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.

New book about the Pulaski Skyway

I noticed in my AWB run that someone had added an "external link" to Pulaski Skyway: "The Last Three Miles: Politics, Murder, and the Construction of America's First Superhighway" (ISBN 1595580980). From reading the reviews on Amazon, it seems to be a good book with more of a focus on politics than the highway. That might be good, since the current article, while featured, probably needs a rework, and concentrates almost exclusively on the highway. (It should probably include a bit more on the engineering too.) Is anyone interested in this, or should I consider it? --NE2 10:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good read. I can't afford it right now, but I would if I could. --MPD ^{T / C} 12:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You should try interlibrary loan, if your local library participates. --NE2 12:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I requested it, and will try to apply the "Ridge Route treatment". --NE2 19:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Question about infoboxes

I recently started using the "city1" parameter of template:jct for infoboxes, such as on Nova Scotia Highway 104. This is a little easier, but I realize that it provides less information than the standard in/at/near. Should I go back to the old style, or is this enough information? I think I actually have a slight preference for the word, but if you like the dash I'll keep using it. --NE2 20:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Definitely back to the old style. As you said, the dash doesn't provide nearly the amount of information as the words. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm changing to words. --NE2 20:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Strange category name

Does anyone find this category to have a strange name: Category:U.S. Highways in Georgia (U.S. state)? Why is Georgia have the U.S. state disamb when it already says U.S. from the start. Is anyone really going to confuse this with the country? I can't think of any United States Highways in the country. --Holderca1 15:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Add this one as well Category:Interstate Highways in Georgia (U.S. state), none of the articles of either cat have this disamb, using this logic, Interstate 20 in Georgia should be moved to Interstate 20 in Georgia (U.S. state) --Holderca1 15:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm baffling - someone seems to like the department of redundancy department ;) :P - and it's not me :? master son^{T - C} 15:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably done for consistency, because most other things involving the state of Georgia say Georgia (U.S. state). (Note that doesn't necessarily mean I'm in favor of it. :P) —Scott5114↗ 16:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It was done by bots

• Cydebot did the Interstate one on Aug 26, 2007
• RobotG (now defunct) did the U.S. Route one on Dec 1, 2007

master son^{T - C} 17:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:DAB specifically says to only disambiguate when confusion may occur. I would like to meet the person that would go in the U.S. Highways in Georgia cat looking for a road in the country. --Holderca1 18:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree; there's no possibility of confusion here. --NE2 06:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait wait wait...I definitely thought US 84 went through Kutaisi. Well, that ends that confusion. --MPD ^{T / C} 07:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

New Mexico State Road or Route

It appears it should be State Route, see here [1] towards the bottom where there are links to each of the highway logs. --Holderca1 12:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you look at the logs? The "State Routes" one is very inconsistent; on the first page alone it uses "State Route NM x", "State Road NM x", and "NM x". I don't know how "State Road x" was chosen, but this isn't evidence of "State Route" being the definite style. --NE2 14:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

But so there's no evidence of "State Road" being the definite style either? Then, we need to find a source. --MPD ^{T / C} 16:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If anything, it looks like "NM x" is the most common style: [2][3][4] Do we want to go Michigan and Kansas style here? "NM x (New Mexico highway)"? Or "NM x (highway)"? --NE2 16:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Using an abbreviation for the name is problematic. For a while, North Carolina articles were at "NC x" before they were moved to their current name to eliminate the awkwardness. This move did not come without discussion; the exact location(s) of it, I can't remember. Some might be found at SRNC, maybe others in the NCSH and USRD archives. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 19:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I found it at Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll/Part2#<New Mexico> State Road X. Apparently the "tie-breaker" was that older signs included "State Road"; see [5]. This seems reasonable to me, though I wonder why the common name was "State Road x", not "New Mexico State Road x". --NE2 20:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this another case like Alaska, where nobody cares? --NE2 19:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diamond Bar Crunch Interchange
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstate 98

--NE2 22:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

User list revamp

Would anyone object if we combined all the participant lists for all of the U.S. Road subwikiprojects into Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Participants? This would make it easier for maintenance and structure. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Alaska succession boxes

State Route to Route I understand, but what was wrong with the succession/precession boxes? It made the named highways fit better with their route numbers (which are, understandably, quite unimportant up there). —Rob (talk) 12:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You mean the boxes like at the bottom of [6]? I don't see the point; if you want to follow AK-1 you can go to the AK-1 article. --NE2 15:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This is true, but I'm of the opinion most readers will go from main article to main article, skipping the intentionally stubbish AK 1 article completely most of the time.

While optimally, this information would be in the first paragraph or infobox, the succession boxes make it clear without having to make room for it on the infobox, or something otherwise unnecessary. —Rob (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability of memorial highways

See /Notability#Memorial highways. —Scott5114↗ 23:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"Multiplex"

I'm going to start systematically weeding out this neologism. Are there any objections to "overlap" as the standard replacement? It seems like the simplest term, is used by many DOTs, and can be easily conjugated. --NE2 05:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Use concurrency. I don't believe there's anything wrong with duplex, triplex, multiplex, and so on, and in fact seem more descriptive, but that doesn't seem to be the prevailing opinion.—Scott5114↗ 06:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong is that they're neologisms only used by roadgeeks. Why do you say to use concurrency rather than overlap? --NE2 07:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Concurrency is a term in use by at least Caltrans (see ref № 1 in the linked article) —Scott5114↗ 07:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, and other places use overlap, such as New York (as TMF says below), Virginia, the FHWA (including in the MUTCD), and Ontario. --NE2 07:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Concurrency or overlap works. I know NYSDOT exclusively uses overlap; can't speak for other states. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 06:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I prefer concurrency (clarify: as the noun). But only on the basis that it sounds better. I think overlap is a good verb, concurrency is a good noun. Let's not get nitpicky though. --MPD ^{T / C} 19:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm okay with either "concurrency" or "overlap", however please use concurrency more as it is the noun. The word "overlap" should be used when the prose starts to get boring. —O (说 • 喝) 20:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? Overlap is a noun too. --NE2 09:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

So if we do go with what's suggested above:

• A and B multiplex → A and B overlap
• A multiplexes with B → A overlaps B
• A has a multiplex with B → A overlaps B
• A joins B and C, forming a multiplex → A overlaps B and C
• the multiplex of A and B → the concurrency of A and B
• the A/B multiplex → the A/B concurrency
• end of multiplex → end of concurrency (although in my personal non-semi-automated edits I'll keep using overlap here)
• A triplexes with B and C → A overlaps B and C
• the only triplex in the state → the only three-route concurrency in the state

Do these examples all look good? --NE2 13:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. --MPD ^{T / C} 15:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me, although like you, I use overlap in the "end of multiplex" case. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 19:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to make the edits. Please let me know if I'm doing anything wrong. --NE2 18:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is important to note that this it not a rule as to what we can or can not say- except "multiplex", which is not acceptable. As long as it makes sense and gets the message across, it's all good! --MPD ^{T / C} 19:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Certainly; anything that's used by a DOT or is a simple word is fine: overlap, concurrency, overlay, join, ... --NE2 19:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought you might get a kick out of [7]; pre-manual changes it would have been "concurrent with U.S. Route 52 (concurrent with U.S. 62 concurrency) from Aberdeen to Ripley, Ohio". And I edited myself, heh. --NE2 19:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm a little bit late to this party, but in my opinion: (a) "multiplex" is not a neologism, but rather a somewhat unconventional use of the word (this use is inspired by the description of a multiplex in electronics, in which multiple signals can be sent along the same conductor or bus); (b) "overlap" is a less unwieldy (more wieldy?) word than "concurrency" in all cases. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 16:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

An "unconventional use of a word" is a neologism. --NE2 17:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Northwest Tollway renamed to Jane Addams Memorial Tollway (IL)

See talk page - it's a bit more than I can handle on my own, I think. —Rob (talk) 08:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Bannered routes

Bannered routes are a bit of a problem, in being that they're generally too short to get a good article out of. Of course, they're state-numbered highways, which makes them notable enough for an article. So what to do?

Well, I've merged all the bannered routes articles from U.S. 71 into Bannered routes of U.S. Route 71. Notice the fact that {{Infobox road}} is not used - a smaller custom infobox ({{usban}}) was created to keep huge infoboxes from spilling over onto other highways, causing stacking and other problems. This infobox only has location and whether it's decommissioned or not, which is all you really need to know about a business loop - the termini are most always the parent highway. I'd like others' thoughts on the proposal and if anyone else has alternate suggestions (no pun intended) of course feel free to bring them to the table. —Scott5114↗ 17:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I would do away with the "Active?" line, just looks unprofessional to have a question mark in there like that. I would suggest using a created row and a decommissioned row with the years of each. If there isn't a decommissioned row, then obviously the road is still active. A mileage row would probably be a good idea as well. --Holderca1 17:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems like a lot of times mileage is missing, which is why I left it out. Also, instead of separate rows for commissioning/decommissioned, we could do something like they do for people, like (1939-1944) or (1932-) for still active. (The green "Active" template I discovered through a sheer coding accident and thought it looked good there because it highlighted the still-active routes, but it can go, obviously.) —Scott5114↗ (logged out), 18:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Generally in the case of Georgia, the vast majority of bannered routes are simply covered in the article for the parent (and redirected as appropriate). A couple, like SR 138 Spur and SR 25 Conn, have enough information for their own articles, but most don't. –Pedriana (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. I've been thinking of something like that for some other routes (especially those that have 10 or 12 bypasses/business routes in a state. I think it's a good idea, and can only be expanded upon. But where does it go from here? "Bannered routes of U.S. Route X in State" for those that are very long? Or for routes like US 50, we have a LONG article? I don't really know...--MPD ^{T / C} 20:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, the long routes with long articles are why we have a separate list, rather than merging with the main article (which I could see doing for U.S. routes with only one bannered route). This proposal doesn't really deal with state bannered routes (which are up to the state to decide). As for splitting it up by state, I'm not sure...—Scott5114↗ 20:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the "active?" line is necessary; you can have current routes first, and then the last section for former routes, with level 3 headings for each of those. --NE2 23:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I was just doing them in highway order because that's how I tend to think of things like this. —Scott5114↗ 01:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, implemented those suggestions. Anything else, especially about the general proposal (anybody that loves business loop articles)? —Scott5114↗ 03:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Full support of this proposal, plus the consolidation of Interstate business routes in the same manner. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 06:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)