Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 2

Notability standards for state highways
Are all state highways notable enough for an article? I'm thinking specifically in terms of the number of articles that could be added to List of Minnesota state highways. For example, Minnesota State Highway 210 is notable because it traverses nearly the entire state of Minnesota. On the other hand, Minnesota State Highway 289 is less than a mile long, and just a short connector from Minnesota State Highway 73 to a state prison. I don't want to create a bunch of articles just to create roadcruft that'll go to WP:AFD. So, are there any standards in place? -- E lkman - (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The answer is, no, not really. :-) If you're starting from scratch, it's wise to have each article stand on its own. Maybe have a separate section header in your list for short highway entries, and give the one-sentence description for each. How does a section entitled "Highways less than two miles in length" sound? &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 20:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe the precedent at AFD is that if a highway is important enough that the DOT bothered to assign it a number, it can have an article. Extremely short highways are a curiosity (we have a whole Category:State highways shorter than one mile). ...Scott5114 22:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup- Articles for deletion/Precedents. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  05:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Farm to Market Roads
There is a stub, along with a whole mess of redirects at Farm to Market Road that speaks about this sort of road fairly generally, but using the specific example of Texas, which is covered in more depth at Texas ranch to market road. Does another state support RM and FM roads like Texas? Iowa's DOT talks about it, a little. Someone from there listening, and able to chime in? My plan, if there is a need for this, will be to put links to specific systems on the more general page as they crop up, and try to flesh that page out a little (or should that go to a disambiguation pointing at the various systems?) If not, wouldn't they be duplicates, and suggestible for AfD?

In another vein, TxDOT's designation for the system is the Farm to Market Road system, so unless someone just has fits over it, I'm thinking to swap the Texas ranch to market road and the redirect to it at Texas farm to market road. Even west of US 281, a great many of these are signed "Farm Road", including the one I live on. They are much more commonly known as FM roads by residents of Texas. Any thoughts? --DavidBavousett 03:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest putting the Texas information at Farm to Market Road and general information (a road connecting a farm to a market etc) at farm to market road. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 07:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I added notes about the Iowa farm-to-market system on the Farm to Market Road page. Apparently, in Iowa, it's a difference of funding, similar to Minnesota County state-aid highways.  Oregon may have had such a system, and Wyoming apparently had such a system but it was repealed.  I'm also getting some results from the Phillipines, but they're not in the US.  -- E lkman - (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent work, Elkman; I appreciate it! SPUI, I like your idea, as well, which points out my n00b-ness in that article names are case-sensitive here!  Based on these two responses, at farm to market road, I'll put the general information, including linkage to the more specific Texas variant (leaving a place where other systems could be added later, natch, and tidy up all the odd redirects.  I'll also put an Otheruses4-type link on the Texas-specific page, pointing at farm to market road.  Following the guidelines at WP:DAB, I'm thinking of what search results will look like.  If a user enters "farm to market" or "ranch to market", they should end up at the general farm to market road, but if "Texas" enters into the search, they should end up at the more specific variant.  Make sense?  Anyone have any specific wishes here? I'll plan that batch of edits for Wednesday or Thursday evening, unless someone wants to visit about it more. --DavidBavousett 01:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Utah Wikiproject
Any one interested in joining me with setting up a Utah Highways Wikiproject? A dmrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 20:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll help set up (whenever the madness settles down). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  20:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool; asked SPUI for route markers, but we can't find specs for them. A dmrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 21:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You can find one at List of highway shields in the United States. As far as fonts are concerned, you can probably find the correct font at the Roadgeek fonts site.  "Series D" seems to be the correct one for Minnesota state highways, though I don't know if that's exactly what they use in Utah.  You might have to experiment a bit.  -- E lkman - (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I would make the page but theres an ongoing debate (on the list page) for names, and I know User:SPUI will go in and rename them State Route X (Utah)... A dmrb♉ltz (T | C) 05:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Utah State Highways has been created as a shell. A dmrb♉ltz ( T | I | E ) 04:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject for Ohio?
Anyone else interested in an Ohio roads wikiproject? Micheal 04:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * As I've offered above I help a bit with each roads WikiProject... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  04:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ohio State Highways WikiProject - Micheal 03:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've started contributing.Seicer 21:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for WPs: Iowa, Wisconsin, Indiana
I keep running into the ends of these state highways/routes/roads/whatever at WikiProject Illinois State Routes :-). I'd start these projects, but I have very little to no knowledge of any highways in these states. Feel free to copy the Illinois WP structure and make it your own, though.

As an aside, I believe they are now Indiana State Roads, Wisconsin State Trunk Highways (which I shorten to Wisconsin State Highway), Iowa... something... and Illinois Routes. Oh goody. I just want more than just me to confirm the other states. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 12:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe there is already a group of people working on the Iowa roads, just not organized into a WikiProject yet. Also, a lot of highways in Indiana higher than 400 have entries at Indiana state highways; if you need an article on a highway you could check to see if it's there and if so, split it off. ...Scott5114 21:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I would be willing to help with Iowa. --Station Attendant 00:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I have begun to work on the Wisconsin State Highway pages and support items as of yesterday - currently at Wis-17. -- master_son  Lets talk 23:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and start the projects if you want... I'll help if I can. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  23:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Wisconsin Highways has been built and is live - please help out where you can and sign up your name there w00t -- master_son  Lets talk 01:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Calculate kilometer fields...
I don't know if this is widely known, but if you're developing infobox code, there's now something you can use for that kilometers field. Here's what I did for the Illinois state routes:


 * miles ( km)


 * 1) expr: allows you to calculate numbers on the fly. It's rounded off to hundreths of a kilometer because that's the most precise field that Illinois can give us on GIS data, even if I still do most of my calculations using whole numbers on an atlas. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 17:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Bad idea - this gives false precision. --SPUI (T - C) 22:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Georgia WP?
Anyone possibly interested in helping out with a Georgia WikiProject? A fair number of pages have already been started, but a lot of them could use some fleshing out and there are still plenty that haven't been covered yet. What with the end of my semester approaching, I should soon find myself with a lot of time on my hands to get this thing going... –Pedriana 17:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll help if I get a chance... go ahead and start it if you want. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  23:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh, I was actually just about to get it going in a couple of days anyway. Currently working on getting the basic infrastructure in place; should be ready to go this week. –Pedriana 00:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And we are live! –Pedriana 02:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for expansion: Clearview (typeface)
This topic just came up on the roadgeek list, and I don't necessarily have the time to track down all of the information on the FHWA page. Can someone expand Clearview (typeface) further? Thanks. Clearview is a proposed, recently approved new font for road signs in the U.S. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 17:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Old SVG shields for deletion?
We should list Interstate 5...980.svg shields for deletion. They've been supplanted by I-5..980.svg... right? At the very least, bot should rename all Interstate 5..980.svg shields to I-5..980.svg shields, in spite of thumbnail problems. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 16:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose so, but we need to try to fix the thumbnail problems as we go (it's just a matter of purging from Commons and hard-refreshing pages that use the image until it works). Also, you'd have to list them for deletion at Commons, rather than here. ...Scott5114 21:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * All right. I'll probably wait until infamous bug 5463 gets fixed sometime in the next decade. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 22:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Now that the SVG bug is fixed, we should really get a bot to replace all of the old "Interstate X" shields with the new "I-X" shields. -- T M F T - C 04:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI -- Illinois Tollway sign survey
For interested parties and courtesy of the roadgeek list, the Illinois Tollway has put up a survey for what sorts of signs would work best on their toll plazas. The link is here.

The tollway currently uses black text on white signs for overhead gantries related to toll plazas. They replaced black text on yellow signs, which, as warning signs, worked... but I don't know of any white signs like that anywhere else (haven't thought very hard). &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 02:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Nevada state routes
I have been working on articles for Nevada state routes, such as creating stubs and adding infoboxes to existing articles. However, I recently noticed that a few existing articles were copyvios. The source for the articles I'm working on is NevadaDOT which is public domain, but the copyvio articles originally came from AARoads.com, word for word, submitted by an anonymous editor. If anyone could help me with these Nevada highway articles, that would be great. (I thank User:Vegaswikian for his efforts.) I also wish to create the Interstate 80 in Nevada article (it's currently a redirect to Interstate 80 for now.)  --Geopgeop 03:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Nevada DOT is not public domain. Of course you can still use it as a reference, but not as a source to copy from. --SPUI (T - C) 22:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, jeez... I made a bad assumption. On that note, why is California's website in the public domain, as on its conditions of use page, but not the other states? --Geopgeop 01:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Special laws in California, presumably. --SPUI (T - C) 02:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I think I messed up on Nevada State Route 171 and its related pages specific to it, please help... --Geopgeop 09:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, that was fixed. Thanks to admin Kcordina. --Geopgeop 22:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, can anyone please create the Nevada state route shields? Probably in the form Image:Nevada X.svg ? It doesn't have to be now, due to that SVG bug, but I'd appreciate it if it's created sometime in the near future. Thanks. --Geopgeop 22:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, shields are pending as of today, as I received the design from NevadaDOT and sent it to SPUI for image creation. --Geopgeop 22:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, I decided that I would create the Nevada shields myself (err, with help from NevadaDOT, oh you know what I mean). --Geopgeop 07:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm near a third done with creating stubs for the highways in Nevada. Does anybody want to evaluate the progress so far? --Geopgeop 20:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's quite a difference. I was away for a while, and now I see quite an addition to the list.  I guess I'll put up shields on these new article pages then.  --Geopgeop 05:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Got any clusterfucks?


I will make maps on request, if you can point me to a source that shows exactly where the routes run (or I know of one). --SPUI (T - C) 22:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the entire length of Interstate 465 qualifies, especially if/when they figure out the Interstate 69 SW extension. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 16:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm - not a bad idea. Is everything well-defined? --SPUI (T - C) 16:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems everything is defined - has information on all and photographical proof of most. I've added an exit list and the concurrencies to Interstate 465. --SPUI (T - C) 01:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

--SPUI (T - C) 17:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * haha out of my own curiosity, do they actually sign them with all the markers? I would imagine not, but I don't think I'd be surprised if they did. Stratosphere 02:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really - most of the signs are at the entrances, saying "US 31 north use I-465 to exit X". --SPUI (T - C) 03:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation
Might as well advertise this here - I'm proposing to move the disambiguation paces like Route 1 to list of highways numbered 1. --SPUI (T - C) 18:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Tennessee State Routes Project
OK, considering that Tennessee, the state with some of the nation's best maintained and highest quality roads, or so I'm told, has no official State Route Wikiproject, I would like to try and start one. I know there is a basic framework already established, but any advice, or resources, or just generalinput would definitely be appreciated. Thanks. --Antjon1 05:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Browse boxes
Is it standard practice to include a browse box in the routebox (see U.S. Route 8)? Wisconsin was already in there, and while I was working on M-8 I added that. In addition to that browse box, on many articles, individual state related highway browse boxes are near the bottom of the article on where that particular article's highway fits in with the states local system.

So I guess my questions are:
 * 1) Is it standard practice to place browse box in the routebox as at U.S. Route 8 for all states in which U.S. Route 8 runs?
 * 2) Is it standard practice to also place a browse box at the bottom of the article to show where that particular route (be it US or Interstate) fits in with a particular state system?

I'd like some discussion on this, and if it's been discussed before, I apologize, but link me to it. My main concern is routebox becoming too long, especially for the coast-coast U.S. Routes. Also, as on U.S. Route 8 while WI has a US Route browse in the routebox, it has an exact duplicate in the browse at the bottom of the page; which I expect was intended to be where US 8 fits in with the Wisconisin highway system. Stratosphere (talk - Contrib) 02:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In response to my own questions, the routebox probably should only have a state browse box if that route is entirely within that state. But, for U.S. Routes there should still be a browse at the bottom of the routebox to cycle through just the U.S. Routes.  So, at most, there should be two browse lines in the routebox.  Then there can be a browse box for individual state systems where a USR or Interstate fits in at the bottom of the article.  I think we just need to settle on a method. Stratosphere (talk - Contrib) 02:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That works well for me - being the ever so guilty adder of the WI browse box :~ -- master_son  Lets talk 01:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That method works for me as well. The sooner this is implemented, the sooner that the NYS route articles will be able to use the full power of the Infobox road browse. -- T M F T - C 02:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Upon further consideration, I feel that a U.S. Route browse at the bottom of the infobox is probably redundant, since there is the U.S. Route browse box at the bottom of the articles (the one with all the primary routes). While I concede there are auxilliary routes to consider, the articles of the primary routes usually have a link to any associated auxilliary routes; with the exception of the 3-di's that are included in the highway browse box as they have no parent.
 * So, unless there are objections, going forward, we should probably put the state browse in the infobox only if that route is entirely within that state, otherwise put the browse box at the bottom of the article, below the U.S. Highway browse table. As far as the order of the browse box states goes, it should be listed west to east, south to north, as appears to have been the method all along. Stratosphere (talk - Contrib) 04:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoa there... let me give the history of the browse box first. It started at WP:CASH when we had it in the routebox browsing CA State Routes. Then it moved to WA and other states. When we started the Interstate and US Route projects we didn't want to mess up CA's and WA's system, so we put a CA browse and WA browse in the routebox. But then we had a Mediation Cabal case where SPUI disagreed with this practice. Thus the browses for interstates and USRs got moved to the bottom (or were supposed to. after the arbcom case came I ran out of time). Then SPUI began placing some back in the routebox again for Interstates and U.S. Routes. So now there is no officially established standard, with OK using the bottom, CA trying to convert to the bottom, but it not taking effect, WA using the routebox... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  16:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me add another 2 cents to this discussion. Instead of trying to throw a standard together at once, it's probably best to do one thing at a time.


 * First, let's start with three-digit Interstates. My proposal: for intrastate Interstates: Interstate 590. For interstate Interstates: Interstate 287. -- T M F T - C 16:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding the I-590 article, I still think you need the state qualifier in the browse so people reading it aren't confused that it's a browse box for the U.S. System. I've made the change. Stratosphere (talk - Contrib) 02:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * yeah, that's exactly what I mean. Stratosphere (talk - Contrib) 18:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If there's no standard anymore, we should work on getting one then. From what it appears, as far as Interstates and U.S. Routes go, browses in the infobox have only been on intrastate routes.  Outside of that, browsing has been listed at the bottom of the article along with the browses for the other states it runs through.  While it may not be a standard, it seems like the prevailing method.  Stratosphere (talk - Contrib) 18:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree whole-heartedly. We should start bringing three-digit and bannered/suffixed U.S. routes up to this proposed standard. We should discuss two-digit Interstates and U.S. routes once this is done. -- T M F T - C 18:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thought I'd point it out... The browse boxes cover all routes within the state (Interstate, U.S. and State routes inclusive) there's no real way of putting a list of routes on the page like we do with the interstates and the US Routes because then the Interstate and US Route articles will get pretty cluddered with all of the boxes on them. This saves room, and permits browsing through the list of routes by state. Quite true we don't have a standard and should agree on one - but we should follow this slowly. There is also talk of making route articles for each Interstate and US route within a state. such as U.S._Route_10_in_Wisconsin. while it allows for details by state - all these articles can become cumbersume and overloading. There are many pros and cons out there. -- master_son  Lets talk 20:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Returning to the point of this section, the standardizing of browsing numbered routes, after looking around, it appears that a standard is taking place. See U.S. Route 9 and U.S. Route 9E for examples of inter- and intra-state U.S. route browsing. From the way it is being implemented on both U.S. routes and Interstates, here's the standard as it is used in practice: -- T M F T - C 12:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Routes that exist in only one state should have the browse in the routebox.
 * Routes that exist in more than one state should have the browse as part of the "srbox" at the bottom of the page below all text.

Wished I'd gotten in this discussion. Oh well. The way Illinois is, is the following:
 * Main U.S. Route / Interstate articles: on the bottom. Browse box navigates to all possible routes.
 * U.S. Route / Interstate Detail articles: on the bottom. Browse box navigates to all possible routes.
 * Illinois Route articles: in the infobox. Browse box navigates only to other Illinois Routes. "See also" field navigates to other possibilities. "See also" field does not yet link to detail articles.

Removing a link from hundreds of pages...
Okay, I gave the website 3 months to be relevant. Time's up. I need all mentions of Illinois Highways to leave. Most of it is obvious, or has been mentioned in other, better places. The images look like they were taken straight from here or possibly the commons themselves (which isn't in itself bad, but it's acting as a mirror of other sources). It's not a good external link. It's not a good source.

Is there a bot out there that can do this for me? &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 21:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * About how many pages are talking about? I'd be willing to help out in doing this manually. Nothing like doing repetitive, mindless tasks to pass the time :) --Polaron | Talk 21:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * All done. Now you just need to prevent such links from creeping back in. Cheers. --Polaron | Talk 22:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much! I'll keep track of it and revert it as linkspam if it comes up again. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 01:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProjects for Connecticut and Rhode Island
Any Rhode Geeks (heh) or CT roadgeeks want to help me start up WikiProjects for their respective states? I'm already working on Massachusetts, since I live there, but being that states are so small up in these parts, I'll help out with CT and RI as well (also NH, since I love NH, but they already have WP:NHSH).

Connecticut seems to need a lot of attention, especially considering there are almost no SVGs for their state highway signs. They use a rectangle, like Massachusetts and Maine, but it has a thicker border, e.g. for Massachusetts vs. for Connecticut. I've seen a few old-school CT-15 shields (with the state outline) on the Merritt Parkway, but I believe those are being phased out (personally, I love it when a state uses its outline on state highway shields, so I'm a bit saddened by this).

SPUI seems to want a CT DOT standard drawing for making the route shield. I can't seem to find one, and I'm not quite sure why it's necessary, but I suppose it's better to go official as far as that's concerned.

Rhode Island seems to have all their SVGs up, and they appear to be using a standard info box (scratch that, an info box is needed on Route 146 (Rhode Island) which is a major thoroughfare between Providence and Worcester, for example). They also seem to be using a format that's similar to that used on the Massachusetts project, see Route 51 (Rhode Island) for an example.

Tckma 16:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been writing some CT route articles (very badly though :-) ) and would like to "upgrade" them to be more like the articles in states with highway WikiProjects. I searched for the specs for the CT route shields a while back and it looks like there is a "Catalog of Road Signs" that sign makers can browse at the ConnDOT office in Berlin Newington, CT which indicates the dimensions of the sign face copy and border. Since I don't have free time to drive up there during weekdays, I haven't been able to look at this catalog. What I could do is make measurements on an actual route shield (I live two blocks from Route 34 in New Haven) and hopefully that would be sufficient. --Polaron | Talk 17:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Polaron and Analogdemon are major contributors for CT and RI respectively. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  17:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh he already noticed. :) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  17:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I found that same database for ConnDOT and mentioned it to SPUI. He left a message on my talk page that it's just a listing of sign numbers or something to that effect.  Tckma 17:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's right and then you have to actually visit the ConnDOT office to actually look at the specs for these signs. --Polaron | Talk 17:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, do we want to send someone over to Berlin Newington with a scanner (which seems like a royal pain in the ass), or just... make the images? There's this list of the state highway shields, but CT's looks inaccurate (CT definitely has a thicker border -- I have family on Long Island and thus I've driven through the state many times).  There's also a website I looked at a few years ago (which I'm sure can be found with a Google search, but I've just been called away to a meeting -- I'm at work) that shows the different shields.  How do we go about this? Tckma 17:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I do have every other Friday off from work, but I'm visiting a friend in Washington DC this weekend (driving down on Friday). I could either stop there on the way down, assuming it's on the way (I-84 to I-91 in Hartford to CT-15 to NY) or wait until Aug 18th, unless we decide to do something else.  I don't have a good laptop or a portable scanner though (it's a 486 and won't run anything above Win '95). Tckma 20:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said, I can go and measure the border thickness relative to the shield size. Font should be pretty much standard. Rounded corners should also be standard. Shield aspect ratios are 1:1 for 1- and 2-digit, 1.25:1 for 3-digit with at least one "1" in the number, and 1.5:1 for 3-digit with no "1" in the number. But if you have time to pass by ConnDOT and you don't mind the extra effort, then you might as well give that a try. The office is on Route 15 (on the Berlin Turnpike segment). The document is called the "Connecticut Department of Transportation Catalog of Signs" (or something like that). --Polaron | Talk 22:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * From looking at several actual route shields last week, I found out that all of them are square. In order to fit 3-digit numbers in the shield, they use a thinner font instead of making the shield wider. I have uploaded many route shield images that I think approximate the actual route signs.[[Image:CT-243 east end.jpg|250px]]


 * In terms of articles, all state primary routes now have articles. The structure is not uniform though and most articles only have a route description and nothing else. Once a structure is in place, I think this Project can get started. --Polaron | Talk 18:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, I always wondered why, e.g., signs for Route 349 in Groton looked so strange to me. It's the font size.  Anyway, what's the general format of the shield graphic filename?  And how are you making them (so I can help out)? --Tckma 18:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The filename format is the same as existing ones (Connecticut_Highway_X.png). I just used existing ones and replaced the numbers. The blank image is here. --Polaron | Talk 19:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Tidbits
None of these items deserves their own section, but as a whole if you have some input, I'd be glad to hear it.


 * 1) Reassurance shield has been started, and is a road-stub at the moment.
 * 2) List of County Highways in DuPage County, Illinois has been started. Not a single county highway deserves its own article, and those that do... are bike paths [shrugs].
 * 3) Do we have county highway SVG templates? The list probably will end up with some shields on it because it's a table and some Illinois routes are in the table, but that's all I can come up with for now.
 * Well, that should be relatively easy to do for anyone who knows Photoshop. With the possible exception of Wisconsin which has square lettered county route shields, most county routes throughout the country use yellow letters/numbers on a purple pentagonal shield... NAME OF COUNTY at the top, then the route number, then COUNTY on the bottom.  In Canada (or at least in Ontario), county or regional municipality routes use a white flowerpot-shaped (upside-down trapezoid) shield. --Tckma 21:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if Photoshop has the capability to create SVGs. I don't think it does, but I could be wrong. If it doesn't, there's always Inkscape (which I use for all of my SVGs). -- T M F T - C 21:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Photoshop doesn't, but Illustrator does. -- master_son  Lets talk 12:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 20:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * For number 3, see here. -- T M F T - C 20:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Fireworks doesn't open SVG files. Oh well. Any volunteers? It isn't crucial. :-) &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 22:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been making a number of county road shields for Suffolk County in New York lately, so I can make a few for Illinois' DuPage County as well if needed. -- T M F T - C 22:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure if you don't mind. I only ask because I think 50px shields would help the article be more than just text. Thanks! &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 20:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have one question about how the county name is displayed on the route shields because of the capital "P" in the word "DuPage". Does it appear as "DuPAGE", "DUPAGE", "DU PAGE", or "Du PAGE"? (that's every variant I can think of) -- T M F T - C 21:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a good question. Let me peek at a sign tomorrow and find out. I thought it was "DU PAGE" in spite of the fact that it's officially DuPage County, Illinois. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 00:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, two words. See . &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 03:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * CRs 1 through 10 are done. They are found in the form "DuPage County Route X IL.svg" (when I uploaded them to Commons, I noticed that shields for DuPage county already exist; however, the existing ones are incorrect both in name (they use "Dupage" instead of "DuPage" in the file name) and in appearance (DuPage is one word on those), so I will be replacing all of them over time). -- T M F T - C 04:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks excellent. You can click on the redlinks in the article to upload them as you have time - figured it'd save you a step or two. Thanks a lot! &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 14:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * All of the shields are now in place. -- T M F T - C 06:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * For number 1, there's also Reassurance marker. I'll add a merge request. --Tckma 19:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It was an easy merge to perform, so I went and did it. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 20:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Map of USA SH WPs.png
Can someone fill in Connecticut in this graphic? We've started WP:CTRT for it.
 * Done. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  19:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Tckma 20:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Archiving
Should we sign up for User:Werdnabot for all the state hwy WP talk pages? And say archive all stuff older than 60 days? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  23:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For the more active ones you could. Oklahoma still doesn't have anything on it's talkpage, so we don't really need the archival service yet :) —Scott5114↗ 05:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So probably CA, NY, WA, IH, USH, USRD for now. Any others? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  05:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really seeing much talk page activity over at WP:ILSR. It would be useful to tag talk pages with Template:Illinois State Routes WikiProject though... the ones I've missed. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 19:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no problems with using Werdnabot for the NY project (as I've been doing the archiving for it manually for some time now). We could probably use the auto-archival bot at the PA project as well. -- T M F T - C 05:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Template review...
I don't know what the technical term for this part of the page is, but I could use some suggestions on Template:Chicagoland expressways. It generally goes on the bottom of all of the articles contained within the template. Thanks in advance! &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 19:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Maps task force?
See WikiProject_Trains/Maps_task_force.

Seeing as I doubt User:Stratosphere will be doing maps for all kinds of routes for all 50 states and the District of Columbia, this may not be a bad thing to create. That way if ever concerns about maps or adjustments need to be made, they can all be located there. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 19:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That might not be a bad idea for state routes. Interstates and U.S. Highways already have maps on their articles, after all.  I'd be more than willing to help out creating maps if someone could show me how to do it. --Tckma 20:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd be interested as well if something like a maps task force was made for this project. -- T M F T - C 22:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * For the right sum of money, I'd do it :P In all seriousness, yes this is a good idea. A centralized location for all map inquiries would be a valuable asset. Stratosphere (U T) 02:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, this page has been created. Obviously content and organization is lacking, but every page has to start somewhere, and fortunately everything on Wikpiedia is licensed under the GFDL. :-) See WikiProject U.S. Roads/Maps task force. I will be proceeding based on the assumption that all current and future road maps in the U.S. will want to be accounted for under this task force. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 19:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Talking of task forces...
Rather than necessarily having 50 descendant wikiprojects (or more, if we end up with Wikiprojects for non-"state highways" in some states, as already is the case for CA), have you considered a similar structure to that used by WP:MILHIST, i.e. a single wikiproject, with a locally hierarchical organisation? Just a thought. Alai 23:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Haven't you seen the mess at the state road naming convention poll? Based on that, there is no way in the world that a single WP would work across the entire country. -- T M F T - C 03:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Mass Pike
Since the Massachusetts Turnpike article is not under the jurisdiction of WP:MASH, I figured I'd comment here as well. On the talk page, I suggested some sections to be added to the article. I can take care of one of them after this weekend, I think. -- Tckma 18:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Redirect lists
For those who haven't noticed, a list of redirect lists has been set up at WikiProject U.S. Roads/Redirects. I tried to point the links at the existing redirect completion lists for each project, but if your project has one and I missed it, fix it up. —Scott5114↗ 18:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What is and isn't a "state highway", for categorisation purposes?
I'd have thought a "state highway" was something that had "State Highway Farble" or "Route Hoohah" as/in its name, but I may be sadly misinformed here. For example, this edit confuses me: interstate highways are state highways? And what about Texas Farm Roads, are they "Texas state highways"? Alai 00:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah boy. Signed and unsigned state highways are state highways. Texas farm Roads are a secondary type of state highway. Some states refer to Interstate highways as state highways, but in discussions we've decided that for most Wikipedia purposes they are not. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  00:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, so the Texas ones are probably correct. On the Wisconsins, it's going to be rather confusing to apply per-state understandings as to what a federal project (as I assume they are) is....  Alai 01:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Texas Farm to Market Roads are state highways; they are fully funded by the state and maintained by TXDOT. --Holderca1 16:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Interstate and U.S. Highways are maintained in the states they run through by those states' highway departments, they just receive federal funding to do so. Thus, some states refer to them as "state highways."  However, in my opinion, they are not "state highways" for Wikipedia purposes. -- Tckma 18:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The simplest and most general definition of a state highway is a highway maintained by a state government agency. Note that numbered highways and state highways do not always coincide. Some states have hierarchies of state highways and it is common to also refer to primary state highways only when talking about state highways. --Polaron | Talk 01:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Did You Know?
Just in case you miss it, Interstate 10 in Texas is on the main page under the "Did You Know?" section for new articles. Hopefully this will get things going in a post-naming controversy WikiProject. --Holderca1 19:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Minnesota State Highway 91 nominated for deletion
Just a heads-up...Articles for deletion/Minnesota State Highway 91. Kirjtc2 21:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

RI State Route Sign Specs
I found the RI State Route Sign Specs. See Talk:Numbered_routes_in_Rhode_Island. -- xxpor (  Talk |  Contribs ) 02:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Minnesota State Route Marker
Hi, I created a SVG for the Minnesota State Route Marker. The colors should be right, an also the aspect ratios. Since I'm not from the U.S. I'm not too keen on making a SVG for every PNG Image out there ... but, if anyone neads help, drop me a line @ de:Benutzer:Ucc.

In the commons I added a new category (commons:Category:Minnesota_State_Route_markers) an I allready created a marker for Route 62:

--217.224.143.117 19:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This would be good to take to WP:MNSH. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  03:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, posted it there --ucc 10:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

An idea...
Why not have a project for roads outside the continious 48 states? Since Hawaii, Alaska, and all those other territories/islands/commonwealths/whatevers don't (in my opinion) have enough roads in themselves to really justify there own projects, then why not have one for all of them?
 * Puerto Rico, Alaska, and Hawaii can start their own projects. As for the other territories, there are no articles for them, so I don't think it's a big deal now. In the future we can address that question, but we have the continental U.S. to worry about first. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  20:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

WP for the NE Interstate Routes?
This may be nothing more than a passing thought, but should there be a WikiProject that manages all of the former New England Interstate Routes? Since the articles on these transcend state lines, no one state WikiProject is truly able to regulate these articles, resulting in the wide variation that currently exists from one article to the next. Thoughts? -- T M F T - C 00:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If anything, they should be broken up by state, with appropriate links to "follow" the highway. The idea that their Wikipedia status should be determined by a numbering system that hasn't existed in 80 years is absurd. Kirjtc2 00:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There are really only about 10 articles that might be amenable to a merged article so a full WikiProject is probably not necessary. Why not just incorporate all the components required by affected WikiProjects into each article? --Polaron | Talk 00:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * All good points. Here's another thought: the New England articles were formulated because the present-day routes that were part of the old NE routes had articles of stub length, right? Now that most, if not all, of the New England routes have WikiProjects, I think that if the NE articles were de-merged, then each route could now stand on its own as an individual article with the necessary expansion. I'm not suggesting that we abolish the NE articles, but rather, make them a portal of the routes that make up the NE route, like Interstate 95 is a portal for the "Interstate 95 in X" series. -- T M F T - C 19:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If the individual state highway article has enough content that it is no longer a stub, then it can be made split off like what is done for U.S. Highways and Interstate Highways. See New England Route 8 for example where Connecticut Route 8 has its own article. --Polaron | Talk 20:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Has there been a WikiProject created for this? --myselfalso 12:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Consensus above did not warrant a WikiProject, so there was never one created. Instead, the decision was to make new state-specific articles and make the NE articles "portal pages". -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 15:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Shields
Should we create another subproject (like Maps and Assessment) for Shields? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  03:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That could be a good idea, as it'd make searching for sign specs easier because, ideally, you'd have every shield maker on Wikipedia in one place. I wouldn't be opposed to it (and I would join it if it existed). -- T M F T - C 12:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Now that I just got the hang of SVG editing, I think it would be useful. --•   master_son  Lets talk  06:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * So, was this subproject created? --myselfalso 12:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Not from my understanding, but I can whip it up when I get home later today. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 15:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It needs a little work, but the subproject has been created. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

These websites would provide a good start for making sheilds:


 * Kurumi's signmaker. The actual shields are low quality graphics, but it gives you a starting point for EVERY state sheild.  Its kind of a fun site otherwise.  I used this signmaker to create graphics for a website that I used to give directions to my wedding (I got married 400 miles away from where most of my VERY large family lives.)
 * aaroads.com's Highway Kickoff Page. This is THE major site for roadgeek pages.  I'm sure most of you have found this site anyways, but it is an INVALUABLE site as a catalog of roadgeek sites on the web.  Also good is the main aaroads site.  Some of the highway sign photography sites would be quite helpful.
 * another site similar to kurumi's site. Newer and makes MUCH larger shields, with much better quality.  Some of the shields are a little weak, and need some cleanup (numbers off center, some pixilation problems) but it is a VERY good start for what we want to do here.
 * James Lin's Highway Markers site. This site is canonical in its coverage of highway route markers.  All beutifully rendered (though smaller than the standard size we do here).  A great starting place.

If you use any of these sites, it might be a good courtesy to contact the creators of the site to see about using their work. Their level of roadgeekdom MAY interest them in becoming involved in this project anyways, and we may be creating new wikipedians. --Jayron32 03:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Nevada shields
Hi, Geopgeop here. I just took somewhat of a wikibreak in doing the Nevada shields on Commons: my laptop where I keep the template images is down; I finally extracted them from its hard drive just recently. Anyways, reading the uploading procedure for Commons, and not having been on there in a while, it seems they want permissions requests done in email and forwarded to Wikimedia, when what I did was talk over the phone with an employee of NevadaDOT. I'd like these permissions reaffirmed (I got the design from NevadaDOT directly by email). Can someone please do this for me? I'll give the email address of the NevadaDOT contact, just tell them Geopgeop asked. --Geopgeop 11:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Just so you're aware, shield stuff is now at WP:USRD/S. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

South Carolina State Highways request
I'm openly calling out for a WikiProject for South Carolina State Highways. Who wants to start one? You'd better not ask me, because I don't know enough about them, but I'm willing to contribute anyway. DanTD 20:05, 19 October 2006 (EST)
 * I'll put a notice on the notice template... anyone know of any other major contributors? Although you can always a) start it and wait or b) wait and then start it. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Recovery
Okay, so it's pretty much safe to say that we've made it through the WP:SRNC mess somewhat intact. Unfortunately, we have lost users. Which was probably inevitable as there would have been some who would have left no matter which way the poll went. But anyway... the problems this bring are a) of course they're part of our team and we'll miss them and b) there is now a vacuum as they performed jobs that now are going undone.

So I'm suggesting a) being nice to these users if they return, b) us stepping up to perform the tasks that they did and c) recruit new users. By using stuff like welcomeroad to make new contributors feel included and connected. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  03:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

List duplication
The numbered highway list articles have two articles : List of highways numbered 155 and Route 155, and it is like that for many of them, should there be two? and if not, maybe one should be redirected to the other. I address this here for you guys work on the highways in the US and are more aware of what to do about that. Lincher 21:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I still have to look at that. The user who was working on that just left and there was a lot of stuff that he did that we all have to pick up. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  06:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's my take: only one article should exist, and it should be "List of highways numbered 155". To use Route 155 as the disambiguation page is just plain wrong for some states, but there's no harm at all to have "Route 155" redirect to "List of highways numbered 155". -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 13:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, just merge them. However, there's another problem that I've been meaning to bring up: miscellaneous people have been adding shield images to the lists, usually going through and adding shields for their state to all the pages. Should we go and put shields next to each highway in the list? I don't think it's necessary and it seems cluttered. Would like others' opinions on this. —Scott5114↗ 21:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added shields for Virginia, and I think it can be useful on a page like that, where different types of highways are being shown. On a list of highways in a state, where they all use the same shield, it is probably not useful, but on a disambiguation page it might help someone find the article they want. --NE2 21:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Overwhelmed
If anybody has any free time on their hands... I'm tied up with all my tasks plus having to assume other ones that departed users did... and meanwhile we keep losing templates to TFD like 3di 16... could someone be monitoring those venues? I usually do that but I just don't have the time anymore. I have 2000 edits on my to do list... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  06:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't believe that the I-16 template was deleted without warning, although after the comments made at Deletion Review regarding the I-H1 template, I'm not surprised. But yes, now that something like this has happened, I'll start checking WP:AFD, WP:TFD, etc. on a daily basis. Hopefully other users will join me in doing so. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 13:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah it was nom'ed by an anon IP and had 1 support vote... we probably should DRV it again. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  17:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This is the template that was used at, right? If so, what was its point? --NE2 21:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Consistent look and feel for all Interstates per WP:IH. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  21:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If that was the only reason to have it, I agree with its deletion. --NE2 21:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The point here is that we should have been alerted. An IP nom and one support vote is not consensus for deletion. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  21:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As I've seen stated before at WP:DRV, there is no requirement to notify WikiProject participants of a deletion. --NE2 21:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I'm saying we need someone to monitor those pages to make sure no highway things get deleted. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  21:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there a quick and easy way to put a large number of articles on your watch list? Since an article has to be tagged before it is deleted, someone would notice it sooner, I check my watchlist regularly. --Holderca1 19:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

New user problems
We need to create a tutorial page on how to write and edit highway articles. We have way too many new users messing up pages and not following WP:MOS or this project and subprojects. This is taking too much time away from stuff that needs to get done (like moving those pages).

Also, could someone review the edits of User:Odyssey19? They have made hundreds of edits that have deleted the prose of the Nevada State Route articles. However, you can't rollback, as they did add an infobox too. I would do it but I have a to-do list of at least 5000 or so edits... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No arguments here when it comes to the need for a tutorial page. The main question would be where to put it? One possibility could be the state highway Manual of Style, or we could draw up a completely new page. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 01:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

browse box
At the bottom of U.S. Route 6's article page, there is a browse box. Nevada's part of the browse box is off, as it uses srbox instead of nv browse. nv browse exists, but is not yet set up like the other states, like ca browse or co browse. Please check and fix for consistency. --Geopgeop 23:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I can take care of this sometime this week. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Done, let me know if problems exist. Also many of the NV articles are ifoboxless and have the older template. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation?
Do we feel that Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-14 U.S. Roads naming fallout is necessary? Is there enough goodwill? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Project U.S. Roads and the assessment table
Recent changes in the way the assessment log table is constructed has expanded the template itself and has made pages where the template is transcluded a mess. Would anyone object to the removal of the assessment table from the sidebar template? -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be bold and replace the table with a wikilink pointing to the table instead. If someone wants to revert or discuss this later, that's perfectly fine. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Browse box coding
For teh California and Nevada browse boxes, the type I've used is "State Route" versus simply "State". Using "State Route" and not automatically having Route appended to the link is helpful because then we don't get "Interstate Route". I'm planning on fixing all of the other ones unless someone objects (and yes, that means fixing each and every single article too...) but it makes for much neater coding.

I'll be making some changes to Infobox road and the browse box coding as it's currently a mess right now. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If coded correctly, just using "State" wouldn't produce "Interstate Route" when using type=Interstate. For example, NY uses "State" and PA uses "PA", but neither produces "Interstate Route" or any other awkward link. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 02:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * How does that work? If that's the case I only need to fix the ones with weird links. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The best way to explain this would be though examples.

!For PA articles (no weird links):
 * Template:Infobox road/PA/link PA is called upon if type=PA is specified. The resulting link is Pennsylvania Route "num".
 * Template:Infobox road/PA/link Interstate is called upon if type=Interstate is specified. The resulting link is Interstate "num" (Pennsylvania).
 * }
 * This is how most browses are now set up, thus avoiding the weird links. An example of one that results in weird links is Template:ct browse, or Template:Infobox CT Route/browse. Note that all of the code is present in this template and not sub-template controlled like PA's (and sticks the "Route" into the link regardless of the type), resulting in the weird links. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 02:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Got it... I hope. CA's and NV's are fixed (I hope) although they use the longer "State Route." The problem is that there is no standard for coding (at CA's I found calls involving two routeboxes!) and so it's a mess. If it didn't mean a lot of work I'd be tempted to just throw everything out and recode it all. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about the standards issue as well for some time. Eventually, what we should do is make it so that the type entry for states is the two-letter abbrevation, for Interstates it should be "Interstate" and for U.S. routes it should be "US". In reality, once all of the browses are switched to the new system (the PA system, so to speak), this standardization will be very easy to perform: all that needs to be done is to move the "Template:Infobox road/../link Foo" to "Template:Infobox road/../link ..". -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 03:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Got it... I hope. CA's and NV's are fixed (I hope) although they use the longer "State Route." The problem is that there is no standard for coding (at CA's I found calls involving two routeboxes!) and so it's a mess. If it didn't mean a lot of work I'd be tempted to just throw everything out and recode it all. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about the standards issue as well for some time. Eventually, what we should do is make it so that the type entry for states is the two-letter abbrevation, for Interstates it should be "Interstate" and for U.S. routes it should be "US". In reality, once all of the browses are switched to the new system (the PA system, so to speak), this standardization will be very easy to perform: all that needs to be done is to move the "Template:Infobox road/../link Foo" to "Template:Infobox road/../link ..". -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 03:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why are you having California's browse display as "Route" instead of "SR/US/I-" like most states?

Also, to TwinsMetsFan -- I believe most states use "U.S." rather than "US" for type. -- NORTH talk 23:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm just speaking from personal experience - all of the state projects that I am an active member in (NY, WV, PA, and VT) use "US" for type. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Basically, it was a huge coding mess, and we're stuck with Route unless someone can fix it :( CA uses US too, as far as I know. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it might be time to do something serious (not WP:SRNC-structured, but something similar) about the coding mess (as I'd be willing to perform the necessary cleanup). I'll expand on my plan for doing so in a new section below. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I can help as well... it'd be good to get this taken care of before CA switches over to the new system... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Sub-articles by state for highways?
Especially in the case of Wisconsin, there seem to be many articles about highways that pass through a state seperate from the main article, such as U.S. Route 10 in Wisconsin. Should these not be merged into the main article about that highway?(U.S. Route 10) This seems very redundant and it would make more sense to put all that info in the main article. Discuss? Dskluz 05:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * They're currently allowed for Interstate/ US Route articles. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The recent trend has been to move info into state-specific detail articles for lengthy Interstates and U.S. highways, one that I agree with. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I originally was against this, but it does make more sense, as long as we don't get Interstate 95 in District of Columbia. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed - The purpose of these sub-articles is to keep the parents from getting exceedingly long. --•  master_son  Lets talk  17:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up. I'll follow this consensus although I don't completely agree. -- Dskluz 21:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Iowa has two different route templates
Just to give two examples, Iowa Highway 92 has 1 going across the bottom, which is listed when you edit it as RouteboxIA and Iowa Highway 175 has one in the upper right which is listed as Infobox road. Which one is proper? DandyDan2007 13:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The one on the right is what's typically used. I've never seen one that goes across the bottom before...which is a bad place for it, as the infobox information generally needs to be at the top of an article, where it can be read first.—Scott5114↗ 15:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That is a lot of text in the route description for IA 92... may I suggest third-level headings to break it up (West Iowa/East Iowa or city-to-city) a bit? Just a suggestion. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 22:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Nebraska Highways
It doesn't appear a project for Nebraska is happening. I'd be interested in doing it, but it just looks so huge. I only ask about Nebraska because I live there. I could also do some for other nearby states as well. DandyDan2007 13:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Basically... duplicate a project page, create all the templates, and there you go. I can help if you wish (I've never been to NE though). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Although I'm not from Nebraska, I've started WikiProject Nebraska Highways, and there's a lot to do. Could use the help of anyone willing. -- Dskluz 03:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Infobox question
So now that most of the highway projects use some form of infobox road (whether called directly or using a template like infobox WA State Route), does it truly matter specifically which template is used?

For example, Interstate 195 (New Jersey) is an interstate highway wholly within New Jersey. Does it have to use infobox Interstate, or is it okay to use infobox road with state=NJ. The only loss of information using infobox_road is the line saying "Auxiliary route...", whereas using the interstate infobox either forces the browsing to the bottom of the article in an srbox, or removes the State highways in New Jersey link from the infobox, replacing it with an out-of-place postal abbreviation.

The "Auxiliary route" line can be added manually using infobox road, so there really is no loss of information necessary -- whereas infobox Interstate can't be modified to use state highway browsing ideally (with the clear header link). -- NORTH talk 09:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The "Auxiliary route" line is set up in a very small text size, whereas the Infobox road's alternate_name line gets the text set up as the normal size. V60 21:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It would be entered as "name_notes" on Infobox road, not "alternate_name". -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In the parameter name_notes, it is still the regular font plus an addition to the name that looks ugly. In fact, the name_notes appears in a regular font without a space right after the road name! V60 21:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is the test that I did:


 * (edit conflict) That's because of the somewhat flawed coding used in Infobox Interstate (and thus Infobox road) to create the line:  route of the Interstate Highway System . -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with using Infobox road (state=NJ) on I-195 - in fact, I'd recommend it. I'm personally in the process of converting intrastate infoboxes in NY (like on Interstate 990) to use Infobox road, so naturally I support this proposal. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 17:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I proposed eliminating the "Auxiliary route" line from Infobox Interstate a while ago so that there would be no difference at all between Infobox road and Infobox Interstate, but that proposal was soundly shot down at Template talk:Infobox Interstate. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 17:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd like to have almost all Interstates use Infobox Interstate, since it would make them look organized and also actually "be part of" WP:IH. I would only want to use Infobox road when the Interstate is multiplexed with another signed route for its entire length. V60 21:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no difference between Infobox Interstate and Infobox road - Infobox Interstate is Infobox road plus some preset parameters. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also on Template talk:Infobox Interstate, they got rid of the "browse numbered routes" section since it was huge. I'm going to revive that old discussion, since this has to do with the intrastate Interstate situation here. V60 21:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure what relevance that section has to this...we've already dealt with browsing earlier on this page. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So can I switch back to infobox road on I-195 as long as I include the name_notes= parameter? Also, can I fix WP:IH and other project pages to reflect this? -- NORTH talk 19:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No objections here. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * California's done the same idea for a long time. For example, Interstate 605 and Interstate 805 both use CA routeboxes. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I would make this a per-project call... I've gone on the assumption that intrastate 3dis should look and feel like 2di Interstate / U.S. Route articles, but that's entirely personal opinion. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 21:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I got this to work; any comments? V60 22:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The same thing can be done by using "state=PA", "type=Interstate", and adding the Auxiliary line to "name_notes". -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes -- the directions should be switched (south-to-north/west-to-east), as opposed to your example, but barring that, I don't have a problem with it. --Mhking 22:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I know, that was my bad. It looks more PA'ish than it does, what do you think, TMF? V60 22:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * See my comment two indents above. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I went and checked the Interstate 195 (New Jersey) article, and I found something that isn't right. The I-195 shield is way too small and should follow the size set in Infobox Interstate. Comments before using Infobox Interstate but still retaining NJ Route links? V60 22:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. If my comments above didn't make it clear, I DISAGREE WITH THE USE OF LINK AND MAIN TEMPLATES WHEN STATE AND TYPE PARAMETERS DO THE SAME THING. (puts away megaphone) -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Simmer down. The thing is, sometimes the shield sizes used in Infobox road may not be the right size that is defined in Infobox Interstate.  Your setting in Infobox road for the New York interstates, but the New Jersey ones are a bit small. V60 23:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with TMF... for example on Interstate 99 the main template should not be transcluded. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I-99 now uses Infobox road with the "state=PA" and "type=Interstate" parameters. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 02:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

New Infobox Interstate sub-template work in progress
On my personal sandbox tailored for template construction, I am currently in the process of creating a new sub-template of Infobox Interstate with some attributes tailored for Intrastate Interstates. Right now, it is an absolute disaster with the sample infobox, but should not look like that once I (or somebody else) gets the juices flowing. Comments are appreciated in this section. V60 02:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And why is this necessary again? -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 02:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is simply not needed. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this right or proper or...
It seems to me that half of the posts I see on route article talk pages are along the lines of "How long does it take to get from A to B" or "Really? I thought that it was the other way around..." Frankly it's starting to get annoying. There's a reference desk for that sort of thing. But what do we do about it though? We can't slap a tag on all the pages and say "This is for discussing the article not the road..." --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 07:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say add talkheader to the articles in question and remove the off-topic comments. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that I understand, you say that the talk page is for discussing the article not the road, but the article is about the road, how can you talk about the article without talking about the road? I feel I am missing something though.  --Holderca1 20:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Rschen7754 is referring to the encyclopedic article about the road; not unencyclopedic issues relating to the roadway such as his example of "How long does it take to get from A to B?" With regards to the second example, however, there can be some use to those "other way around" comments -- they often help to spot the factual inaccuracies that can be quite prevalent in some Wikipedia articles. --Thisisbossi 21:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

New subprojects subproject
I've created WikiProject U.S. Roads/Subprojects. I could use help in perfecting the new project mechanism though... (To test it choose a state that has no project and create it. Then tag it for speedy when you're done.) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

New precedents subproject
I've created it at WP:USRD/P to hold a list of old debates for future reference. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Alabama Highways
I have been working on creating articles for Alabama highways as of late and decided to start a WikiProject. I am very new to this and simply used another state as a template but would love to make this the definitive source for Alabama highways on the net. Love to see contributions from all those interested in the byways of the Heart of Dixie!

Here it is: WikiProject Alabama Highways - Patriarca12 16:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

If giving a description of route,
Should you go west-to-east or east-to-west? South-to-north or north-to-south? I would assume you begin at the west and the south, but I see some written the other way. DandyDan2007 13:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * They should be W-E and S-N; those that are not are the rare (and often incorrect) exception. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 16:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Template for Exit/Junction Lists
I just created a template to help ease the creation of exit and junction lists, as of right now it is specific for Texas highways, but I can always change it to make it more general if there is interest in it. There is one item that I need to work on is the image size for 3di routes, but I will get to that soon enough. Comments are welcome. --Holderca1 20:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan to me. The only comment I have is that these templates should be subst:ed for future editing (, for example). Also, to fix the 3di route issue, make the image size 25x20px instead of just 20px - that'll clear it up. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Took care of the image size, just added directions if needed:
 * --Holderca1 22:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan to me. The only comment I have is that these templates should be subst:ed for future editing (, for example). Also, to fix the 3di route issue, make the image size 25x20px instead of just 20px - that'll clear it up. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Took care of the image size, just added directions if needed:
 * --Holderca1 22:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan to me. The only comment I have is that these templates should be subst:ed for future editing (, for example). Also, to fix the 3di route issue, make the image size 25x20px instead of just 20px - that'll clear it up. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Took care of the image size, just added directions if needed:
 * --Holderca1 22:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan to me. The only comment I have is that these templates should be subst:ed for future editing (, for example). Also, to fix the 3di route issue, make the image size 25x20px instead of just 20px - that'll clear it up. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Took care of the image size, just added directions if needed:
 * --Holderca1 22:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * --Holderca1 22:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * --Holderca1 22:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * --Holderca1 22:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I ran into a problem subst: this template, with all the embedded templates and #if functions, it creates a mess. --Holderca1 23:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. When I get back from my Wikibreak, I'll take a look at it and I'll see if there might be a shortcut around the numerous parameters. Who knows, maybe there's a little used parser function for this purpose? -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps an option for bannered routes (business, alt, etc?) --•  master_son <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #aca607!important;"> Lets talk  00:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could have just a national Template:Junction, with the type parameter being the postal abbrevation for the state for state highways (eg, for a New Mexico state highway, have the type be NM, for Oklahoma, OK)? Also, how about a space in between the shields? —Scott5114↗ 05:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I was planning on working on making it more national, only problem with your suggestion is that if you notice above that the link for I-10 doesn't point to Interstate 10 it points to Interstate 10 (Texas), so the state identifier would have to point to a set of links rather than just the state highway link. Also, all the exit lists that I have seen do not put a space between the shields.  --Holderca1 12:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, working on making this work for every state, the biggest problem I am running into is that not every state is using infobox road, so when this template tries to pull from one of those templates, it gets an empty template. I created a few just for testing, but until all of those are created, this can't be used for every state. This version is still in my sandbox for now until I am sure all the kinks have been worked out. Here is a sample though (note this is not a real junction, just an example of the results it gives):

--Holderca1 15:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm currently working on standardizing the browse function for every state, which will eventually lead to the creation of the Infobox road parameters for every state. As for when this will be completed, I have no idea, but it will happen eventually. As for the substing issue (which appears to become worse with this version, unfortunately), there must be some kind of a workaround to it. Sub-templates (a la infobox road and its many subs), possibly? -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I got it to work if I simplified it quite a bit by removing all the parsar functions, and subst the embedded templates as well. But, I run into another problem, we need a whole lot of redirects for it to work, see this for example:, [[Image:Texas 90.svg|25x20px]] State Highway 90, without the switch command to switch TX to Texas, it runs into a dead link, since the typical parenthetical disambiguation uses the state spelled our rather than the abbreviation.  I don't think this will work by subst.  --Holderca1 20:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Changes to Infobox road
See Template talk:Infobox road. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles on Allentown (PA) roads
Just a heads-up: a proposal to merge Cedar Crest Boulevard, Lehigh Street, and Tilghman Street, three non-notable streets in the Allentown, Pennsylvania area, into a single Roads of Allentown, Pennsylvania article was offered on December 19 by myself, but removed only nine days later by an editor who appears to have an Allentown bias. Opinions on the merge proposal (which I believe is still active despite the lack of tags) is appreciated at Talk:Roads of Allentown, Pennsylvania. Thanks. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer to write articles. --NE2 19:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)