Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 9

USRD scope
I believe that we should release city street articles from USRD when city wikiprojects (like WikiProject Chicago) exist to maintain them. The reasons for this are:


 * Most USRD editors don't know much about the streets in question and so are not in a position to improve those articles
 * Most USRD editors are too involved with state highway projects to help city street articles
 * USRD is focused on highways
 * City streets have a local focus and are a better fit at the city WikiProject
 * City projects probably have more time and desire to maintain the articles than USRD

So basically I'm suggesting that we remove the USRD tag when a city project exists to maintain it. What are everyone else's thoughts on this? —Scott5114↗ 17:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I support this. -- M PD T / C 18:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No problems here. I would like to see a setup of how each type of road and which project gets control over writing style.  It would help when we see multiple projects having oversight.   --Mihsfbstadium 18:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It would kind of depend. E.g., U.S. Route 12 in Illinois could be formatted according to WP:USRD guidelines. U.S. Route 41 in Illinois is too, but I have hesitated to bring elements of that article into Lake Shore Drive. Interstate Highways are probably best formatted under WP:IH guidelines, regardless of whether or not they're wholly contained in a city. (I'm thinking of I-238, or the like.) &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 18:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well here's what I was thinking: numbered routes can be maintained by (read:follow the guidlines of) USRD, whether in a state or a city, including state-specific articles. "Main Street (Anytown, Some State)" may be part of "State Route 3", and may have its own article.  "Main Street" can be maintained by an appropriate town/city/state project, while "State Route 3" can be maintained by USRD, with of course the appropriate links and small mentions to Main Street.  Interstates, yes, should be maintained by USRD regardless of whether they are wholly in a city.  For state routes that are located entirely within a city that has an project.  -- M PD T / C 18:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm only talking about city street articles that have nothing to do with any numbered highway, so yes, we'd still maintain State Route 3. :) —Scott5114↗ 00:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

City arterials should be removed from USRD as they are beyond the scope, expertise, and time of USRD and its editors. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nicely phrased. —Scott5114↗ 00:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Would we be changing the project name to "U.S. roads except those which project members don't care about"? I don't know how you're going to split it. Would Storrow Drive be only under WikiProject Boston? Would West Side Highway (the new arterial, not the old elevated freeway) be only under WikiProject NYC? Would Ridge Route be only under WikiProject California? --NE2 02:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be up to the project wanting it. As for Ridge Route, it is not a city street and would stay with USRD. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Projects aren't monolithic entities that can "want" things; ideally they have clearly defined scopes: WP:NYC covers everything relating to New York City; WP:USRD covers all roads in the U.S. If we're going to change the scope, we need to be clear on what it's being changed to. --NE2 02:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Based on what Scott is saying, I would think that these three examples would still be under USRD as they are or have been state roads. More appropriate examples for discussion might be Boylston Street in Boston and Madison Avenue in NYC, where the city projects would probably be able to add more content. That said, we do need to clarify what USRD's scope is. --Polaron | Talk 02:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw the mention of Lake Shore Drive above and went from there. Assuming the numbered route connection (or do you mean state roads as in state maintenance?), part of Boylston Street was once Route C9 . What about Wacker Drive? I'm pretty sure that never carried any numbered routes, but is an important predecessor to the freeway concept. --NE2 02:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree the road is important. I don't think the current structure as recommended by USRD right now fits for that article; a great portion of it in the future will be devoted to its construction and how it and what eventually become the El were built. For now, Wacker Drive is just one of a few dozen unassociated Chicago arterial road articles (there's a flippin' list in the article), and for now, that's acceptable. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 19:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't this conversation be better served for state level road WPs? --Son 16:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really; this is a discussion on what USRD's scope is. State highway projects have their own scope, which will not be affected from this discussion - at least from what I understand. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 19:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's my point - city streets shouldn't even be a USRD discussion. To make a comparison, the hierarchy of USRD should operate like the United States operates.  The national government deals primarily with national roads; the national government also "encourages" a national speed limit.  State government deals with state wide routes, county routes, or the LRS in Pennsylvania.  Municipal governments deals primarily with local routes that are not numbered.
 * USRD should make sure that all road articles in the United States operate under a uniform concept. WP:IH and WP:USH already (for lack of a better word) "control" national routes; state WPs should (for lack of a better word) "control" state routes and county routes (with the exception of those projects that already exist for county routes), and those projects decide if consensus is to monitor municipal roads.  --Son 21:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I just thought of something. If we do release these articles from the project, we'd have to kick the newly-approved WP:USRD/NT guidelines out to projectspace somewhere. Otherwise, people could write articles about any old street. —Scott5114↗ 04:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This could be a big problem, since our last attempts on getting a notability guideline passed failed because of possible instruction creep.  O 2 (息 • 吹) 04:41, 12 October 2007 (GMT)
 * I don't see the relevancy. If we kick city arterials out of the USRD scope (of which I still don't think it is currently, it should be determined by the state WPs), who cares if someone writes about any old street.  It wouldn't be of concern to USRD as it would be outside of the project scope.  --Son 13:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like, as usual, NE2 is the only dissenting voice. Anybody else against this proposal, or shall we start removing tags? —Scott5114↗ 17:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You have to define the new scope first, and probably rename the project, since it will no longer be about U.S. roads. --NE2 19:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with NE2, the name of the project is U.S. Roads, not U.S. Numbered Highways. I honestly don't understand the point of this discussion.  It is acceptable for an article to fall under multiple projects.  --Holderca1 13:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, I explained the points at the top of the section. Is there one in particular you don't understand? —Scott5114↗ 16:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Uh", it's possible to understand and disagree. --NE2 17:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand the points above, but I will address them individually I suppose
 * Most USRD editors don't know much about the streets in question and so are not in a position to improve those articles - seems like a bad assumption to me, using this logic, if we don't have any editors familiar with New Mexico highways we should drop them from the project
 * Most USRD editors are too involved with state highway projects to help city street articles - true, but don't think that is a valid point to remove these, just means we need more editors
 * USRD is focused on highways - so then why is it called US Roads? There are a lot of numbered highways that are nothing more than a city street, wouldn't say that they are highways
 * City streets have a local focus and are a better fit at the city WikiProject - okay, but there is nothing preventing multiple projects from working on the article
 * City projects probably have more time and desire to maintain the articles than USRD - bad assumption, depends on the city (big cities will have a lot of articles) and the number of active editors involved in that particular project
 * Although, I disagree from removing these, I don't see anything stopping a state road project from including these in their scope. --Holderca1 19:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

How is this for a scope:
 * All roads in the United States that have been built for, marked for, or used by through traffic. [Also related topics like DOTs, map companies...]

This removes the truly local roads that are more "streets" than "roads", while keeping those that have been or are used by through traffic, such as Wacker Drive. --NE2 13:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion discussion
Articles for deletion/Brockway Mountain Drive --NE2 13:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The new "multiplex": decommissioned?
Someone brought up on Talk:Decommissioned highway that the term is unsourced. I figured "sure, I'll just find a DOT that uses it", but I couldn't find anything. Can people please comment on possible alternatives, or find a source that I missed? Thank you. --NE2 15:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a neologism. Decommission means "to revoke the the commission of" (Webster's New World), with commission meaning "an official certificate conferring a rank" or "the rank or authority conferred". So basically, when a highway is decommissioned, its rank as part of the highway system is revoked. —Scott5114↗ 17:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Except that the few non-roadgeek sources I see talking about decommissioning of a highway are about closing and tearing it up. --NE2 19:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's not a neologism since the word decommission has been around for many years. --Son 05:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not in this usage; see Reference desk/Language. --NE2 08:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But over there, you only asked people who hadn't seen it before if they could figure out what it meant. People who have seen it and who understood it on first reading, like me, were excluded from the "survey".  I agree with Scott above.  --Anon, 09:40 UTC, October 17, 2007.
 * Our articles are written for a general audience. --NE2 09:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And if people want to know what decommission means, they can open a dictionary. --Son 14:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And then they'll think that the road was "removed from service" or "shut down", i.e. closed. --NE2 14:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Because the route was removed from service, or shut down. The roadbed usually still exists, but the designation was removed. Decommissioned battleships often exist after their decommissioning, but are not in active service. Decommissioned highways often exist as local roads after their decommissioning, but are not in active service in the state highway system. —Scott5114↗ 21:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "The use of neologisms should be avoided in Wikipedia articles because they are not well understood, are not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people." The reference desk showed this; some people did think the road was closed. --NE2 21:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, we can link to decommissioned highway to clear up any confusion. This is clearly definable, as we've done so in the linked article as well as over and over above.—Scott5114↗ 22:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Do you have an alternative term that could be used that isn't clunky or awkward? -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In categories and lists, "former state highway" works. When talking about the action, "turned back" or "transferred" to the local authorities works, or "became a county road/city street", or "removed from the state highway system", or "stopped being a state highway"... "Turned back" is probably best for infoboxes. --NE2 22:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would be better if the infobox entry was combined into a single "active" row of something similar. "Turned back" doesn't seem obvious in an infobox without context. I'm also not a big fan of a lot of those alternatives. "Removed from the state highway system" is really the only one that is palatable to me. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's probably a good idea; "turned back" doesn't work anyway since it may have been absorbed by another route. --NE2 22:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

TXDOT uses cancelled or removed from State Highway System. --Holderca1 13:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I'm not sure we should remove it. "decommission: to remove (as a ship or nuclear power plant) from service — Merriam-Webster Dictionary". --  J A 10  Talk • Contribs 22:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's been addressed above; that seems to imply that the highway was closed. --NE2 22:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh lol, then I got nothing. 8-P --  J A 10  Talk • Contribs 22:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with NE2. Relating to this, this news story demonstrates the differences of autonomy, another ambiguous word that has different interpretations for different people.  This is the same principle as the "decommissioned" one we have laid out on the table right now.  O 2 (息 • 吹) 22:37, 18 October 2007 (GMT)
 * At NYSR, it replced it with deleted. This is even worse, as deleted implies that something is no longer in existence. While I personally cannot think of a better word, at least decomissioned better applies to the situation than deleted, even if it is a neologism. And neologisms that do apply are better than non-neologisms which don't. Smartyllama 20:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I frankly don't understand why the term was removed. This discussion wasn't concluded and consensus was not reached to remove the term. --  J A 10  Talk • Contribs 20:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't need "consensus" to improve articles. If you don't think the removal of a misleading neologism improves the article, you're wrong. --NE2 21:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Deleted means the the designation is no longer in existence. Guess what... it isn't. --NE2 21:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm reverting your edits to all pages on my watchlist. You don't have consensus for this. —Scott5114↗ 21:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Many of us disagree with this. We have to let this discussion conclude first. --  J A 10  Talk • Contribs 21:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

"Decommissioned" is the best way to specify what happened. Deleted makes it sound like the road was destroyed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Alternative words that can be used are "Deactivated", "Inactive", "Retired", or the article can be called "Highways withdraw from active service", though that's quite long.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I have started a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways. Can we please discuss this calmly? --NE2 23:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

"Interstate 92"
You may want to look at Interstate 92 and East-West Highway (New England) and possibly comment at Talk:East-West Highway (New England). --NE2 00:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiWork by project
I've calculated the WikiWork statistics for each state based on the article counts on the Subprojects status table. You can find these at WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/Subprojects. Some of the notable points:


 * Pennsylvania has the most work that needs to be done. (ω = 2230)
 * Nevada gets the title of "worst project". 210 stub, 4 start, 0 B. (Ω = 4.891). Nevada has no editors at the moment.
 * New York gets the title of "best project". 281 stub, 61 start, 166 B. (Ω = 4.226). New York also has a lot of room to improve, with second-highest ω after PA.
 * Close seconds are North Carolina, and, surprisingly, Kansas, which is because most of KS has yet to be written.
 * South Carolina only has 20 articles.
 * New York has the most B class articles, followed by PA and New Jersey. Thirteen states have no B class articles at all.

The table is sortable, so you can see where your favorite project falls in. Congratulations to WP:NYSR's editors for their hard work! —Scott5114↗ 11:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The ω value might be misleading at the moment since many projects don't even have close to half their articles created. It might be useful to add the percentage of primary state routes that have articles in the table and/or to count uncreated articles as stubs. --Polaron | Talk 12:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What about California? It's tied with Kansas... ;) --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

How is the data pulled? There is a glitch in it somewhere, Texas has more than 1 B class article. --Holderca1 13:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but it does not include named highways. —Scott5114↗ 16:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way to find all of the articles listed as a certain class in a state? --NE2 22:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You could probably use AWB or some other tool to look for Talk pages with the USRD template that have "state=XX" and "class=xxx". This should be able to capture even the named roads. I've been mainly dumping the category by quality lists in a spreadsheet and counting the numbered routes. --Polaron | Talk 22:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Would it be a good idea to add categories for the active subprojects, like "B-class Virginia highway articles"? --NE2 23:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There actually should be cats for every individual project, AFAIK. As we create more road articles, the parent category is going to get overpopulated.  O 2 (息 • 吹) 23:14, 22 October 2007 (GMT)
 * Overpopulation has nothing to do with it; that category is necessary for WP:1.0 assessment of USRD as a whole. That said, we're probably at the stage where additional by-state categories would be useful. Texas has been doing just that for some time. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I edited the template to make Virginia categories appear; other states are easy to add (just add "|NC" before "|VA="). --NE2 23:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion discussion
Articles for deletion/Unconstructed freeways in Florida --NE2 01:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Is any map better than none at all?
See U.S. Route 67 in Illinois. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 21:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks fine as long as it's something and there's no better map available (and it's accurate!). See Interstate 40 in North Carolina.  It says we need a map; doesn't attest to the quality.  Although should a better map become available, it should be replaced. -- M PD T / C 22:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's shamelessly swiped from Image:US 67 map.png, so as long as that's accurate, no problems there. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 15:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think no map is better than. --NE2 06:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about browsing in infoboxes
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Infoboxes and Navigation --NE2 18:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion discussion № 4

 * See Articles for deletion/Shepard Road/Warner Road. —Scott5114↗ 22:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Contraflow lane reversal
Is that really the best title of an article? Doesn't "contraflow" imply "revers[ed]"?

How about we merge the content from it, express lanes and the non-surface street part of reversible lane into a new reversible roadway (or similar) article? It seems like they are all about the same idea--changing the direction of grade/barrier-separated travel lanes--and that there's a big difference between those and less-controlled/structured reversed lanes on surface streets, as well as passing and left-turn lanes.

Also, regarding express lanes, if there is only one express lane/roadway (its not part of a local-express lanes setup), its generally going to be reversible. Jason McHuff 09:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, contraflow lane reversal is the official name of it (see FDOT), especially referring to emergency reversal. Contraflow is generally temporary (though KDOT will use contraflow for about a year on a freeway while the other carriageway is torn out and replaced.) Express lanes and reversible HOV lanes are permanent structures that serve a different purpose. —Scott5114↗ 22:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Moving discussion to Talk:Contraflow lane reversal Jason McHuff 05:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion discussion № 5

 * See Articles for deletion/Grant Street. —Scott5114↗ 12:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of major highway bridges and tunnels of South Hampton Roads region of Virginia --NE2 19:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Cross-Harbor Highway Tunnel (2nd nomination) --NE2 06:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Utah/Completion list
G'day from Oz. I have been working in the aviation side of things fixing links to the Beechcraft King Air article, one of which is U-21 (a US Military designation for certain King Air models). U-21 is linked from the WikiProject U.S. Roads/Utah/Completion list. Looking at this list, the links for U-1, U-2 etc. are not to roads at all (U-2 is an obvious example); the majority of working links are to articles about German U-boats. Perhaps some of you who are active in this area can decide what to do with the list and fix it up a bit. YSSYguy 07:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like a case for disambiguation. --NE2 07:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Photo request: Cross Bronx Expressway
If anybody has any photos of the Cross Bronx Expressway, can you please upload them and add them to commons:Category:Cross Bronx Expressway? Thank you. --NE2 07:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

History & route description swap?
The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Manual of Style.  O2  (息 • 吹) 10:34, 05 November 2007 (GMT)

Deletion discussion № 6
Both are random streets in Queens. —Scott5114↗ 14:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Cross Bay Boulevard
 * Articles for deletion/Woodhaven Boulevard
 * No, they're very major streets. Looking at a map would show you immediately that Cross Bay is notable. --NE2 16:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's hold on a second here. I remember a discussion about turning city streets over to city Wikiprojects exclusively.  What was the result of that discussion?  Now we are nominating them for deletion based off criteria of a few editors and claiming that it is guideline?  How nuts are we willing to go here?  See Category:Streets in Manhattan, seems like a lot of work if you plan on deleting them all.  --Holderca1talk 16:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As they're tagged with USRD, I look into them to see what class they should be assessed as. If I don't feel they're notable enough to have an article (based on reading the article) I nom them for deletion. If they truly aren't notable enough, they get deleted, otherwise, it provokes someone into improving the article to prove it's notable. So I suppose it's good for our assessment stats either way.


 * As far as I could tell, the spin-off idea wasn't going anywhere. Quite a few people complained.


 * Springfield, MO, the city I'm in right now, has about fifteen arterials (I'm sure I'm missing out on a few) and very few of them are remarkable in any way. One of them is Battlefield Road. One of Springfield's most famous residents, Mr. John Q. Hammons, got into a spat with the city council over widening Battlefield Road. So I could cite that from a copy of John Q.'s biography. Does that make Battlefield important enough to have an article? I'm not sure without taking a full scale dive into searching, but I'm guessing not. I doubt anything very interesting ever happened on Grand St., or Sunset, or Sunshine, or Fremont.


 * Springfield is a small city. Imagine if we had an article for all the streets in all the cities in the U.S. - even if all the cities in the world were the same size as Spfd., we'd have a sizeable amount of articles. I'm sure Oklahoma City has around 30 of them. And of course, New York City probably has hundreds. Who has the time to maintain all of these articles, up into the thousands? Certainly not anyone around here! I'm trying to get 129 OK articles up to B-Class, and the MO articles desperately need help, and then Kansas has no editors. And then of course I have classes and sleep and TV and friends and having to go buy food...it's a mess and by having more articles we're just digging a deeper and deeper hole. I feel that we've got enough on our plates with the numbered routes that we're just going to overtax ourselves worse by adding these onto the stack. —Scott5114↗ 18:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you seen this essay: WP:STREET. Pretty interesting, it states that a city should have an article for one street for every 50,000 people.  So Springfield would have an article on its three most major streets.  Doesn't sound unreasonable to me.  --Holderca1talk 20:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Coincidentally, MoDOT has made them state highways. How convenient. ;) 146.7.40.71 20:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC) (Scott5114 logged out)

GIS data and data extraction for lengths
If any other state has their data solely in GIS format and can only be read by ArcView or something similar (thanks, Illinois), I might be able to help things along by extracting all that data.

So far it's helped determine that U.S. 51 is the longest highway in Illinois, not U.S. 45. Whoops.

The details are here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Lengths/Illinois. I'm absolutely certain each state's GIS data is different, but the process should be the same - run data file through a program that converts it to comma-separated values, then import into database of your choice. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 23:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Reminder from USRD
In response to a few issues that came up, we are giving a reminder to all state highway wikiprojects and task forces:


 * 1) Each project needs to remain aware of developments at WT:USRD and subpages to ensure that each project is aware of decisions / discussions that affect that project. It is impossible to notify every single project about every single discussion that may affect it. Therefore, it is the state highway wikiproject's responsiblity to monitor discussions.
 * 2) If a project does not remain aware of such developments and complains later, then there is most likely nothing USRD can do about it.
 * 3) USRD, in most to nearly all cases, will not interfere with a properly functioning state highway wikiproject. All projects currently existing are "properly functioning" for the purposes mentioned here. All task forces currently existing are not "properly functioning" (that is why they are task forces). Departments of USRD (for example, MTF, shields, assessment, INNA) may have specific requirements for the state highway wikiprojects, but complaints regarding those need to be taken up with those departments.
 * 4) However, this is a reminder that USRD standards need to be followed by the state highway wikiprojects, regardless of the age of the wikiproject.

Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 05:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems somewhat ironic that you posted a message noting the impossibility of notifying every state project to the talk page for every state project. - Algorerhythms 05:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's taking half an hour to do! Especially when I have so much else to do! I'm only doing this once. You want to try and do it yourself, be my guest. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think at the very least a link should be placed here to any discussion occuring on one of the subpages. For example I didn't even know about the MoS subpage or Notability subpage until just recently.  --Holderca1talk 17:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed that when an important decision is being debated a link should be placed on this page to raise awareness. But all of the subpages are listed on the navbox on the main project page, and the notability page is the very first link at the very top of this page, next to the huge red stop sign, so...—Scott5114↗ 18:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't forget about the link to the notability page located near the very top of the Project U.S. Roads template, which is transcluded on every subproject... -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 18:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and if this has to do with the city streets notability thing, note that I did place a link here, you can find proof in Archive 8 of this page. —Scott5114↗ 18:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking back you did post a link, but you also marked it a guideline the same day, which was thankfully reverted. As far as the template, I didn't know it was going to be used as a method to notify people of discussions, thus I never added the template to my watchlist.  Also, I didn't realize it was a different notability page than the one we had several months ago that died and was marked historical. --Holderca1talk 18:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Marked the bit that had stood for months with no objection as a guideline, yes. Please don't misrepresent my actions. Again, this is part of being active in the project; especially when the discussion is being held on-wiki, and a link is being posted to the main project talk page, you should go and at least skim through the discussion to see if anything's being discussed that interests you. If we waited to take action until it dawned on everyone that something was happening, it would take months to get anything done.
 * Random idea: just to ensure nothing like this happens again, perhaps we should have 'discussion feed' that we add a link to every time there's a discussion. You can subscribe to the history of any wiki page as an RSS feed, so whenever a new discussion is added, you can be notified. —Scott5114↗ 00:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As noted above it is possible to notify every state group, and can be done in minutes by splitting it up among a few people or seconds with a bot. The bigger issue is not letting people know THAT a decision has been made, but HOW these decisions are made in the first place. The methodology of having five people getting together in a room (or talk page of a project subpage) and deciding for everyone else doesn't work. These subcommittees should be coming up with proposed guidelines that are offered to the entire group and properly announced for discussion on the next WP:USRD newsletter. What has been determined is that the command and control method used to create the WP:USRD/NT policy on city streets has been completely and utterly rejected as a principle by the participants at the AfDs for Cross Bay Boulevard and Woodhaven Boulevard. Not a single person looked at the sole justification proffered as a reason to delete either of the articles. Even the lone delete vote ignored this so-called guideline. The process is broken. I have announced it here, so I don't need to notify anyone else. It's time that we learned the lesson that "solutions" imposed top down onto the masses will not be accepted as the gospel truth if there is no process to build consensus. What we have here is a failure to communicate, not TO the members of teh group, but WITH the entire WP:USRD membership. Alansohn 18:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * But when this has to be done nearly every day, this is just stupid. If you believe you can do a better job, then feel free to give a shot at it. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding city streets
Okay, we need to do something about city streets once and for all. I proposed transferring the articles to the city wikiproject, and it seemed a quite a few people liked that but many didn't, including NE2, and thus it fell apart. We have a notability criteria, but nobody seems to like it, despite the fact that nobody complaining commented on the discussion when we had it. So we have three options here:


 * Refine the notability criteria
 * If we can get consensus, transfer the articles to the city WikiProject
 * Spin the articles off to a new WikiProject like "WikiProject U.S. Streets" or something

The last one seems the most palatable to me. That way, people who like editing urban arterials can continue, define their own notability criteria, assessment, importance, and what have you, while this project can focus on highways (things with route numbers), like it was meant to (The 'U.S. Roads' name is a historical artifact caused by 'U.S. Highways' being used for the routes at the time.) If you think about it, it makes sense, because they don't have need for shields or junction lists or anything, and would probably be served better by specialized editors who care more about the subject. The U.S. Streets would be more like a sister project than a child project for this reason. —Scott5114↗ 18:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The third option is the best of the three in my opinion. I'd give my rationale for it, but your post just about summed it up better than I can. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 18:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * US Streets is a sister project of USRD, but I'd thing it'd be a good subproject for WP:CITY. I agree with TMF.  If not, transferring those articles to the city WP is my second choice. -- M PD T / C 18:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I like the third option. It could be a descendant of USRD and CITY.  O2  (息 • 吹) 20:49, 08 November 2007 (GMT)
 * Third option... I do wonder if we should adjust the naming, however. This would be confusing. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, we first need to come up with criteria for whether something is part of USRD. I suggested one above: "All roads in the United States that have been built for, marked for, or used by through traffic." The other issue is whether people will actually be working on the WikiProject, or if it's just a "garbage bin" for us to dump "undesirable" articles into. If the latter, we're better off not putting any tag on than giving it the appearance of being part of a project. --NE2 11:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Mitchazenia has expressed interest in editing there on IRC, and I'm sure more than a few people would find it interesting. It would probably draw a different crowd than USRD though, but that's the point. I think the line would be somewhere around USRD takes past and present numbered routes, along with most freeways; USST would take ordinary named streets. Which I suppose is basically what you're saying. Of course, if there's any overlap between USRD and USST, we can tag them with both projects' tags. The main point here is giving the articles a place where they can shine as the focus of attention, rather than remaining at USRD as low-importance. —Scott5114↗ 15:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd be interested as well and willing to help set up the project. --Holderca1talk 17:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "Numbered routes" eliminates many old turnpike roads, which were built for through traffic, as well as roads like Wacker Drive and Atlantic Avenue (Brooklyn). --NE2 00:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm, yes, I believe the turnpikes should stay in USRD, but Wacker and Atlantic should be transferred to the new project. —Scott5114↗ 00:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree; those roads are highways that carry through traffic. --NE2 00:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Carry through traffic' is quite difficult to prove without a traffic study; perhaps they were designed to do so when they were built, but I'm sure most through traffic in Chicago follows the interstates now. In any case, our standards and so forth don't apply very well to this sort of street, which is part of the reason for creating the new project. —Scott5114↗ 00:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Our standards apply just as well if the state designated it as part of a numbered route or not. Going with current or former numbered routes leads to a strange situation where First Avenue (Manhattan) and Second Avenue (Manhattan) are in our scope but Atlantic Avenue (Brooklyn) is not. As for carrying through traffic, we can judge that based on a map. This isn't an article; we can do original research. Wall Street, for instance, is clearly not a through road, while Canal Street is. --NE2 00:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject U.S. Streets has been created. Go sign up! :) —Scott5114↗ 02:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

How about 8 Mile Road? It's a very major road, but that aspect is covered in M-102. Maybe we should merge M-102 into 8 Mile? --NE2 04:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say keep them separate, as 8 Mile is notable in its own right for being the dividing line between things, and having a movie named after it, and so forth. —Scott5114↗ 04:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's why I'm suggesting a merge of M-102 into 8 Mile; it's much better known as 8 Mile. --NE2 05:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion discussion
Articles for deletion/Roadgeek --NE2 01:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

IRC
Hey, does anyone know how to connect to the IRC channel via Konversation (I'm switching over to Linux)? --Son 06:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, until recently I used Konversation. Go to File → Server List, click New, for the name type Freenode, then under Servers click Add, and add . Then on the server list, highlight Freenode, and click Connect, and you should be connected. Another good Linux client is XChat. —Scott5114↗ 07:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion regarding newsletter format
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Newsletter - have an individual page for each article like WP:POST? Or status quo? --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Are commissioned and decommissioned neologisms?
I've noticed that some editors are going through and rewording articles that use commissioned and decommissioned on the basis of neologisms. Are they really? I don't see how decommissioning a road has a different meaning from decommissioning a ship, military officer, internet server or whatever. I'm writing specifically on U.S. Route 91 where the sentence was changed from The route has been largely decommissioned in favor of Interstate 15 to The route has been largely deleted in favor of Interstate 15. IMO deleted doesn't sound right, if there is a consensus I'd prefer to revert. Opinions?Davemeistermoab (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Go to here decommissioned discussion hope that helps Seddon69 (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Wow, looks like a near cat-fight happened over there. Sometimes ignorance is bliss =-) I would argue that decommissioned is intentionally vague and that's the point. Using my example above, decommissioning a ship also doesn't make it clear if the ship has been dismantled, retired from service, retired from its primary duty but still doing other duties, or ownership transferred to a lesser entity. But now that I know where the discussion is occurring I'll take it thereDavemeistermoab (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia
If you're not familiar with Uncyclopedia, and you're not in the mood for Wikipedia, you may want to check it out and help with the road content. I added Interstate 99, and would like to know if it's "funny and not just stupid", as they say there. --NE2 23:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I poked around the website a bit and was considering writing something on the Pennsylvania Turnpike, but it looks like that site has an even higher density of vandals than Wikipedia. - Algorerhythms (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

TN WikiProject?

 * See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Subprojects. —Scott5114↗ 08:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh no...
Do we really need Category:Unused highways lists and its members? --NE2 14:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good way to keep them organized. I don't have a problem with it.  The article is good to have, but the category makes easier navagation.  --Son (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess my concern is over whether we need all the articles. I've never been convinced of the point of listing all current and former ramp stubs and other unused highways. --NE2 17:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Before splitting, the main article stood up to at least 2 or 3 AFDs. Given the uniformity of the material presented, I'd have a hard time believing that New York's unused roads are more notable than North Carolina's.  Mbisanz (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If we do go down the deletion route, we should contact a roadgeek site like AAHighways or Kurumi to see if they want it. It's interesting even if it's not encyclopedic enough for Wikipedia. —Scott5114↗ 22:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, addressing the usefulness issue, I could see someone Google Mapping some part of PA, wondering why there is a road in the middle of nowhere, and then coming here and finding it on the list. The original page was too large and some parts like the UK, were written with an American-centric focus.  Once they were split into manageable sizes, it only seemed to make sense to categorize them, unless I'm missing something about categories.  Mbisanz (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My personal preference would be to move the information to applicable articles on a single route then get rid of the lists. Compiling every former or unused roadway in a massive list is likely of little interest to anyone outside of roadgeeks, and is attempting to tie together roads that really aren't related. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, been given a pointer to the discussion here. If they can be reliably sourced, then yes I do think they should be kept. In the UK there are people who are actually working their way through government documents in archives finding the evidence for these. Of course, we shouldn't just list unused tarmac for the hell of it, but if there is something notable (see London Ringways for an example, though the evidence for that is spread around a lot) then they can have a bearing on things like environmental protests, urban planning and transport policy. Regan123 (talk) 23:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

CHECK IT OUT
I want to do good work. I initiated an article that is up for deletion. I would not only like to see the article stick around but I would like to do a series of related article. Falls of Neuse Road is the article. I would like to do more articles on Roads/Streets/Highways in Raleigh, NC. Do you have any good advice on how I can improve the article, without it being deLeted first? Please assist. I asked some one on how to improve it and I ended up nominating the article for deletion. Any help is appreciated. Thanks Master Redyva (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this falls more under the purview of WikiProject U.S. Streets than here (this project focuses on major highways). But anyway: the reason that it is being nominated for deletion is that the topic may not be important enough for Wikipedia, and notability isn't asserted within the article. Basically, why should someone who lives in say, Yellowknife care about this street? And any article can be improved with good reliable references. I see you have some references all ready, but if you used  syntax, that would improve the article. Unfortunately, this might not be enough to save the article, so for future work you might want to work on a broader scale.—Scott5114↗ 18:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the quick reply and I also thank you for the good advice. Muchísimas gracias. Master Redyva (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Decomd type in the junction table template
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York State routes. I know exactly why it exists (easy conversion from the old routeboxes), but is there any reason to still use it? The current road/designation can be listed in the road column and the former designation can be then be mentioned in the notes column, which is what is done on exit lists. I also wonder why "noaccess" was retained, as those aren't technically intersections, but that's a question for another day. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 18:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Both should go IMHO.  master son T - C 00:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree; we don't need this. (This isn't my anti-decommissioned voice speaking, since something like "former alignment" would work just as well.) --NE2 18:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

For those who remember SRNC
I have created an account of the poll: State route naming conventions poll/Account. This is for those who wish to understand the issue but don't want to dig through all the pages to find the information. However, although I have tried to make it NPOV, I realize that it is not. Therefore, I am inviting those who were involved in SRNC (as a P1 or P2 supporter, or even as an observer, judging admin, ArbCom member at the time, what have you) to edit it. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

List of unused highways in the United States
I recently split the List of unused highways article into country specific articles. However, the US list is still very very long. How would be the best way to split it futher? I'm thinking by state, but then there would be some very short articles. Mbisanz (talk) 03:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You could split off the longer states and leave the smaller states. - Algorerhythms (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Related to this, there are state-specific ways to identify highways, as I have learned. My contention in the previous article was that they were to be limited to to state-specific pages.  Now that we have that for some of the states, I can get to work on making that accurate.  For the main, U.S. Unused Highway, article, should the state/county highways be also changed to the state-specific terminology even though the page is US-based?Bodo920 23:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I seem to have noticed some lengthy discussions on State v. US highway stuff. I'm not involved with this project other than splitting it, so please don't take anything I say as gospel truth.  I'd say that any changes you do make should attempt to conform to things like Requests_for_arbitration/Highways and Manual of Style (U.S. state and territory highways) (I didn't read them, so I hope they don't conflict).  Other than that, have fun editing.  It would great to see these pages expanded by people who know what their doing.  Mbisanz 03:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed I-310 in Mississippi
This appears to be a legitimately proposed number, though it might be better at Mississippi Highway 601 or Canal Road Connector. It would be good to have more updated information before writing an article though. --NE2 01:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed streamlining of template:USRD
Would it be a good idea to add a "type" parameter, so we can say state=VA type=Interstate and save on boxes? I don't know how easy this would be. It might also be useful to allow parameters like state2 and state3 for multistate articles. Does it sound reasonable to try to do this? --NE2 05:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Just kidding; I really don't feel like wading through all the code right now. --NE2 08:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * hmm - it would be nice but I would think it would be too much of a challenge to try this though. from what I recall, use the highest importance project?  They all assess to the same category anyway  master son T - C 05:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * With categories like Category:B-Class Virginia road transport articles you need to use both templates to get it in the right categories. --NE2 07:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In principle, I support this. In practice, I would have to see how it works out with the coding. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I will see if I can make it work with a test template in my userspace. The only difference on the tagging side will be the new parameter. It may be worth it to convert over state=US and state=I uses to type=US or I with no state parameter, or it may not be, but at least at first state=I/US will be supported. --NE2 07:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I got it working in a different way; see it in action on Talk:Interstate 95 in Virginia and Talk:U.S. Route 1 in Virginia. Does this look good? --NE2 12:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't like it; it looks strange, and would better be served by a thin regular-width US/I template under/above the state template. Or we could just nest them. -- M PD T / C 19:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah…it does not fit in with the standards of talk page templates which requires being able to hide and/or nest templates. 哦，   是吗？  (User:O) 19:39, 21 November 2007 (GMT)
 * That doesn't look right at all. The layout, for one, is jarring - the alignment of the USRD banner is shifted to the left and would look real bad if paired with non-USRD banners. As O said above, it's also heavily non-standard and is unnestable. If size is an issue, then just nest the normal banners on pages with multiple templates. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that duplicate parameters have to be maintained. But I'll give it another try. --NE2 21:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That was simple; is it better now? --NE2 21:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * IMHO, it would probably be easier on coding and make for a better appearance if the two banners were consolidated into one and the USH/IH notice was added to the bottommost row of the state banner or the other way around (state at the bottom of USH/IH). -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks much better, but I'm still not sure if it's nestable because it would have to say both VA Highways project and IH project. But I don't know all the details about that. -- M PD T / C 04:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The current version now works when nesting, but having both projects display would definitely be an issue with my idea. To be honest though, if my idea is implemented, I don't know how much of an issue it really is since we're already watering down one of the banners anyway. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We have to make sure that categories are kept; right now the only one for Interstate/U.S. is attention but others may be added in the future. --NE2 09:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Meh... I just don't like how this is set up, personally, to have one primary box than another secondary box below it saying "oh, by the way, this applies too". I prefer how the Canada WikiProject template handles it much better - everything contained in one box with the primary project up top and single lines listing the additional projects below, with no lost categories or functionality regardless of how many subprojects are added. See Talk:Trans-Canada Highway (second box) for what I mean. Of course, then the issue becomes "what is the primary project in this case", but let's settle on a layout first. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 10:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

We could also adopt the format used by the trains project, with the option to have separate importance ratings within the states and systems. (Is this a good idea? I don't know.) I'm not really interesting in adapting the code though. --NE2 16:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Since this discussion died and since I think the current coding of U.S. Roads WikiProject is fairly awful, I began working on revamps in sandboxes, seen here. The first is little more than the integration of the USH/IH line into the template; the second, however, redesigns the whole template so that USRD is front and center on every template call and as many as one type or two states are displayed below. I also experimented with by-project importances; that code is currently incomplete pending whether we want it or not.

From a coding standpoint, number 2 would likely be the easiest to implement, although number 1 could work as well. We could also blend elements of both into a different template design if desired. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally like option 2, however for both options, there could be controversy over how many projects should be listed under the main template when it is applied on a multi-state highway, particularly U.S. Route 20 and U.S. Route 1. 哦，   是吗？  (review O) 04:48, 04 December 2007 (GMT)
 * I like option 2. In response to "controversy", I would only list USRD on the main U.S. Route 1, and individual state WPs on the state US 1 articles.  --Son 05:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The "controversy" I was talking about was dealing with newer contributors who might not know when to utilize different parts of the template. But that can be explained when the time comes :-)  哦，   是吗？  (review O) 05:43, 04 December 2007 (GMT)
 * Seems logical to me! :-) --Son 06:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The second one looks pretty good, but do we really want separate importances within the states? I may be wrong, but I don't see how there would be much of a difference - either everything would be the same or everything would be merely "bumped up a notch". I also think it could be compressed, something like: The text needs rewording, but we have to remember that not every state has its own project. --NE2 16:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Having them all on one line seems like a pretty good idea. --Son 16:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of that idea; the wording sounds atrocious and is beginning to drift away from the original point of the templates - individual WikiProject tagging. "Contains details on" really strays from that point and, to boot, would likely be more difficult to code. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 16:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And now I see that you addressed the wording issue partially in your comment... however, by avoiding the single-line method (which seems bad to me anyway), we avoid the issue altogether. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 16:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The main purpose of the templates seems to be categorization of quality and pointers to places for more information about improving the articles; putting them all on the same line doesn't cause any problems with this. --NE2 16:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You'd need to find wording that works then; the one given above is awful. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 17:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it better now? --NE2 17:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course including the standard links and text and whatnot, rather than my placeholder text. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's pretty good. How about bolding the subtopic iff it has a WikiProject link? I also suggest we adopt "this article sucks"... just kidding :) --NE2 19:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about coding... a sub-template called by USRD for each of the subtopics, like USRD/subtopic|topic=FL|class=sucks|importance=top, where that sub-template generates the categories, is probably best. --NE2 19:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I have implemented this as User:NE2/USRD, with test cases shown at User talk:NE2/testing. Are there any comments? --NE2 19:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * How long should I wait before moving it to the main template? --NE2 21:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I like it less than the ones we have now, which I already liked less than our original situation. That said, I do not support moving it at all.  -- M PD T / C 22:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you dislike about it, and how would you fix the duplication of parameters caused by being in multiple subtopics? --NE2 22:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * To be honest - what's not to like about the current version - much less the proposed version? I would much rather have them combined like this instead of having more than 3 banners on a page. Sure WikiProjectBannerShell serves that purpose, but why not get it done in one flag? —  master son T - C 22:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is definitely better than what's in place now. I personally don't have a problem with calling the states and types "subtopics", but some of the more anti-USRD subprojects (MD comes to mind as one that resisted even converting to the universal USRD box) may take exception. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 12:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I changed it to "topics"; the "sub" seemed unnecessary. --NE2 22:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody have a California map from about 1930?
I'm looking for a map from before 1933, but as late as possible, that shows whether US 99 still takes the dogleg into Visalia that it did in 1928. Thank you. --NE2 00:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like it. Sorry. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My parents have a U.S. Road Atlas from the 1930's (don't remember the exact year but I suspect it is after 1933). If you don't get a better offer, ping me closer to the holidays to remind me to scan the SoCal page while I'm visiting. Davemeistermoab 22:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

How about early 1950s, showing the downtown LA end of U.S. Route 101 Bypass? --NE2 09:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"Formed" refers to...
Okay... after the deal regarding "decommissioned", I need to know what "commissioned / formed / established" stands for. Currently, it is defined (in docs for Infobox road) as: established: This is the date the route was commissioned or assigned to its current alignment

So are we looking for...
 * 1) The exact date the highway opened for the general public
 * 2) The time period during which the highway was under construction
 * 3) The exact date legislation passed authorizing the highway's construction
 * 4) The date (with varying degrees of specificity) construction started on the highway

Also, how are multiple opening dates handled? (Extensions to existing highways and the like.)

I took a shot at it on Interstate 355 using option #1, but wanted to bring it up here, too. (FWIW, the dates for I-355 are 12/25/1989, 1987-1989, sometime in 1985-1986, and sometime in 1986 or 1987.) &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 21:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there will be a spectrum of answers here as well but what I usually use is the date when any section of the road opened to the public with its current route number. --Polaron | Talk 21:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You might want to see Oklahoma State Highway 74. I always use the date it was first established by the Transportation Commission, if available, otherwise I use the "best guess" based on when it appeared on the map (say a route appears on the 1939 map, but isn't on the 1938, I give the "formed" date as 1938/9, as it could have been formed in late 1938 or early 1939).—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I use the date the number was assigned; details can be in the text. --NE2 16:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Would it be clearer to change it to "numbered" (or make a separate "numbered" parameter to migrate to, if there are concerns with routes not currently having the date numbered)? --NE2 17:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure. There are instances like OK-74 above where an entire route was assigned with a different number, then renumbered (then in OK-74's case, extended through the years). I think No. assigned might be better for non-roads users.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Like, "number assigned" to a route? Such as the (eg) 1974 legislation establishing the construction of I-385 between Big City and Small Town?  But also as in the road was there and 10 years later designated as I-224 or SR 38?  That actually makes the most sense to me, too.  -- M PD T / C 19:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I decided to experiment with a general "history" parameter on California State Route 1; does this look like a good idea? --NE2 03:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I think the first version looked better. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So what would you use, 1919 or 1934? What about a route like SR 42 that was renumbered several times? --NE2 05:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you using the field in the cases where the formed date is ambigous? --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Basically yes - which actually describes most California state highways, because of the legislative/sign route disparity before 1964. --NE2 05:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would use a more specific term than "history" then - otherwise people will assume you can put stuff like "Widened to 2 lanes in 2004" or something like that. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What would you change it to? I tried to think of something better but couldn't. --NE2 06:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I generally follow the first example, listing when the highway was designated. For expressways, I'd also include when it opened. Sometimes those dates are the same; others, especially Interstate Highways, have a substantial gap between the designation and when the first part opened. In a real-life example...for I-86 (E), I'd only list "1999" since the roadway was already open when it was designated. I generally stay away from mentioning extensions/changes in alignment in the infobox, as that could be lengthy for some routes. Plus, there's always the history section. The infobox is only supposed to be a quick synopsis of the route, after all. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 12:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion discussion
Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 22 --NE2 01:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:HbgAR
I have proposed the demotion, redirection, or deletion of this project at WT:USRD/SUB. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed task force on auto trails

 * See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Subprojects. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Now at WikiProject U.S. Roads/auto trails. --NE2 01:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

More opinions needed for I-355 FAC
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Interstate Highways or just skip on over to Featured article candidates/Interstate 355 to weigh in. Not looking for support votes, just comments. Of course the support votes would be useful if justified. :-D &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 18:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Change of scope nationwide
I am proposing a clarification to the scope of USRD and its sub / state highway projects. The following changes should be made:
 * Auto trails do not belong in individual state highway projects because of their primitive nature, the differing expertise and interests needed to edit these articles, the differing maintenances of these trails, and the original intention at the conception of the **SH model that these **SH projects would only include numbered state highways and routes that currently exist or were decommissioned in recent times (towards the end of the 20th century).
 * City streets / city arterials / major roads that were an original alignment of a numbered route at one point in time but are not now should not be included in USRD but moved to USST. For example, Valley Boulevard, where the main encyclopedic information pertains to information not relating to the street's status as a numbered highway. Another example is Folsom Boulevard, where its former designation as part of US-50 is one sentence, almost as an afterthought.

Please comment. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * We just discussed city streets and worked out the current criteria. Streets that were intended for major traffic should fall under both, since people from both projects will have their own expertise to bring to the article.
 * Now, for auto trails, what do you think of the following:
 * Articles like Lincoln Highway in California go in trails and CA, since the expertise of California editors is helpful, but the main article Lincoln Highway goes only in trails. If nobody called the trail by its name in the state, don't make an article: for instance Jefferson Davis Highway in California would probably not exist. Many that do exist will actually be redirects, like Lincoln Highway in Pennsylvania to U.S. Route 30 in Pennsylvania; the latter would be part of PA and trails. One- or two-state trails, like El Camino Real will have details that state editors can add, and should be in the state project.
 * Does this sound reasonable? --NE2 01:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We discussed city streets? --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 9. --NE2 01:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This scope apparently needs to be written, because it was not meant to be used like this. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? The present scope is what came out of that discussion, and nobody disagreed with. --NE2 01:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This scope apparently needs to be written, because it was not meant to be abused like this. The intent was to remove streets like those mentioned above. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your intent was to remove streets. Others disagreed. --NE2 01:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, because the same people who took part in that discussion are commenting on this issue and agreeing with me. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If we're going to reopen old discussions (in which others, such as Holderca1 and TMF, disagreed with you), I think I'll go for the big one. Just kidding... but why didn't you object earlier? --NE2 02:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (indent reset) This is a loophole in the scope. Nobody thought that the scope could be used in this way. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What? My reasoning was pretty clear - that main roads like Wacker Drive should be included. --NE2 03:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking at the archives, you were not clear that that was your intention. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "This removes the truly local roads that are more "streets" than "roads", while keeping those that have been or are used by through traffic, such as Wacker Drive. --NE2 13:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)" --NE2 03:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not even a state highway. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Duh... we already discussed this, and nobody objected. Wacker Drive was built for traffic, and is a major predecessor to freeways. --NE2 03:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You weren't being clear on this, especially since you didn't link the page, so nobody checked. But regardless of being clear, even if, as you say, consensus was with you then, consensus can change. (For my part, apparently I checked out halfway through the discussion, likely because of schoolwork). --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree on both of Rschen's points here. I never felt any city streets should be retained in USRD, and the fact they were still sticking around here was because of a loophole in the scope that made them fall under both. To get why I believe this, say we had an article on NE 23rd St in Oklahoma City. A section of it has US 62 on it. But we have U.S. Route 62 in Oklahoma, so covering 23rd St in USRD is duplication.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really, since people from the "road" side of things can add stuff that those on the "street" side of things might not know. --NE2 01:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That should stay in the US-62 OK article, however. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the 23rd Street article should mention when it became part of a main road and when it was bypassed (if it was). Pulaski Skyway includes information about it as a highway, despite being a bridge that forms part of U.S. Route 1-9. --NE2 01:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And that has to do with USRD how? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a U.S. road... it's also in the scope that nobody objected to. --NE2 02:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And now we're objecting to it. So what? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So now we're right back where we started. Why can't we just improve articles we're interested in and not care about those we're not interested in? What offends you so much about these articles that they must be kicked out? --NE2 02:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason we oppose these falling into our categories is because it's basically noise that gets in the way of what the projects are focused on. It also adds more work on the "stubs to be fixed" pile when the state subprojects have no interest or available manpower to fix them. Same thing as with the streets subproject. I don't understand your desire to shoehorn articles into projects that don't want them.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody's forcing you to "listen" to the noise or expand the stubs you don't want to fix. --NE2 02:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It shows up in the assessment stats for whatever projects it's tagged under, and that's the problem. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What's the problem with that? This isn't some sort of MMORPG; it's a project to create an encyclopedia. --NE2 03:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It adds more work on the "stubs to be fixed" pile when the state subprojects have no interest or available manpower to fix them.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And what's the problem? If you don't want to fix them, ignore them. We're not being judged on how many points we have. --NE2 03:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * By tagging it as belonging to a project you're asserting that the project is responsible for that article. Well, OKSH doesn't want its tag on the auto trails, and it's wrong of you to push it on there. And if a project isn't responsible for the articles its tag is on, why bother tagging it as such in the first place? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm asserting that someone looking for help with the article might find help on the project's talk page, or on the project page (such as with old maps). Projects are simply aids in writing an encyclopedia. --NE2 03:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, they won't, at least in the case of auto trails. That's what we've been telling you.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "They" is anyone working on the article, including someone not part of the roads projects. --NE2 04:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And "they" won't find any help on auto trails at the subprojects. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * How will you prevent people from helping on the talk page? As for the project page, that's demonstrably false; WikiProject Virginia Highways has a list; and many states have links to maps, some of which show auto trails. --NE2 04:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Who said I was preventing people from helping? That's fine and well for Virginia having links to auto trail stuff. But Oklahoma doesn't. Kansas doesn't. Missouri doesn't. Don't even bother asking for help at the Missouri talk page - nobody's home. Wouldn't it be more productive to simply point them to the motherlode of all auto trail knowledge without wasting their time going to subprojects that don't want to have anything to do with care and feeding of auto trails? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If nobody's home, we shouldn't give a false impression on any articles, including "normal" state highways, that somebody is. Those states should not have a link at all, and should be treated like states without projects. And if somebody is home, they might have local information that won't be on the auto trail page. As I suggested above, how about only putting articles like Lincoln Highway in California in the state categories? --NE2 04:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds acceptable, as long as most of them are redirects. (That is, an actual state detail article is only created whenever someone has enough to say about it that the resulting article isn't lousy. In other words, they shouldn't be made willy-nilly just because we can make them, which has happened with Interstate and U.S. route articles in the past.) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree; see the very top of this section for a bit more detail. Lincoln Highway in Pennsylvania, for instance, could be a well-done article, despite currently being a redirect, because there are at least three books on that specific topic, though it probably works fine as a redirect to US 30. El Camino Real is the best example I can come up with; it's a single-state trail, but well-known enough that it's not a redirect to US 101. --NE2 04:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Re to auto trails, in my opinion, they shouldn't belong to subprojects and they should be part of that new task force. Think about it, some of those trails date back to the late 1800s and early 1900s, which is a totally different time period for roads than today.— J A 10  Talk • Contribs 01:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Before the car. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the auto trails were marked mostly in the 1910s and 1920s - hence the name, auto trail. --NE2 02:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I do agree with you there, but things would be better organized if these trails were part of their own task force and not part of the subproject.— J A 10  Talk • Contribs 02:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your theory makes sense, if the trails are maintained by the state, they should belong to the subproject, but that isn't the case with the Interstates and US Highways, they're maintained by the states yet they have their own wikiproject, so the same should apply with the auto trails. — J A 10  Talk • Contribs 02:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Interstates and U.S. Highways have always belonged to both the Interstate/U.S. Highway and state projects. --NE2 02:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Then according to the logic presented here, auto trails should be treated similarly. 哦，是吗？ (O-person) 02:32, 28 December 2007 (GMT)
 * Or we could not tag interstates and U.S. routes as belonging to the state projects. That would be more orthogonal.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would not have a problem with the main articles such as I-5 being removed from the state projects. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would unless there's a separate state-detail article. Each state project has the expertise to work on the part of the route in that state. --NE2 03:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Everything proposed looks good to me, although subproject scopes have to be discussed (and yes, I said discussed) at the subprojects themselves. By default, Maryland will have a different scope than New York (simply because of the difference in project name), so applying a blanket scope to all subprojects is a bad idea. I am concerned, though, of the editors who are either blatantly disrespecting the defined, accepted scopes of the subprojects, or stretching them in ways that the creators of the subprojects never intended them to go. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What if a subproject decides to include major local roads? --NE2 04:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's their prerogative. Of course, it probably will be to their disadvantage in terms of rel WW, but it's their choice. However, you should not be forcing a project to take articles that it does not want. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "it probably will be to their disadvantage in terms of rel WW" - this is an encyclopedia project, not a MMORPG. Don't treat it like one. My question was relating to the projects being subprojects of USRD - we'd end up with only local roads in some states. --NE2 04:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The WikiWork leaderboard in the newsletter is only intended to help foster friendly competition between the states so that some actual quality work gets done. You're overexaggerating here: for one thing MMORPGs generally have better graphics. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Its actual effect is not helping quality work get done but causing arguments like this. We should be working on articles and improving them. --NE2 04:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[Indent reset]Actually, you seem to be the only one who's arguing against the proposal. I'm all for it. Local roads should not fall under USRD. That's exactly why WP:USST was created. --Son (talk) 04:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoa, let's all take some steps back here—both sides are correct in some way. NE2 is correct in the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia.  The others are correct in the fact that Wikipedia's overall standards are increasing, and USRD and company should progress with it one way or another, with ω or whatever.  Leave that aside, the original discussion wasn't discussing that in the first place.  In relation to subproject scopes, they need to be hammered out at the individual projects' talk pages, because their titles are of varying degree (for one thing).  MDRD may want to have all roads in Maryland in their scope, NJSCR may just want to have state and county routes, and NYSR may only want state routes.  Regardless, there is no reason to stretch the scopes so far that it would get misunderstood by an uninformed contributor.  If one wants to change project scopes, deal with them at their respective projects, not here, no matter how under-viewed it is.  The rationale for WT:USRD being such a high-traffic page isn't going to cut it. 哦，是吗？ (O-person) 04:57, 28 December 2007 (GMT)
 * Hear hear. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So now Ridge Route is no longer part of USRD? Or Pulaski Skyway? Take that, MMORPGers :) --NE2 05:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That wasn't discussed, but it should be. Don't play the strawman just yet. 哦，是吗？ (O-person) 05:03, 28 December 2007 (GMT)
 * Besides strawman, it is reductio ad absurdum. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please come up with a proposed scope that we can comment on. --NE2 05:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

--Son (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That would eliminate Ridge Route, though Pulaski Skyway (and any local street that still forms part of a numbered route) would remain. --NE2 05:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. With these roads, their being part of a numbered route and a nationwide route is the focus of the article and essential to the topic. What differentiates it from Folsom Boulevard is that its former routing as US-50 was thrown in as an afterthought and only one sentence. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So come up with a criterion that can be objectively applied. --NE2 05:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You can't just apply the principle? --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That all old alignments should be removed? Ridge Route is out then. It doesn't focus on being a numbered route anyway; it focuses on being a former main road. --NE2 05:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There. Happy now? --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * West Side Elevated Highway still fails, as do Storrow Drive and Wurzbach Parkway, while any suburban arterial outside a city is within the scope. There also needs to be some clarification on what's meant by a numbered route: are county routes OK? Are unsigned routes OK? Are secondary routes (like Virginia) OK? If so, some states like Virginia will have much more within the scope than other states. --NE2 06:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * West Side Elevated Highway is still supposed to be included in USRD. Regarding the types of routes, use common sense. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Common sense apparently isn't too common, if I think roads like Auburn Boulevard belong. --NE2 06:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (indent reset) Auburn Boulevard does not belong because it is primarily a city arterial, and that is its primary purpose / significance. This discussion is becoming close to a fallacy of the beard. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The West Side Elevated Highway was primarily a city arterial; being part of NY 9A and NY 27A was purely incidental. --NE2 06:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "As originally built, it was an elevated highway, built as one of the first, if not the first, urban freeways in the world.". --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "It is sometimes cited as a precursor to the modern freeway, though when built the idea was that pleasure vehicles would use the upper level." --NE2 06:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for interrupting, but my thing is this. Wacker Drive is an article that should be in WP:USST. It is a perfect candidate to move from this project to that one. There is simply too much gray area between the projects, and that needs to be put to rest. --Son (talk) 05:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wacker Drive is, like West Side Elevated Highway, Long Island Motor Parkway, and Bronx River Parkway, an important step in the evolution of the freeway. --NE2 05:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Evolution perhaps, but it's still a street that should be a part of WP:USST. Evolution from basic road to the freeway is not enough reason for excluding it from WP:USST and including it here.  --Son (talk) 05:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Who's saying it should be excluded from USST? Not I. --NE2 05:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But also including it here, creating that gray area that needs to be eliminated. If it's part of USST, then it still falls under WP:HWY.  It's not like its leaving the Wikipedia universe.  --Son (talk) 05:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is there a problem with something being in multiple projects? Pulaski Skyway is in USRD and bridges and Ridge Route is in USRD and NRHP. --NE2 05:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Because USST was created specifically to remove articles from USRD. It was not created with the intent of complementing USRD.  --Son (talk) 06:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Then it was created for the wrong reasons. A project is not a garbage dump in which to throw unwanted articles. --NE2 06:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is by no means a garbage dump. I was strongly behind the project as a means of creating better street articles.  USRD is simply not the place for that.  I find it honestly insulting that you would suggest it as something else.  --Son (talk) 06:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything on the project or talk page that shows it's being used. In other words, the articles are not receiving any help that they wouldn't receive under USRD. --NE2 06:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The project is pretty new, if you haven't noticed. It's going to take some time until it gets up and running.  And I'm (along with a few others) are trying to move articles over from USRD to USST.  And redefining the USRD scope, to create a black line between USRD and USST instead of the gray area that we currently have, will strongly help USST.
 * So, if you look back at this discussion, you'll notice that you're the only one arguing against Rschen's proposal. As consensus stands, it's not in your position's favor.  Your arguing here is not only stopping this project from being better, it's stopping WP:USST from being better.  --Son (talk) 06:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I just read The Power Broker, and I'm now familiar with tactics such as this. "You're the only one standing in the way of these great improvements." Well, so be it. You'll have to force me out. --NE2 06:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

All NE2 does is cause trouble. — J A 10  Talk • Contribs 06:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What the hell? --NE2 06:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll be honest here. I disagree with that assertion that all you do is cause trouble. However, you do have the tendency to cause trouble where it is not needed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Based on your comment, are you suggesting that you would be willing to ride against consensus, and be a disruption? --Son (talk) 06:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're talking to me, I'm always willing to ignore consensus. --NE2 06:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope you're not being serious. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? Are you trying to make some kind of point?  --Son (talk) 06:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I just know your track record. --NE2 06:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That would have never happened had you not forced your will on us. Quit dictating. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You guys decided to go along with it. Or are you changing your mind now? I asked several times if you were completely sure; I found it hard to believe you had actually changed your mind. --NE2 06:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, we got tired of arguing.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, we got tired of arguing. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip :) (just kidding) --NE2 06:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You have a way of forcing your will onto editors / projects who don't want it. This concerns us. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Changing scope - city streets
Okay, trying this again. How about simply adding "City streets fall under WP:USST and not USRD" to the scope? That way, freeways and what not are implicitly included still, while explicitly excluding city streets. (Meaning that the dual tagged things we have now get moved over to USST.) Objections with relevant reasons for objection? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, one problem is that streets like Houston Street (Manhattan) or East 233rd Street (Bronx) do fall under our jurisdiction. (Houston is former NY 1A and East 233rd is former NY 22). We should be watching carefully for city streets that have former state/territory status. The roads that fall under our jurisdiction should be included in the scope. Otherwise, it seems fair.Mitch32contribs 19:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you're misunderstanding this. This would move Houston Street and E 233rd St out of our jurisdiction and into that of USST. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, then forget my idea. I'm still gonna support this.Mitch32contribs 20:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no objections. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with this. At the moment I can't think of any counterexamples to the idea, either. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 20:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Some clarifications: (1) Where do state agency maintained (not necessarily the DOT) but unsigned city streets go? An example I'm thinking of is Yonkers Avenue. (2) Where do city streets that are municipally-maintained but have an active state route aligned along part of it go (assuming there is a separate article)? An example is Webster Avenue. --Polaron | Talk 20:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would recommend moving Webster over to USST, as Webster Ave handles the street side of things and US 1 in NY handles the highway side of things. As for streets like Yonkers, it would depend on the exact circumstances of the street; Lincoln Blvd in Oklahoma City, for instance, is an unsigned, unnumbered state highway (unless you really believe that it's SH-00 like the control section book says) for its entire length and I think would fall under USRD there. Basically, I'd say if a street is designated with highways that wouldn't have articles otherwise, then it's USRD/USST, otherwise USST only, but I'd like more input as to how to get rid of this particular gray area. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The same reason is still relevant: why? Articles that relate to the expertise of both projects should be included in both. --NE2 20:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see maintenance being an important factor as to which WP an article belongs to. I think in terms of city/street, county, state and country and assign it to the most specific category I can. I know there's a whole bunch of exceptions, but by and large those constitute 5% (at most) of the articles in question here. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 21:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I see. So basically, Rob, you'd be content with all city streets over in USST only, regardless of maintenance? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Wacker Drive, WP:USST. Lake Shore Drive, WP:USST. Things get a little hairy when you start getting into historical state routes, and when you start getting into business routes (which is where WP:USST really ought to be paired with WP:IH or WP:USRD where absolutely necessary - I can argue Veterans Parkway in Bloomington-Normal can stand on its own) but there just aren't that many of these.
 * Also, no tags are final. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 21:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, that sounds good and at least keeps everything simple. Anyone have a reasonable disagreement with Rob's idea? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, my disagreement is reasonable: User:NE2/USRD scope --NE2 21:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone besides NE2? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Anything this project usually does is fine with me, Rob's idea works perfect.Mitch32contribs 21:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand what this whole thing is about; it appears that the argument is over adding multiple templates to talk pages (i.e. a U.S. Roads template and a U.S. Streets template). Apparently NE2 is in favor of this, and several other people are against it. Myself, I don't really see anything wrong with placing multiple templates on some pages if it might be helpful. However, if my understanding of the debate is correct, then why, exactly did this turn into the above? It seems like if this can spawn from such a simple debate, then the problems with the U.S. Roads project are much larger than just a matter of placing templates on talk pages. - Algorerhythms (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (Regarding the last sentence) Sadly, yes. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The above was over auto trails, and somehow the streets thing got mixed up in it and it turned into a mess, so resetting the discussion seemed like the best thing to do. When we set up the U.S. streets project, the idea was that it would take the city streets, which tend to need a different breed of editor (local history buffs, for instance, do well there) and USRD would keep the highways. Unfortunately, there was a loophole in the USRD scope so that we had articles sticking around in both, which was never intended, and could cause problems in the future when that project becomes more developed, because it's not a USRD subproject and can and probably should develop layout and notability standards different from our own. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue on city streets is quite simple. By keeping them under USRD jurisdiction, it removes any usefulness of WP:USST which is a project that I (and several others) are trying to get off the ground.  By creating a gray area between the two projects, there is the inability for WP:USST to function.  By cutting out city and local streets from WP:USRD removes the gray area between the two projects.  I fully support Rob's proposal.  --Son (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's ridiculous. USST is for streets - parts of an urban cityscape. When something is both a main road and a street, both projects have something to offer. --NE2 23:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Your opinion has been noted. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Most people support this, so I'm going to go ahead and post it to the project page. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Changing scope - auto trail
We agreed that auto trails that run nationwide don't get included into state hwy WPs. However, what about the intrastate and 2 state auto trails? --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We agreed that "trail in state" articles would be in the state projects. Intrastate trails are de facto that; two-state trails... if you want to split it, go ahead, but it probably won't be split even after everything is written. --NE2 20:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh, if you read above, we didn't. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, we all disagreed against that NE2. — J A 10  Talk • Contribs 22:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope... --NE2 22:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there even reason to split mutlti-state auto trails? I would argue that it's not necessary. --Son (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Lincoln Highway in Pennsylvania redirects to US 30 in PA, but if it wasn't US 30 it would still be a reasonable topic, with at least three books written about it. There's also Midland Trail (West Virginia). --NE2 23:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That article shouldn't redirect, since it was [at least] two routes. 哦，是吗？ (O-person) 23:08, 28 December 2007 (GMT)