Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads

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.

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)

• 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)

Just kidding; I really don't feel like wading through all the code right now. --NE2 08:20, 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. --MPD ^{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. --TMF ^{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). --TMF ^{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. --MPD ^{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. --TMF ^{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. --TMF ^{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. --TMF ^{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:

			This article has been categorized into the following subtopics: Interstate Highways (WikiProject), California (WikiProject), and Arizona.
			Importance within the subprojects, if we do it

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. --TMF ^{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. --TMF ^{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. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 17:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it better now? --NE2 17:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

	This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Subtopics	U.S. Highways, Kansas State Highways, Missouri State Highways.
!	This article sucks and needs attention
	This article contains a map, but it also sucks. Please work with the maps task force to make a better one.

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. --MPD ^{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. --TMF ^{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.) —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. --MPD ^{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. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 12:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 22#Category:Blue Star Memorial Highways --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#Auto Trails. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/auto trails. --NE2 01:06, 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#USRD scope. --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; Wikipedia: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.—JA10 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.—JA10 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. —JA10 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. --TMF ^{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)

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 / 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)

--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)

Agree 100%. All NE2 does is cause trouble. —JA10 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)