Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/U.S. Routes/Archive 3

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) 05:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot  ( Disable )  21:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Location of the browse box
Project page currently calls for the navigation bar (or browse box) to go at the bottom of the page. What's the reasoning for this? For single state routes the navigation box belongs with the main infobox. What is driving this is changes made to U.S. Route 491 during it's FAC. Compare with. Although against project standards by the letter of the law, I don't see the harm, and is more consistent with what is done on other pages. Now I can see where for a route that traverses a lot of states, like U.S. Route 50, this may be inappropriate. Could the wording be relaxed to say "on U.S. Highway articles with 3 or fewer states where no single state articles will be created, the navigation box can be combined with the main infobox" what say ye? Dave (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This sounds reasonable. --NE2 06:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Project page has been updated (not by me), not sure if this is appropriate with only two people so far opining. I have solicited more comments in other forums and are directing them here. However as so far this discussion is 2 of 2 in favor of changes, if no opposing votes are received soon, I do propose to incorporate this change to the project page. Dave (talk) 04:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The majority of browse templates implemented outside of USRD are at the bottom of the articles. For that reason, it was once discussed at pulling the browse to the bottom of single-state articles as well. USRD got dinged at the NY 32 FAC for a "cluttered" infobox. Since that FAC, commons categoy templates are being pulled out of the infobox for consistency purposes. I have been neutral on making any large changes, but USRD practices are not always favored at FAC levels. I do agree that too many browse bars do clutter the infobox. Imzadi1979 (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * IMO the NY 32 FAC concerns got blown out of proportion. It was a single reviewer who didn't like the shields in the infobox, and in 2 or 3 separate forums editors from both inside and outside the USRD project concluded that shields in the infobox was ok. FA's get approved with militant oppose votes all the time. While I agree many articles seem more focused on a cool infobox than a decent article, for the most part I would consider USRD's infoboxes pretty clean. There are some nasty ones out there I'll give you that. Some have so many bolded links they would drain an inkjet printer just to print the first page of the article =-) Dave (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think we should keep it on the bottom. If we set a limit to the number of states in the infobox, if say Interstate 90 didn't have states in the infobox, newbies would be asking where the browse bar is. So let's be consistent and do one practice. My preference would be putting it at the bottom of the article - this way, the infobox will have less of a chance of drowning images out. CL — 23:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Long routes like Interstate 90 are split into state-detail articles like Interstate 90 in Washington. --NE2 23:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but this is assuming I-90 doesn't have state-specific articles - CL — 00:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It does, and all routes of similar length should. --NE2 00:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've heard or read the unwritten rule that about 3 states is the line, a route in 3 or fewer states should not have state detailed articles, a route in 3+ states should have state detail articles where appropriate. That should be written in here two. We'll so far we're about an even 50/50 split on who thinks it should be top verses bottom. How long should we leave this open? Dave (talk) 16:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I like it better at the top. Considering longer, multi-state route are split up into separate articles, the top is the ideal location in my mind. (If we didn't have separate state articles for the routes, I'd advocate the opposite.) --Son (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Pages written as instructed will render incorrectly in Safari
The following is copied from the discussion at:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/U.S. Route 491

The major cities box doesn't render properly on my browser (Safari). The major towns header appears in its own cell off to the right of the "table", with a big blank spot above the list of towns. This is easily fixed by removing float:right; from the code for that row.
 * I have removed the offending code. I don't normally use Safari but opened the page in Safari to see for myself. Yes I can confirm the page renders odd in Safari.

So what should we do, the code on the US-491 article was copied verbatim from the structure section on this project page. Should the float:right; be removed from the code recommended on the project page?

On a semi-related note, this page still encourages a miscellany section, this is now discouraged per WP guidelines. I'll remove that section once consensus is achieved on the above.Dave (talk) 03:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought we got rid of the major cities box except when we have a sourced list of control cities (major Interstates). Except for Dove Creek, which I've never heard of, it's completely redundant to the infobox, and all five cities are mentioned in the text. --NE2 03:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Question: Are you referring to Safari for Mac or Safari for Windows? or both? Fwgoebel (talk) 05:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I tried it on the Mac, I don't know the OS used by original poster. IMO the bigger question is what is the intent of that code? As to NE2's point, nope the project page still calls for the table. With that said, should consensus say the table isn't necessary I'm more than happy with removing it for much the same reasons as stated.Dave (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like from our whopping two person concesus, the appropriate thing to do is to 1- eliminate the offending code. 2- revise the project page to state the major cities infobox is optional and should be used if information can be sourced and is not redundant with another section of the article? Any objections? Dave (talk) 04:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * OK this has sat for a week. I'm going to remove the offending code, but not make other changes as no real consensus other than this table is probably redundant and maybe POV. Dave (talk) 04:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

US20 east terminus
While the US_Route_20 page says that the road ends in Kenmore Square in Boston, where it intersects Route 2, Google maps shows 20 continuing through Boston's back bay along Comm Ave where it ends at the Public Garden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.60.199 (talk • contribs)

Structure: Route Description
I've been browsing through the US Highway articles, and something keeps popping up which is driving me batty. States are listed south-north or west-east, in accordance with standard mileposting. That's dandy; I approve. However, it's very jarring to read through a route description which is going south-north by state... yet the description of the route within the states are reading north-south, preventing the curious reader from "following" the route along easily. (It's like counting upward by going "9, 8, 7, ... 3, 2, 1, 19, 18, 17, ... 12, 11, 10, 29...") As such, I suggest that south-north and west-east also be adopted as a standard for the paragraph text within the state subheads. JFMorse (talk) 13:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The articles should be written from south to north also. An anonymous editor was reversing the route description on their own volition. For these articles that are written backwards, check the history. If it was a recent reversal, IMO just revert it. If not Be Bold and get to work =-) Dave (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, south to north is already the standard. Some people break it (including the aforementioned anon) so just apply a trout until the problem goes away :) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I already slapped around the U.S. 63 article. ;) And I'm planning to continue hacking away at some stuff as I have time.  However, the reason I brought it up for discussion is that the project standards don't stipulate this as the standard, just that the states are to be listed S-N/W-E.  It's a small thing, and should probably be apparent to most people, but... JFMorse (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm. Well, WP:USRD/STDS does stipulate that, and I guess it's just assumed that it applies here too. Considering that it and this project standard should be otherwise identical, I think I'll check for any incompatibilities, and if none exist, I'll remove all standards from this project page and replace them with a pointer to the USRD standard (which is meant to be the foundation for all roads articles in the U.S., Interstate, and state route systems, excepting New York). —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for U.S. Highway system
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 20:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record: United States Numbered Highways, U.S. Route 66, and U.S. Route 101. --NE2 22:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. §hep Talk  00:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Merger with WP:USRD?
Please see WT:USRD. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)