   22:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)