Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads

Notice: This project page is under a restriction from the Arbitration Committee

A temporary injunction has passed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2. The scope and approach of this project page should not be changed, and no disputed cases shall be added to or removed from USRD or subprojects, until the case is closed. Until the case closes, any uninvolved administrator who is neither a party to the case, nor a member of the WikiProject, may revert any change that modifies these pages or WikiProjects contentiously, and such a change should not be repeated. The injunction will expire on the date that the Arbitration case is closed and the final decision takes effect. At that time this notice may be removed by any editor. Posted by — Coren (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC) for the Arbitration Committee. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2.

Attention!

If you are here to post something about... notability, please do so on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Notability. Assessment and Importance, use WT:USRD/A. infoboxes and navigation, post on WT:USRD/INNA. shields, use WT:USRD/S. the exit list guide, use WT:ELG. the newsletter, post at WT:USRD/NEWS. state highways, Interstates, or U.S. Routes specifically, post at the respective WikiProject's talk page.

USRD AID

WP:USRD/AID has been inactive lately. Many efforts to revive it have failed. Are there any objections to shutting it down and tagging it as {{historical}}? --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. Since the WikiWork board has inspired a lot of work to be done, the need for the AID has passed. Never was too successful anyhow. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll take that as a green light. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Bold title in (national highway) in (state) articles

In response to recent edits to U.S. Route 301 in Maryland, a discussion was started at WT:MDRD#<national highway> in Maryland articles regarding the first sentence in articles on sections of U.S. and Interstate highways in a particular state (Maryland in that case, but it really applies to any state). I proposed that they be written to be consistent with most Wikipedia articles by formatting them as "<route name> in <state> is a highway...". The other version, which US 301 in Maryland was being changed to, only bolded "U.S. Route 301", a third version doesn't bold anything at all, arguing that the title of the articles in merely descriptive. Considering that this applies to any state, I figured I'd ask here what other editors think.-Jeff ^(talk) 17:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You should bold the title of the article, but don't link anything that is bolded. --Holderca1 ^talk 17:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I misread what you were talking about, don't bold anything. See Wikipedia:Lead_section#Bold_title. You aren't required to have a bolded title in the lead, especially if the title is descriptive. For example, the name of the highway isn't "U.S. Route 301 in Maryland." --Holderca1 ^talk 17:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Requesting help at U.S. Route 50 in California. --NE2 01:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I notice you and AL2TB haven't discussed this on the talk page or each others' user talk pages. Perhaps that's the best place to start? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I figure this talk page is the best place to start, although WP:LEAD#Bold title is pretty clear. --NE2 01:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Something strange is going on

For some reason several of the Texas articles are not being counted by the bot, see Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Texas_road_transport_articles_by_quality_log#February_20.2C_2008 where the bot is removing them. Although, I don't think it is the bot that is acting up, for some reason, these articles aren't showing up in the category either, but if you go to the talk page of the article, it will still show that it is indeed in that category. I don't have a clue as to what is going on. --Holderca1 ^talk 17:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think I have located the issue here. If an article has multiple project tags, and they don't agree, then they won't be counted. They must agree on quality and importance. --Holderca1 ^talk 17:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It also appears to only recognize the first project banner listed, so subsequent banners aren't counted. Anyone know why this is doing this?? --Holderca1 ^talk 18:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it doesn't like nested templates either. --Holderca1 ^talk 18:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No - Riana protected many of the USRD templates yesterday and added a line break at the end of them when she added the page protection template, horribly breaking the USRD template and completely disabling assessment. Unfortunately, some bot runs were made during this "down time" (about an hour) and thus assessment is messed up for the near future. The templates have since been fixed, and once the job queue gets back in order (within a couple of days), all should be good to go again. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 18:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The USRD template was protected from editing because it's a high-risk template, but when the admin protected it, she added a few blank lines that broke it. The way templates work is through the m:job queue, which means that when you edit a template, the changes get placed in a queue and the changes are applied as the servers work their way through the queue. Right now, Special:Statistics says the queue 9,887,786 pages long, so even though the templates got fixed, it'll take a while for the change to cascade through the pages. The same thing affects every state, so just wait a few days, and we'll be good to go again. (If you really want to speed the process along, do m:null edits to the talk pages, and it'll update the transclusion and you won't have to wait for the job queue, but that takes quite a lot of effort for something the server's going to be doing for you anyway.) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay, pretty ironic if you ask me, protecting a high risk template, but breaking it in the process. IMO, they should just leave them alone until someone vandalizes them. --Holderca1 ^talk 18:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I asked and the protections were changed to semi-protection. --NE2 00:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll finish fixing the stats tomorrow; until things are straightened out I've been factoring in the articles removed. Let me know if there are any mistakes; today I discovered that Iowa and Maine weren't updated in a few months since they never made it onto my watchlist! (Oops). --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/U.S. road transport articles by quality log updated without any removals, it's all been fixed. --NE2 12:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not entirely, I just ran the bot, and I am still counting 9 Texas articles that aren't being counted as well as 3 list articles. --Holderca1 ^talk 14:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah - strange. It's not seeing it in the Texas categories but is seeing it in the U.S. categories. --NE2 14:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Request comments on WP:CfD

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_19#Category:Illinois_River_Road:_Route_of_the_Voyagers

I just haven't gotten around to creating a stub article or adding content to this yet. But I'm not against deletion, either, depending on how categories for scenic routes should work. —Rob (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Input requested

NE2 is challenging following a state DOT standard at Template talk:Infobox road/MO/abbrev Interstate. Input requested. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not true. I'm challenging a "standard" that they only use when spelling out the name on signs. --NE2 01:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Subproject discussions

Two discussions are ongoing at WT:USRD/SUB. Firstly, a task force for all the various non-state areas of the United States is proposed; this would include D.C., Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and several other territories.

Secondly, the Kansas state highways subproject is proposed for demotion to task force. Comments welcome on these discussions. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion № 7

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three Digit System of Highways in Puerto Rico —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if everyone could take a look at this, since the discussion is turning into something that could affect a number of articles on other state highway systems. -- Kéiryn (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:U.S. road articles with an exit list needing attention

Would it be a good idea to expand this to articles that don't have a junction list? I'm not saying we should go and tag everything (though I wouldn't complain if someone does), but it would be useful to see what people want junction lists added to. --NE2 16:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Wouldn't oppose a separate category, though.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Expanding the existing category: absolutely not. Creating a new category for it: maybe, but I don't see the usefulness of it. It'd be like tagging every article without history or route descriptions. There's also no universal standards for junction lists. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If you set it up as a hidden category, there should be no objections. With the availability of hidden categories, creating special purpose maintenance categories should be easier to create without objections. Hidden categories do not show up in the article, just on the category page and the categories will show in any parent categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I would assume that it would be a param on {{USRD}} and thus actually categorize the talk pages, much in the same way the "exit list needs attention" tag we have now works.

I agree with TMF, if the goal of it is to get articles to B class, then you would need cats for missing history and route description sections. --Holderca1 ^talk 22:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that it's pretty clear we're not including junction lists in this category. So why was this tagged? Never mind that it's debatable whether or not it even needs attention... It's not even a junction list! -- Kéiryn (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[1] --NE2 15:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point of this link is, just because someone else does it, doesn't mean it is right. Last time I looked, junction lists aren't even required to follow ELG. That's why you have some using color. --Holderca1 ^talk 16:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

When I came across the category a few days ago it had maybe 16 articles, including that one and probably one or two more non-freeways. So I took that as a starting point and added more. --NE2 16:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

When these are getting tagged, could we get a quick note on the talk page regarding what is wrong? If you are reviewing it the first place and see something wrong, go ahead and pass that along. It doesn't make sense for the next editor to come along and stare at it to try and figure out what is wrong. --Holderca1 ^talk 15:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, a follow on to that, I have noticed that NE2 has tagged some articles and after inquiring what is wrong, one of the issues he has is having "Westbound only" vs. "Westbound exit, eastbound entrance" in the notes column. I didn't see anything in the guideline that states that the former is an incorrect way of doing thing. --Holderca1 ^talk 15:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"Westbound only" is ambiguous - it probably means that there's a westbound exit, but is there an eastbound exit? Is there a westbound entrance? It could be argued that it's most likely to mean that there's only westbound access, with no entrance or exit eastbound. --NE2 15:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not in ELG though, so you can't tag it being non-compliant with that rationale. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 15:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that is ambiguous at all, if it says "Westbound only," doesn't that mean there isn't an eastbound exit? And what in "Westbound exit, eastbound entrance" clarifies that? Also, these are exit lists, not an exit and entrance list. There are entrances from frontage roads onto freeways not associated with an exit that aren't listed. --Holderca1 ^talk 16:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter if there's an entrance or not. It's an exit list, not an entrance list. "Westbound only" would mean there is only a westbound exit. --MPD ^{T / C} 16:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we shouldn't be calling them exit lists then. We do list the occasional interchange with no exits, such as on Interstate 280 (California). If it's encyclopedic to list the exits, it's just as encyclopedic to list the entrances; just listing the exit ramps is something a travel guide would do. --NE2 16:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Although, I would argue that adding the entrances would be more like a travel guide. I thought the point of the exit list was to show what you can access from the freeway. There articles are from the point of view of the freeway. If the freeway doesn't access a street, it shouldn't be mentioned. That's just my opinion though. --Holderca1 ^talk 16:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Why would we only give half the information? The article is about the freeway and its relation to the surrounding roads; interchanges interchange traffic in both directions. --NE2 16:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well for starters, how are we even going to document it? Are we just going to have a bunch of lines that say entrance point to freeway? --Holderca1 ^talk 17:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This is off-topic. If this isn't in ELG, then you can't tag something for non-compliance for ELG because of it. If you think it should be added to ELG, go propose it over there and we'll talk about it. (Talking about it here closes out other projects that may use ELG, like CRWP and UKRD.) But please don't proactively tag things for being against ELG because of it. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The idea is that it's a quick way to request help from those (like me) that like doing them. I just figured that I should first add some that do need help. We've had Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Exit list guide/Compliance for a while. --NE2 15:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

To me, "needing attention" says, "zOMG! Look at this ugly exit list! Someone better give it some attention and fix it!" In other words, something someone's actually going to have to work at to format it properly and stuff. I think a lot of the recent tagging is for minor stuff that's not all that obvious at first, and we might need to be pointed towards it a little more specifically in order to fix it. -- Kéiryn (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

So change the wording to something more like "requested infobox" and less like "attention". --NE2 16:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever we change the wording to, it's still going to flag it without telling us exactly what needs to be fixed. If it's something minor, probably the reason it's there is because people have already glossed over it 20,000 times, and we're not going to see it on the 20,001st time just because it's flagged. If you've already looked through the article and found what's wrong, I don't see what the problem is with leaving a note on the talk page saying what the problem is. It makes it more likely that someone else will come along and fix it. -- Kéiryn (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

So if you have any questions about specific ones, ask me. I won't be doing any more mass-tagging, but I won't go back and add a reason for every one I tagged. US 9 is pretty good; the main issue is the colors. There also seem to be some interchanges missing near the north end. --NE2 16:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

So are we using this for junction lists or not? -- Kéiryn (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we're tagging too much. Not everything has an exit list (i.e. Junction lists). And consensus has been for a while that as long as it makes sense (paraphrasing), then it's fine. Also, NE2, I'd be more than glad to help with exit lists more often except every time I do something to one it's re-done by you anyway. So you're tagging everything that needs "work", be my guest to do all the work. --MPD ^{T / C} 16:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of the posters above, if you're going to tag an article as needing attention, you need to specify what needs to be done. Stratosphere|Talk 17:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I just cleaned up Florida State Road 9A's exit list, and it appears I was a bit overzealous in tagging. --NE2 05:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of hiddencat

Do you think it would be a good idea to make sure all the articles like Category:Start-Class Interstate Highway System articles and Category:High-importance Washington road transport articles are subcategories of the correspending U.S. categories and then tag them with __HIDDENCAT__ to reduce the "category clutter" on the talk pages? --NE2 00:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess we could, but since it's the talk namespace there's no real need to. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If I do the work, will you object? --NE2 01:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that's helpful, since there would then be no links to the categories. Personally, I don't like HIDDENCAT at all - at least until a way to make the "hidden" categories appear on edit pages is found. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 01:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That's why I'd make sure the state categories are all in the U.S. categories, so you can click to those and then to the states. --NE2 01:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(And the ones that are already there would be re-sorted to the front - maybe I won't bother doing this. --NE2 01:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC))

I don't know when it was added, but the edit page now shows the hidden categories below the templates; see U.S. Route 19 Truck (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) for example. --NE2 14:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination backlog

There's still a significant backlog of U.S. Road articles at wp:good article nominations. We do not have enough regular reviewers to deal with all the nominations received, and unfortunately certain topics seem to suffer more than others. The good news is that the review process is relatively simple and any registered user is more than welcome to participate. If you'd like to help out, simply pick an article you haven't contributed to from the list and see if it meets every good article criteria. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the good article nominations talk page or even directly on my talk page. --jwanders^Talk 21:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I would encourage members of this project to help lessen the backlog by reviewing articles on non-road subjects, so that we can encourage more sets of eyes reading our articles, as well as to minimize drama. The last time something like this was attempted, it lead to a lot of bickering. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it is better for the articles for someone not as familiar with roads to review. As I found out from nominating a list for featured list that there are a lot of things that I don't think twice about that the average person wouldn't understand. --Holderca1 ^talk 21:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Those are valid concerns, but unfortunately the number of wikipedians interested in road articles is not large, and I expect most are already involved with this project. Unlike Featured articles, a GA review is a fair bit of work for a single editor, meaning reviewers tend to stick to subjects that interest them. I think it would be best to assume members of this project will review the project's articles in good faith, and the project itself is more than welcome to do quality control of passed articles. One alternative that's been suggested but never implemented is finding another Wikiproject with a large GA backlog and agree to exchange reviews. Some possibilies for this would be WikiProject Tropical cyclones, WikiProject Entertainment or WikiProject Sport--jwanders^Talk 22:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer the latter of your 2 ideas (i.e. exchanging articles with another project). I agree that members of a roads project generally shouldn't review roads articles. My main reason is this, it's one thing to write an article about roads that a roadgeek would say is a good article. It's an entirely different thing to write an article about roads that a gamer would say is a good article. Yes, in thoery the GA criteria is set and it should as long as everybody sticks to that criteria we should all be fine. But in reality it never works that way. I'm more than happy to trade articles with one of the projects you mention.Davemeistermoab (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could arrange a "GA twinning" sort of arrangement with WP:TROP, whom we share some common editors with? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm okay with that, I am a former member of that project before my USRD days. --Holderca1 ^talk 11:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so we both do. Anyway, I'm sure they're willing to help. I'll see if I can make arrangements.^Mitch32^contribs 11:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I probably wouldn't be interested in reviewing any storm articles, even if I did care for the process. On the other hand, something more closely related like rail might be better, but they might have no qualms about intra-project reviewing. --NE2 12:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, absolutely nothing wrong with reviewing other transport articles. --Holderca1 ^talk 14:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I also think, if we can get our quality up to where they are at (they have a lot of FAs), then we can do more reviewing of our own. --Holderca1 ^talk 15:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've started picking up about an article or two at a time. The difference from two years ago to now is substantial, in that there are measurable criteria that can be checked and fulfilled before passing it as a GA. That was the main reason I'd stopped reviewing articles before. —Rob (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's also not forget that we need reviewers at WP:USRD/A/ACR as well. --Holderca1 ^talk 20:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been intending to review the ACR backlog for quite some time... but school got in the way. I'll try to get to it over the weekend. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Junction lists vs. Exit lists

NE2's most recent response to me above sparked something else in my mind, but to avoid the danger of starting a tangent, I figured it was more deserving of its own section header.

In my previous incarnation, when we were arguing over the exit list guide, I was a big believer that when it came to formatting, exit lists and junction lists were exactly the same thing. That is, there's no reason they should be formatted differently. That being said, they are in fact, two very different things. An exit list is a list of exits on a freeway. A junction list is a list of junctions with other state highways.

The question I'm having is when NE2 says, "US 9 is pretty good; the main issue is the colors. There also seem to be some interchanges missing near the north end." You're absolutely right, there's an interchange for New Brunswick Avenue, and possibly one or two others, that isn't listed. Because it's not an exit list, it's a junction list. It's a junction list for a 136-mile road that happens to have a 3-mile long freeway section at the northern end. So at what point does a road become a freeway that needs to have every exit listed, and when is it just a regular old highway? For that matter, what is an exit? Do we need to list CR 522 just because it's grade-separated, or can we leave it off since it's not a state highway?

On a loosely related topic, at the A-class review for New Jersey Route 18, NE2 said he added all the junctions for the non-freeway part at jughandles. Well, at first I thought, that's a great idea. However, during the recent discussion, I realized Race Track Road, Tices Lane, and Eggers Street aren't actually major intersections worthy of inclusion on the list.

So what do we do? Where do we draw the line between an exit list and a junction list? -- Kéiryn 17:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well for Texas articles I have used the same format for both because to me, the only difference between the two is what you list. For roads that have both freeway and non-freeway sections, like Texas State Highway Loop 1604, I have it all in one table. The freeway section has all the exits listed and for the non-freeway, just the state highways. --Holderca1 ^talk 17:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If on the actual roadway it has a standard exit gore sign (even if unnumbered) and possibly advance warning signs for the exit, then it is an exit and should be included. If it is not labeled as an exit, then include it only if it is a state highway. --Polaron | Talk 17:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that guideline is that it requires me to drive down the road to look at signage before I edit an article. -- Kéiryn 17:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say that if the only reason there is an interchange is because one of the roads goes along railroad tracks or a river, than don't include it as long as it isn't a state highway. --Holderca1 ^talk 18:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Lemme try this again with a much shorter question.

Even if a highway is primarily a surface route, every freeway section should have a full exit list. Yes or no? -- Kéiryn 19:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you asking if it should be a separate table? I wouldn't do separate lists but one combined list called a junction list. --Holderca1 ^talk 19:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm asking whether it's necessary to list every exit, or whether it can be treated as a normal junction list (just listing other state highways). -- Kéiryn 19:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would list every exit. --Holderca1 ^talk 20:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Am I understanding this? If a road is limited access, meaning it has exits, you list all the exits. If it is not limited access (whether it be divided highway, two lane or two track!) then its a junction list with Interstates/USRs/and SHs that intersect it. If its both, then you do a combo, which I've seen done on some articles. Stratosphere|Talk 23:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be the consensus. The issue is that in the past, a lot of people, myself included, were not doing a combo-style for roads that were both, instead choosing to ignore the freeway section. -- Kéiryn 23:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I also use a multi-column row to show where the freeway sections start and stop. --Holderca1 ^talk 01:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should matter if the intersecting road is a state highway - of course if it is a state highway, the intersection is major, but if it's not, the intersection can still be major. For instance, California State Route 82#Major intersections includes all county routes, and at least one intersection per city, since it is basically the "main street" for the peninsula. On California State Route 149#Major intersections, since there are only three intersections, I listed them all. --NE2 02:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoa nelly. From the very beginning... and I mean very beginning -- before I joined Wikipedia and when the full junction list was still in the infobox -- the junction list has existed for the sole purpose of listing the junctions with other state highways. Not for listing a selection of unnumbered streets. To answer your next question, I don't have a clue why the section is called "Major intersections" instead of "Junctions with other state highways", other than length. But it's meant for other state highways, not for roads that you subjectively think might be major. -- Kéiryn 03:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The only exception to that I can think of is if the road has an article. --Holderca1 ^talk 03:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that different states have different practices with respect to state highways. Maybe in Kentucky it would make sense to list only state highways, but in California there are a lot of major county roads, including a whole expressway system near San Jose. --NE2 03:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Those are numbered, yes? If a non-numbered road has a junction with another it should only be listed if it is accessed off an exit on a limited access freeway. I think notability is a reasonable guideline for this. If it is unnumbered, it should probably be left out both for brevity and the fact that, unless it has its own article or is, itself, a limited access freeway, it probably isn't important enough to be in the list. Stratosphere|Talk 04:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Stratosphere. There are obviously exceptions to the "state highways only" rule, and I'm sorry if I implied that there weren't. Freeways, and for the most part expressways too, are definitely worthy of inclusion on the list. The Grand Central Parkway for example always goes on the list, even though in terms of numbering it's just a reference route. As for non-expressway county routes, I'd think that for the most part we should avoid listing them, unless there's some need to list it. For example, if the road goes through a whole lot of nothing, and it's the only junction in a town. -- Kéiryn 04:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I know it's late, and I know it's the other side of the pond

M62 motorway is today's featured article. Will ^(talk) 18:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Outstanding work! Keep it up. --Holderca1 ^talk 18:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hope to see I-35 or whatever the FA that the M62 article outvoted last month on the main page - hey, roadcruft is roadcruft ;) Will ^(talk) 18:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It might be a while before I-355 makes it onto the main page. :-) M62 was waiting for about 2 years. There are about 750 featured articles waiting to be featured on the main page, and another 2-3 get approved each day. —Rob (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Scale it down by a power of ten and you're right - it got promoted exactly 3 months ago (to the minute, nearly). Will ^(talk) 20:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see now - it had been 3 years since a road article was the featured article of the day. (There just aren't that many.) —Rob (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

We tried getting Kansas Turnpike on the main page once, but it was voted down due to an issue with one of the sources. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This is off-topic, but why doesn't the Kansas Turnpike article have an exit list? --Holderca1 ^talk 21:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It did, but SPUI was able to dig up history for each individual interchange, so we created the Interchanges section to go cover each interchange in-depth. This meant there was no real reason to have an exit list anymore. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, you could try to get the I-355 article on for Nov 11 or Dec 24. Will ^(talk) 21:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:3di_69 moved to Template:I-69_aux

Without an apparent explanation, User:Freewayguy moved {{3di 69}} to {{I-69 aux}}. This seems like it will break the entire group of {{3di}} templates that were carefully crafted. I think we need to move it back, any thoughts. -- KelleyCook (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The entire 3di template group is a mess right now and should be cleaned up at some point. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use image question

As I understand it, copyrighted photos can be used under fair use if a free version can't be reproduced. So would an photo such as this be acceptable to use on the I-37 article? --Holderca1 ^talk 03:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably so. You should see if the copyright holder would be willing to have it relicensed under GFDL, a Creative Commons license, or even into the public domain first, though. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a TxDOT photo, so trying to make such a request to a government agency would probably be pretty difficult. --Holderca1 ^talk 03:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Not as difficult as you might think. Imzadi's been working on getting a photo from MDOT released. Other than having to deal with a bit of bureaucracy, he's been pretty successful. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It depends how useful it is for the article. Personally I don't see what it would show that a current photo like [2] would not; it's a pretty typical construction job. Fair use is for stuff like Image:05231963 ChicagoRiver.JPG that is so different from what is there now that someone who knows only the current configuration would learn more than they would from text describing the road. --NE2 03:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Most of our history sections are devoid of photographs is the logic behind my thinking. --Holderca1 ^talk 04:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"Because I can" isn't really a good defense. You can include a current photo of something that the history section is describing without it being out of place. --NE2 04:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

How would a current photo depict the construction of the highway? --Holderca1 ^talk 04:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do you need to depict its construction? Were any particularly novel techniques used? --NE2 04:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Highly doubtful. It is a copyrighted photograph of a construction photograph of a non-unique interchange. So that particular image adds nothing to any article that couldn't be found elsewhere. -- KelleyCook (talk) 03:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh? How are you going to find 50 year old pictures elsewhere? --Holderca1 ^talk 04:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't necessarily need 50 year old photos if current ones will serve the same purpose. --NE2 04:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

But they don't, that's the whole point. It would be different if the it was a 50 year photo of the highway completed. --Holderca1 ^talk 04:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Information-wise, what does the construction photo convey that a current photo won't? --NE2 05:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it just this photo in particular or all construction photos. I just linked one of many just as an example. --Holderca1 ^talk 11:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Most generic construction photos are probably not fine. If it shows a unique method of construction or something else that no longer exists, it may be valid. It's not a construction photo, but [3] would probably be fair use in Gulf Freeway as an example. I looked at the photos on [4] and none look unique enough to use. --NE2 12:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, except for the ones taken before 1964 which are now in the PD. --Holderca1 ^talk 13:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily; they had to be published before 1964 (and not renewed). --NE2 14:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

How would you know the published date? Would it be safe to assume that if the photo has a year on it, that is the published date as in this photo? [5] --Holderca1 ^talk 14:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No; it might be unpublished. If you take a photo it's not published unless you share it with the world. I'm not sure how that applies to public agencies where you can go to the offices and look - does that count as publication? I suggest you contact the TexasFreeway webmaster or TxDOT. The one definite exception is the scans of Texas Highways magazine: you can be sure that these were published. And remember Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. - scanning does not create a new copyright; the only copyright in the scan is that in the original. --NE2 17:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not argueing that the picture isn't cool or unique to that particular intersection. I'm saying what the Wiki fair-use rules: there are zillions of uncopyrighted 50 year old road construction photographs around, so that particular picture couldn't possibly add any information that requires THAT PARTICULAR COPYRIGHTED PHOTO to any road article except an article that deals explicitly and only about construction of the intersection of I-10 & I-37 (which of course doesn't exist). Read the WP:NONFREE rules, they are very specific. As mentioned before, your best bet is to appeal to TxDOT. -- KelleyCook (talk) 04:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, there is an article for I-37 and I-10. --Holderca1 ^talk 04:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:AFC seeking advice

I'm a member of the WikiProject Articles for Creation. We validate and create articles for users who do not have accounts or want to submit articles anonymously. Recently, a submitter has been providing a ton of redirect requests regarding various state routes in California. Most of these have been pretty simple, such as CA 18 to California State Route 18. However, today, there has been a number of requests for redirects for various named interchanges to be added as well. Some examples of these include Daniel D. Mikesell interchange to Interstate 15 in California and William E. Leonard interchange to Interstate 210 and State Route 210 (California). I really can't find much online that refers to these named interchanges and it really doesn't seem that these redirects serve much purpose to me. However, before we created or declined them, I wanted to ask you all at the US Roads WikiProject what you thought about these proposed redirect requests. How do they fall within your guidelines and style? -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 16:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

For anyone else reading, it's the 75 IP... personally I don't see the harm in redirecting, but with interchanges you really have to think about which of the two roads you redirect to. (Probably the newer one because the construction of the interchange would figure more prominently in its history.) --NE2 17:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I agree that there's no harm in redirecting for the most part, and he's welcome to create all the odd redirects he wants. I've even been using a couple recently like SR 7 (WA) (may God rest SPUI's soul). But I think you just pointed out the harm in creating a redirect in this specific case. If you have to think about which of the two should be the target, then the answer is neither. -- Kéiryn 18:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the significance of having every named interchange listed here in Wikipedia. ArcAngel (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I realize this question hasn't been posted for very long, but the initial consensus appears to be that 1) It doesn't serve any purpose and 2) it may be harmful because an interchange redirect can only link to one of the two roads in that interchange. Based on this initial consensus I'm going to decline all of those requests now with a note to "75 IP" to discuss it here. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 05:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC: should I-X (east) articles mention I-X (west) articles?

My initial leaning is no, but User:jnestorius brings up an interesting argument here. Please leave comments on that page - thanks! —Rob (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite simply, the entire argument is based on a statement to the article which is wrong. I-84 (west) is not a discontiguous segment of the same road. It is a different Interstate with the same number. -- KelleyCook (talk) 05:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Time to move on?

crossposted to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Proposed decision#Time to move on?; please reply there

After reading through the Mantanmoreland case, I'm starting to doubt whether ArbCom really will help us here. I think what we really need is some sort of structured discussion. If I were to request a mediation on the topic of project scopes - or a larger topic - would the "major players" here all participate in good faith and listen to all sides? --NE2 04:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

How exactly is that case relevant? The apparent ability of ArbCom to handle one case has no bearing on its past decisions. --Coredesat 04:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Proposed decision#Time to move on? --NE2 05:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of possibly starting a discussion on the scope issue. It's kind of silly to just leave the scope section blank for this long. If we're all willing to not go nuts if the "other side wins", I think ArbCom would be okay with it. Anyone have any reasons why we shouldn't/couldn't do that? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion, yes. Actually implementing as a result of the discussion - can't happen until Arbcom closes the case. On that note - I'm all for discussing it :)  — master son^{T - C} 22:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think if we were all in agreement (meaning NE2 agreed with the plan as well), ArbCom would let us implement it. If everyone was on board except NE2, then we'd have to get their input on it. Discussion is taking place ↓↓↓ down there. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

TFD

{{CAScenic}} and {{CAFES}} have been sent to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 March 2. --Rschen7754 (T C) 09:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

A list of websites that fail WP:SPS

Do we have a list somewhere that lists road websites like AARoads or Kurumi that shouldn't be used as a source in articles. --Holderca1 ^talk 20:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really that I recall - though I think one should be placed on the main WP page.  — master son^{T - C} 20:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure such a list should be made, honestly. If the webmasters of those sites run across it and see their site under the heading "Unreliable sources", they could, not understanding the Wikipedia meaning of 'reliable source', take offense at it. I think that we should have close ties with the rest of the roadgeek community, because we'd ideally like to encourage well-known members of the roadgeek community to become editors someday. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be okay if it is under the heading of websites that are self-published sources. We could put something in there to make it as PC as we can. Say that these websites do offer good information that can get you going in the right direction, but shouldn't be cited directly. We could also say that these sites are a good source of references and maps that can be used. I personally use these sites quite often to find additional resources. The only reason I brought this up is an article was put of for A-Class review and it used Kurumi extensively. --Holderca1 ^talk 21:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

There is an ethical concern ripe for the taking - is it wise to write based on the sources self-published sites use, without actually having seen the source? I.e., using Kurumi but citing the sources instead of Kurumi? (First glance suggests, obviously not, but you never know if it's gonna come up...) —Rob (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't cite a source I hadn't seen, but I suppose you could try and find it. --Holderca1 ^talk 21:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Project scope, a discussion

USRD's project scope, at such time as the ArbCom action is finalized, should be redefined. Until the time comes that changes can be implemented, let us as a USRD community discuss this and any other proposals. I submit:

Proposal by Imzadi1979

USRD shall exist to coordinate project assessment, standards and tools between the various state-level WikiProjects and task forces devoted to editing, improving and expanding articles on highways and their systems in the United States and territories of the United States. It shall be the project in chief to coordinate with other national-level projects on highways under WP:HWY. All state- and territory-level projects and task forces retain the ability to form consensus over their individual articles, project scopes, and participation lists.

--Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. May also want to add that USRD is, so to speak, the state highway WikiProject for states with no WikiProject. In addition to this, what do we do about streets?. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

So, basically, this would define USRD's scope to merely be the sum of all its subprojects? I must say, that's a fine idea. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No issues here; that was the original purpose of the USRD standards (not departments) when they were first put on the page - to serve as standards for areas without a project. How it ever got interpreted differently, I have no clue. Participant lists...IIRC Rschen's manifesto called for the demerging of that, so that's kosher. All in all this is pretty good, although the last line makes demoting a project to a task force pretty much useless IMO. Not saying that's a good or bad thing; just making an observation. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 23:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't notice that. Maybe we should remove the "task force" language, since task forces are basically demoted because they're not effective as an autonomous subproject, and thus USRD needs to step in to get the project on-course. It would also give an incentive to get task forces re-promoted. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

As for city streets, I was thinking of adding the language At-grade city streets are covered by WP:USST, not this project to the scope. This would allow city streets that happen to carry a numbered route to be transfered, while still permitting us to keep locally-maintained freeways.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That kind of goes against the above proposal. If a state project wants to keep city streets, then it is up to them. City streets in those states would just belong to WP:USST and the state project. --Holderca1 ^talk 00:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Why was WP:USST created to begin with? A street is a road.  — master son^{T - C} 00:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It was so that articles on city streets could find a home where the spotlight was on them instead of being neglected as low-importance articles at USRD. Also, USRD's infoboxes and standards for B-class aren't really compatible with city streets — making a junction list for Madison Avenue would be pretty difficult, for instance. Also, important city streets tend to have the things along them more closely associated with them (Broadway, Wall Street, Colfax Avenue) and thus the connotation of the road's name factors more in city street articles. Finally, some USRD members don't like having the assessment cats cluttered with articles that they don't have the resources or interest in doing any work on. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but please note my word choices. I chose the phrase: "...articles on highways and their systems" to specifically exclude articles solely on streets. Yes, a state level-project might decide it wants to keep streets, but then that wouldn't be compatible with USRD's role coordinating projects devoted to highways. By definition, a street isn't a highway, and by excluding mention of it in my proposed scope, I exclude it from the project. While the project's name might be U.S. Roads (U.S. Highways is taken by the project devoted to the likes of US 1, US 66, etc.) it's really a coordination project devoted to highways.

Also, I don't think USRD should be the state-level project for states without projects. That muddies the waters too much. USRD should be the coordination project. There should be projects or task forces that handle the articles themselves. Even if that means we have to form task forces to lump states together on a regional level. Maybe that's a little too bureaucratic, but I think keeping a clear-cut distinction between the roles is important to fend off disputes in the future.

--Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - but I have to disagree with the scope of USRD being limited to "...articles on highways and their systems." State level wikiprojects can choose such, but in my feeling, a road is a road. What reason would we have for the limitation?  — master son^{T - C} 00:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Part of the issue that I've come up with is that regardless of their role in the history of state highways, auto trails are completely different animals than current state highways. The same standards -- the infobox, junction list, browsing -- just don't make sense in that regard. I know no one's brought up auto trails yet, but I knew someone would, ergo I did...

Plus, I think much of the same logic I just described also applies to the city streets. Sure, a street is a road, but they're not the types of roads that USRD was meant to deal with. -- Kéiryn 00:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

well, the concern that I have is the project's name WikiProject U.S. Roads will lure potential user who believe that streets, back roads, auto trails, county routes, state highways, U.S. Routes and Interstates are grouped under it. Right now, based on this proposal, that is not going to be true - and thus will be misleading. Care must be taken here  — master son^{T - C} 01:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Very valid point. And I'm all for there being a project that encompasses everything. But what this project is, and what the bulk of the editors here are interested in, is not that project. It's a project on numbered highways (and unnumbered freeways) in the U.S. -- Kéiryn 01:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah -- I concur with the scope proposal that Imzadi1979 stated - but the project name will be confusing, thus my playing Devil's Advocate.  — master son^{T - C} 01:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You can't buy targets at Target, Garvin, Oklahoma is nowhere near Garvin County, there's no longer an actual wall on Wall Street. Names can outgrow their original rationales (or not have anything to do with them in the first place). We can always change the name of the project if it really becomes an issue. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

What is a highway anyway? There are a lot of highways that are nothing more than a city street with a number and maintained by the state. --Holderca1 ^talk 01:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Precisely.  — master son^{T - C} 01:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we need minimum scope requirements for the state projects. The requirements would be:

• state numbered highways
• named freeways that do not have a number
• toll roads
• highway related organizations such as DOT and toll road organizations

--Holderca1 ^talk 01:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The point of a WikiProject is to coordinate editing of similar articles. Roads like Wacker Drive and Rock Creek Parkway have elements of a street and of a highway, so editors from both projects can help, kind of like the Pulaski Skyway is both a highway and a bridge. So far I've seen no reason for removing major streets that carry through traffic. Can somebody please explain the reasoning? I think Holderca1 said it well - "there are a lot of [state] highways that are nothing more than a city street with a number and maintained by the state." --NE2 05:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

NO (to everyone), this project has used the same scope for three years, and I don't like the proposal to change it. Sure new articles are a burden to other editors, it just means we gotta watch for them and/or expand them. Isn't that what Wikipedia is for? When this right-now-dead-ArbCom passes, I wanna keep the scope as is, especially for keeping the stub count down. Like Keiryn, I am all for a project that covers everything, because I like more County and local roads. One thing I've noticed that hasn't come up are County Routes. Well, anyway, if we are gonna change the scope, use the subprojects that dominate it. The national one should not be touched.

To the proposal above for keeping USST articles in subprojects. I feel that would be better for articles that were formerly part of the state, as that would one, limit the amount going in and 2, help USST get some body to it. The project is just sitting there. Anyway, please leave the scope alone, its for the better for all of us.^Mitch32^contribs 12:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem Mitch is that right now the way things are working - WP:USRD has been looked at as the controller of the state projects. That has been met with resistance because of the lack of freedom for them to go their own way. Cases in point are Maryland and Pennsylvania. When WP:PASH was renamed from Pennsylvania State Highways to Pennsylvania Roads, there was quite a bit of resistance (both on Wiki and in IRC) to this change. I have a problem with that. By Wikipedia policy, USRD cannot control the state projects. WikiProjects are collections of Articles, not policy setters. — master son^{T - C} 12:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

A possible criterion

So I was heating up a pretzel and something made me think about why these articles exist in the first place. Stay with me here...articles like California State Route 153 or California State Route 283 would not exist, under any name, were the roads not state highways, but an article like M-102 (Michigan highway) would still exist as 8 Mile Road even if it were never a state highway. On the other hand, something like Wall Street would probably not have an article if it had no history or stock market, but Broadway (Manhattan) or Riverside Drive (Manhattan) would even if it were only a road for traffic, since they were both major exits from the city to the north before the freeways.

So here's my general idea for a criterion: if the road were nothing but a (present or former) carrier of traffic, would we still have an article about it? I realize that this is pretty subjective, and maybe we can work it out better, but does it seem like a good starting point? Here are a few examples:

• Wacker Drive: yes, since it's an innovative roadway design
• Madison Avenue (Manhattan): no, since it's just one of many north-south streets
• Octavia Boulevard: yes, since it was specifically built to handle traffic that had used the Central Freeway

--NE2 05:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean a criteria for inclusion into either USST or USRD? --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it actually works both ways. If Snicker's Gap Turnpike never carried significant amounts of traffic, it wouldn't have an article, so it doesn't belong in USST, but Wacker Drive would still be the city's riverfront street, and so fits in both. --NE2 06:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:USST should not be and is not a dumping ground for articles that "don't fit in WP:USRD." From what I see, that's what has been the case. USST was created for two reasons:

1. notability issues (as the examples NE2 has shown above). Solve these - don't sweep them under the rug.
2. a way to remove stubs from USRD. If you want to remove stubs from USRD, expand them!

You might be able to remove stubs from USRD - but they still exist and need to be addressed. Yeah one can argue that they are being addressed - but can you show that they are?  — master son^{T - C} 12:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: NE2's comments just reiterate what my comment above about names of projects.  — master son^{T - C} 12:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

So far I haven't really seen a good reason not to include the streets in the state road projects. I think a similar situation is the state projects have tagged most of the state highway project articles even though they don't work on them. I think this same strategy would work for the streets. The state highway projects would tag all the city streets within their respective states. WP:USST would also tag them and would be the primary project. Just because an article belongs to your project, doesn't mean you have to work on it. I think some people are getting too worked up over the leaderboard. --Holderca1 ^talk 13:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Copying the comment I posted above, as it seems nobody read it. USST was created so that articles on city streets could find a home where the spotlight was on them instead of being neglected as low-importance articles at USRD. Also, USRD's infoboxes and standards for B-class aren't really compatible with city streets — making a junction list for Madison Avenue would be pretty difficult, for instance. Also, important city streets tend to have the things along them more closely associated with them (Broadway, Wall Street, Colfax Avenue) and thus the connotation of the road's name factors more in city street articles. Finally, some USRD members don't like having the assessment cats cluttered with articles that they don't have the resources or interest in doing any work on. It was never intended for articles to be in both, and doing so is merely exploiting a loophole found in the language of the scope. 17:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I read it but disagree. --NE2 17:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

All articles don't require a junction list to get to B-class anyways. I think what bothers me the most about your comment though is this: "Finally, some USRD members don't like having the assessment cats cluttered with articles that they don't have the resources or interest in doing any work on." This should absolutely have no bearing on whether these articles are included or not. That would be similar to a member of the Wikiproject for the state of Florida saying that they have no resources or interest in articles about Jacksonville, so lets remove those from our project. That doesn't make much sense. Again, there is no harm in having articles in multiple projects, it happens all the time. What harm does it do to have these articles included other than they hurt my numbers on the leaderboard? I see more harm if they aren't included. --Holderca1 ^talk 17:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You're blowing that out of proportion. That's a minor, fairly unimportant reason, thus why I listed it last. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't really agree with any of the reasons you listed, the last one just struck me and it was the one I concentrated on. So where would an article like Texas State Highway 165 go? --Holderca1 ^talk 17:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

TX-165 goes to USRD; it's a state highway. What I mean by 'city streets' is things like Congress Avenue, which really deal more with local history and things that USRD members don't really have the time and resources to get around to. Congress Ave. appears to no longer be a numbered highway (if it ever was one in the first place), which is what USRD is built to handle. USST is built for city streets, since they have to deal local history, the neighborhoods along them, and cultural connotations. We have a separate project for these, where people can collaborate and store resources for them. I find no reason to keep them within USRD, when they'd be much more at home at USST. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Why keep an article that you can't fix? --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Because a project's membership is not static. --NE2 18:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

What article is broken? --Holderca1 ^talk 18:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

State highways should have that information in their articles as well. Most times the major road through a small town or city is a US Highway or state highway. Would an article on US 66 be complete without addressing the effects it had on the local history of the towns it passed through? As far as not having the time to work on them, WP:TXSH as the most wikiwork of any of the state projects and a great majority of the highway articles aren't even created yet. I have no problem with not having to worry about the workload that city streets brings, but I am not so sure that it is the best to throw them out. --Holderca1 ^talk 18:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

←Perhaps it would be best to just leave the city streets issue up to each state then, since there's such a split over this issue. Imzadi's federalistic plan seems to be the best route to bypass drama, that's for sure. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

All I was trying to say was that just because it has a USRD WP tag on it, doesn't mean that USRD is the primary project for the article. USST should be the primary, but there are some resources that USRD can provide, map making being one such resource. There may be some state highway articles that may make sense to tag as a USST article as well, but USRD would remain the primary on those. USST would be able to contribute quite a bit to our state highways that are nothing more than a city street with a number assigned. I don't know, I guess I just see these articles as mutually inclusive rather than exclusive. These articles would greatly benefit from a collaboration of both projects, both bring something different to the table. --Holderca1 ^talk 19:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be the best way to confuse the heck out of anybody tagging articles. --NE2 19:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll be blunt: I'd much rather have people confused over how to tag a particular article than to have this be a constant issue. We need to move past this. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Would making WP:USST a task force under USRD be a valid compromise? Most if not all the participants of USST are members of USRD anyway. It would pull all the street articles out from under the state highway projects just as the auto trails task force does. --Holderca1 ^talk 19:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that would be a good idea at all. I feel that doing things by-state would definitely be best course of action. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand, USST isn't currently broken up by state. It also doesn't have to be a task force, it can be a subproject, but that is just semantics anyways. --Holderca1 ^talk 19:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

How USST does things is up to USST. But splitting things up by state allows each subproject to determine whether it wants to cover city streets or not. Texas apparently does, Oklahoma doesn't; under this system, everyone's a-okay with that and if there's conflicting opinions, that subproject can hash it out without all of USRD being plunged into turmoil. USRD's scope would be defined, as above, as the sum of all subprojects below it. This would also help those who complain that USRD is pushing things on subprojects that they don't want - the subprojects get to choose what USRD covers, basically. Turnabout being fair play and all. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

What about notable road bridges? I mean Pulaski Skyway is featured, but I am sure there are road bridges out there with articles that aren't tagged with a USRD project tag. I don't think it is right to pick and choose what articles to include just becuase an article is featured. What road bridges would fall within our scope? Just bridges that carry state highways? --Holderca1 ^talk 19:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure...my first reaction is that we probably shouldn't cover very many of them. The Pulaski Skyway is sort of an edge case because the Skyway comprises its own highway, like a named freeway, basically. I may be misremembering something about it though. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

One possible issue is a state-level project that specifically excludes streets. WP:MSHP only includes MDOT maintained/numbered routes. This also includes the CDHs as well. You could end up with an article tagged under USRD/USST and not MSHP. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you missed the point of the discussion here. If USRD retains the street articles as part of its scope, and the street is in Michigan, it would belong to MSHP. That is the nature of being a subproject. --Holderca1 ^talk 19:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

City street proposal

I felt this would get lost above, so I broke out a new subsection. My proposal for the city streets would be to make WP:USST a subproject or task force of WP:USRD. This will solve the issue with editors that believe that USRD should retain these articles. It would also allow the state wikiprojects to concentrate on just highways if they so choose. Our project banner does allow for a state to tag these in addition to the USST tag. --Holderca1 ^talk 19:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

What about those who don't think USRD should cover them at all, such as myself? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That's why its called a compromise, each side has to give a little. If you don't want to edit the articles, don't edit them. Do you have a specific reason why you don't think it should be a subproject? --Holderca1 ^talk 20:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Because I think that letting each subproject decide how it wants to handle things is a better course of action, as I explained ↑ up there. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that would be a valid compromise. That way USRD would become "the project that includes everything" that I talked about. I think it's important to point out the other part of the compromise, though. Then USST would be a task force separate from the state subprojects, and a project like NJSCR -- which stands for New Jersey State and County Routes -- would be just for state and county routes. If other states want to widen their scope, that's fine, but the sense I'm getting is that most states don't. -- Kéiryn 20:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding to my comment, since I had an edit conflict... Holderca's plan does allow each subproject to decide how it wants to handle things. It's just USRD that would be affected, being forced to take on all the streets. -- Kéiryn 20:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait, whoa, now I'm confused... Your plan at the top of this section seems to say that it would be up to the states to decide whether or not they want streets as part of their subprojects. But your last comment above before the section break seems to say the opposite... Unconfuse me please... -- Kéiryn 20:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)