Wikipedia talk:Notability (highways)/Archive 02

Sparse?
"Sparse systems, such as those in List of county routes in California and List of 500-series county routes in New Jersey, are generally considered to be on the same level as primary state highways, and thus deserve their own articles." Why does "sparse" equal notable? I know states where county roads are pretty sparse and still nondescript gravel roads. Please elaborate. Also why does something having a number starting with 5 make it notable? The writer of this doubtless knew what he meant, but persons in other parts of the world may not. Edison 14:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The 500-series NJ County Routes and the ones in California are sparse and notable because they are engineered to and maintained as state highways. In California, many of these county routes are expressways, which are defined as major.  In New Jersey, these are basically state highways that have the same number but are completely different; see the similarity between Pennsylvania Route 29 and County Route 501.  V 6 0  干什么？ ·  喝掉的酒  ·  路 15:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I still think "sparse" is a poor word choice to show a road is notable. In rural areas and wilderness areas roads are "sparse," meaning that you can go many miles without encountering one. How are they "sparse" in industrial areas or areas of valuable residential property? Limited access? Four lane? Edison 13:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I've already said this, but I'm gonna say this again: these county routes are statewide, maintained/designed to the same standards as state highways, and complement the state highway system. I agree with the fact that "sparse" is a poor word choice in this case. ( [ →] zel  zany  - new age roads) 01:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Instead of leaving this up for interpretation, why don't we list all of the systems out and say yes, the system is notable enough for each of the highways in it to have their own article or no it's not notable enough. It would make it a lot easier than figuring out if something is "sparse" or not. --Holderca1 13:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's probably a better idea. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Off the top of my head, I can think of New Jersey's 500-series routes, California's alphanumeric county routes, and Tennessee's secondary routes. Are there any others? --NE2 01:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Texas? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Texas has way too many routes for which the only thing that can be said is where they run and when they were taken over by the state. --NE2 02:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if there's more information on one route, can't that have its own article? I'm talking in the case of State Route 1002 (Lehigh County, Pennsylvania). ( [ →] zel  zany  - new age roads) 03:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course. If there's enough information on an alley, it should have an article. We're talking about classes of roads for which the default is having an article. --NE2 05:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The majority of Florida's county roads are former state roads so that automatically makes them notable enough for their own articles. Texas just has so many FM/RM roads, around 3,000 or so.  We don't have the editors to even attempt at tackling that number and making them decent articles.  I am all for putting restraints on which are notable enough, for example, any that have an urban road designation, any that are a former state highway, and any over a certain length (what that is I don't know) should have their own article.  All the others should be on a case-by-case basis.  IMHO Texas seriously needs to consolidate these roads, there is no reason that I can think of that they need that many different designations.  --Holderca1 13:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But most of Florida's county roads are former secondary state roads according to State Roads in Florida. --NE2 23:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It wasn't until the 1970s that the state changed those to secondary state roads, they were all part of the same system prior to that. Then eventually, the secondary state roads were changed to county roads.  Now I am sure that some of the county roads were designated after the split and were never a primary state road.  Also explains why the county roads roads follow the same grid numbering system as the state roads.  --Holderca1 14:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what makes the California county routes notable? Looking through some of the articles, County Route A10 (California), County Route J7 (California), County Route N2 (California), nothing really blows me away as wow, what an interesting road. Maybe these are just poorly developed articles, I don't know. --Holderca1 16:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Because most, if not all, are expressways. ( [ →] zel zany  - new age roads) 19:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, so then why does that make the ones that aren't expressways notable? Also, isn't that the reason that they are notable, not because they are "sparse."  --Holderca1 20:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As I've said many times before, I agree with the fact that "sparse" is a poor word to describe these systems. I'll change the wording to something more appropriate. ( [ →] zel  zany  - new age roads) 20:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Most are probably not expressways, and there may be some for which we cannot write anything that would not be in a list. --NE2 14:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not really questioning the notability of these as much as they seem to be setting the standard for secondary highways and I want to use that standard for other systems. --Holderca1 14:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am questioning their notability by default. Certainly the expressway ones are notable, but the others may not be. --NE2 17:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In the case of NJ's 500-series county routes, they go through multiple counties like state highways, unlike the definition of the designation they're supposed to bear. They are also major roads in the towns/cities in which they serve, where state highways do not exist.  ( [ →] zel  zany  - new age roads) 17:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds very similar to Texas' farm to market roads, they go through multiple counties, they are major roads in the towns/cities they serve, most are four or six lane surface streets in urban areas. I think what is dinging the FM system is that they have so many.  --Holderca1 18:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, according to County routes in New Jersey, 500-series routes are state secondary routes. This makes it similar to Tennessee's state secondary routes. ( [ →] zel  zany  - new age roads) 18:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The FM system is also a secondary system. Tennessee's state routes are very unique in that a highway can be a primary route for part of its route and secondary for another part.  --Holderca1 18:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Most are important artierial (sp?) routes through the region. for example County Route S11 (California). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 17:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

As I'm compiling List of turnpikes in New Jersey, I see another reason for articles about 500-series routes: the history. What's the history like in Texas or California? --NE2 07:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure exactly what you are asking, I looked through the 500-series articles and didn't see any history (I only looked through the first 20). Maybe that was what you meant, not sure though.  I am sure there is history available on these roads, I just haven't had the chance to look for it.  The only Texas FM Road I have worked on is FM 1 and I was able to find some history on the road, haven't had the chance to complete the article yet though. --Holderca1 12:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Highways in independent cities
In a previous discussion about interstates in independent cities, TMF and Krimpet validated the portion of these guidelines discussing the notability of sections of a given route. Two good articles that arose from this validation were the articles on the Jones Falls Expressway and Interstate 95 in Baltimore, Maryland. I'm bringing this previous discussion to the fore on this page to ensure that the relevant portions of these guidelines can draw on previous precedents set by project leaders. -TheOneKEA
 * Your examples are freeways in major cities, which are always notable. ( [ →] zel zany  - new age roads) 20:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hopefully that will be made clear in the relevant portion of the guidelines - some freeways are less notable than others. -TheOneKEA
 * Agreed, not all freeways are as notable as other freeways, but all freeways are more notable than surface streets, two-lane highways, etc... They wouldn't have been built as freeways if they weren't.  --Holderca1 13:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Both of those articles are definitely long enough to stand alone. --NE2 00:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Decommissioned Missouri Highways
As it stands now there is a category dedicated to decommissioned Missouri Highways, with 52 articles. It is all located at. I do not see the notability of any of them and am looking into deleting them, although it does look like some could be redirected to whatever the current route is. (Many are current US Highways.) So do we eliminate all of them, or try to merge as many as possible? I have also posted this at WT:MOSH. DandyDan2007 22:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The main discussion is taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads. --NE2 05:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are we trying to accomplish here?
I get the general idea, we want something to point to during WP:AfD, but I think we aren't doing this the right way. As currently written, articles such as List of county routes in Atlantic County, New Jersey and List of secondary state highways in Virginia would be subject for deletion and this guideline won't be able to save them. Per WP:N, "List articles, though, should include only notable entries; for example, only notable writers should be in List of English writers." So if a road is notable enough to be included in a list article, it is notable enough to have its own article. The only thing that would hold it back is lack of information, which isn't the same thing as notability. Why can't we have an article on every numbered road in the world if the info is there? Some people would say Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but that doesn't apply. Having an article on every road in the world would be indiscriminate, but an article on numbered roads is discriminate. After all Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. --Holderca1 12:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This seems to be good reasoning to allow WP:N to do its job, and eliminates the need for a special purpose guideline on this topic. --Kevin Murray 14:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do we need a guideline? To prevent stuff like this from happening. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 16:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Your example does not meet the criteria for WP:N. To use Map Point as a reference is like using the phone book to justify inclusion of a biography.  This article should clearly be deleted as failing WP:N.  --Kevin Murray 15:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * State highways are notable. Granted this article is in poor shape and needs work.  --Holderca1 18:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As the deletion Rschen pointed above illustrates, as long as people use notability as a criterion for article inclusion, then a notability guideline is definitely needed. Personally, as long as the topic of an article is neutral, verifiable, non-vanity, then there is no harm in its existence. --Polaron | Talk 16:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually this guideline would promote more articles getting deleted than being kept. County roads in Florida would all be deleted, Texas's farm to market roads would be gone, and the list would go on.  I think it needs to be completely rewritten.  Any statewide system should be notable, to include secondary state highways, statewide county road systems such as California, Florida and New Jersey.  The above example appears to be the result of an admin with an itchy trigger finger.  The problem is individuals in this project spend more time creating guidelines, newsletters, etc... than they do creating/improving articles.  --Holderca1 17:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In my personal opinion, they should be kept... but then we need a guideline to state that explicitly. In theory, do we need this? We shouldn't. But since many apparently do not like highways and act with prejudice against them... we need it. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I rewrote the secondary/county highway section. The word sparse is gone. It basically says that any statewide system is notable and I added a few more examples. --Holderca1 14:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)