text:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 19

IRC
I tried to join IRC and I got a notification that said "This channel requires that you have registered and identified yourself with the network's nickname registration services (e.g. NickServ). Please see the documentation of this network's nickname registration services that should be found in the MOTD (/motd to display it)." What am I supposed to do about it?  Dough 48  72  00:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you register your nickname with the server? I just checked the channel modes, and nothing's changed that would/should prevent you from getting in.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Resolved now. On a side note, User:Master son's registration got dropped, and as alternate owner, I am apparently now the owner. :/ --Rschen7754 21:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

National Bridge Inventory
A few months ago, I had an idea to create a template to handle references to the National Bridge Inventory, a Federal Highway Administration database that includes information about every bridge in the United States. The information in the database is conveniently arranged with search capabilities at nationalbridges.com. I am ready to start moving forward with this project, but first I wanted to get some feedback on several issues. There are probably other issues to discuss, but I am drawing a blank right now.  V C  17:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) The specific data files accessed from search results appear in a pop-up window that only has the data. Example: Golden Gate Bridge. These pop-up windows have a URL that leads only to the data. I know my preference, if I were viewing the data, would be to have the capability to do more searches. There is currently no way to do that with current setup without altering the links. I have played around with the URLs to access a mode that shows the data and the structure of the database access site. The URLs can be cut down to half their full size and be more useful. My question is, should we stay true to the form and only link the URLs of the pop-up boxes, or alter the URLs to make the result more user friendly?
 * 2) How should each individual reference be titled? To me, using the NBI # would seem to be the best way to title them. Using other methods like bridge name or highway intersection seems too subjective and subject to wide variation in the wild. However, not all states seem to use the 15-digit NBI #; some states uses a much shorter number that is a subset of the 15-digit number. There is a pattern to the first several digits, but should we bother trying to apply it for the sake of all references having the 15-digit number?
 * 3) From my investigation, I have not found a correlation between NBI # and the entry number in the nationalbridges.com database. It would make no sense to state the database number in a reference, but it could be helpful to use the entry number in the template.
 * I had issues with this when I nominated 2 articles for FA status using nationalbridges.com as a source. Keep in mind this was 2007-8ish and the situation may have changed, however, for the record I'll state the problems I had and you can do whatever.
 * I was criticized as nationalbridges.com is/was accused of being a self published source. My attempts to defend them as taking the official NBI data (which is available from the FWHA's website, but only in raw, cryptic form) and repackaging that data in a more human readable format fell on deaf ears. I was able to get around this by citing the raw NBI data as the first source and having nationalbridges.com mentioned in the reference data as "also available at" with a link to their site. is a sample of where I did this.
 * When nationalbridges.com updated their site with (IIRC) the 2009 NBI data, the data import for many western states failed and the site ceased to work for many western states (Nevada, Utah and Colorado to name 3) and I had to stop using this (otherwise excellent) site for articles in those states. Hopefully that has since been fixed with 2010 and 2011 data imports. (Update, those states appear to be working now with the 2011 data import, however the URL scheme has changed, and the links I put to this site in articles using 2008 data are now broken links)
 * However to opine on your specific questions, IMO the link should use the official NBI inventory number, not colloquial name, that's what I did. Plus, sticking to the official NBI number as the query guarantees you will get the entry for the correct bridge. It is always theoretically possible that with the 2012 update that the name "Golden Gate" is omitted from the upload of the bridge we all think of as the Golden Gate Bridge and for that year searching for Golden Gate bridge now points to some unnotable bridge over Golden Gate creek in rural Nebraska. However, the NBI inventory number will not likely change. Dave (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thinking more about this I think this is a great idea. Seeing how many times I've used nationalbridges.com as a source, and how many of those links are now broken. Having a template generate the specific URL could reduce article maintenance significantly. As if done right we'd have one template to update when the site updates for the new years NBI data, instead of hundreds of articles to police.

 * On a personal note, I'm glad to see this site working again for western US states. After the I-35 bridge collapse in Minnesota, most non-roadgeeks learned about the NBI for the first time as this database got significant coverage in the news. I wanted to revise articles to state the post bridge collapse inspections revealed the Colorado river bridge on US-191 was deemed the most endangered bridge in Utah (replaced in 2010, thanks to you generous taxpayers and the stimulus bills) and the Virginia Street Bridge was the most endangered in Nevada (and still is). I had sources for this, but with nationalbridges.com not working for those states, no way to link to the specifics. Now we do. Here's the entry for the Virginia Street Bridge, doesn't this make you want to just park your car on it. =-) Dave (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think Dave's experience is/should be indicative of future results. However, the benefit is that if we have future issues, the template can provide a dual link somehow so that the purists can see the raw NBI files from FHWA or the pretty version. A template also means that if the website is reconfigured again, we can update the URLs to fix links that become broken.
 * That said, I'd prefer that we title the pages based on the NBI numbers. If there's an official scheme and some states are truncating digits, I say we can either use the full numbers or the shortened numbers as appropriate. For citation purposes, we should be pointing to the exact page/record. It's only when we can't link to a specific result that we don't. (I can't link to a search on the MDOT Physical Reference Finder Application mapping service nor to a results page on the Traffic Management Information Service, so I have to dump people to the main or search page for each site.) our readers and the reviewers at GAN/FAC won't care if the link allows them to search; they will care though if we force them to search for the data because we didn't link to the specific record.  Imzadi 1979  →   20:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

GAN growth
During 2011, we sent over 120 articles to GAN. During the first six months of 2012, we have sent over 110 articles to GAN. Keep up the good work! --Rschen7754 08:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Three more from Michigan this morning, and I know we had another from Delaware get promoted in between them, so we may be close to equallying the 2011 total before the halfway point of 2012.  Imzadi 1979  →   17:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Spam desired in articles?
Apparently we want to put WP:SPAM in road articles? So if a turnpike plaza has a McDonald's, that should be stated? This is not done elsewhere in Wikipedia, BWTH. Ignore all rules, right? Student7 (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:Sofixit Dave (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. Yes it's a problem. However, contrary to your assertion, it's a wikipedia wide problem, not unique to road articles. I don't know how many articles I've read on small towns hoping to learn about the culture and/or history only to read the bulk of the wikipedia article is how excited the town is that with their new shopping center they have a McDonalds/Wall-Mart/whatever, see User:Kelapstick/Kelapstick's Law for some absurd examples that have come along. Dave (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To a degree though, turnpikes/tollways/toll roads are the exception to the rule. No other freeways in the US have direct access from the main lanes to commercial establishments. All others have them off the main highway on adjacent roadways. The level of detail may be debatable, but the omission that the service plazas offer direct turnpike access to certain amenities isn't acceptable either.  Imzadi 1979  →   22:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think its entirely appropriate to mention that service area X has staffed amenities verses service area y which only has vending machines or nothing at all. That is useful information for a long distance traveler. However, listing specific restaurants for individual service plazas has numerous problems, not the least of which is it ensures the article will be obsolete within a matter of a few years. The amenities are concessioned out, and the winning bidder will surely change from time to time. I'm even ok with the article for the Pennsylvania Turnpike mentioning that Sunoco has exclusive contracts for the service area filling stations on the entire turnpike (which the article does mention), although I'd be ok with removing it, for the same reasons. Dave (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that there are services is more important than what companies provide them. –Fredddie™ 23:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

 * And if the article section stated, "The service plazas include fast-food restaurants, such as Subway and S'barro, in addition to gas stations and ..." then that's fine; we don't need an exhaustive list of restaurants. In most cases, mentioning gas stations without brand names still imparts the key information, but omitting restaurant chain names also omits the types of food options. (Gas is gas, but food choices vary based on the provider.)  Imzadi 1979  →   23:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But is the type of food served relevant to the article? I'd say no. –Fredddie™ 00:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem I see with the sample statement, "The service plazas include fast-food restaurants, such as Subway and S'barro, in addition to gas stations and ..." is it will surely lead to someone putting in a complete list, under the though process of "hey you forgot about xxx". IMO, it's an all or nothing scenario, and I don't see any encyclopedic value in the all. I'll admit there is some value for those following a specific diet for health, religious, moral, etc. reasons; however, that is not the case for a general purpose encyclopedia (i.e. this isn't veganpedia). I initially said that I was ok with mentioning a "system wide" contract; however, the key there is "system wide" contracts. I.E. if you choose to do business with the Pennsylvania Turnpike commission for a trip of longer duration than the capacity of your gas tank, you will be de-facto forced to also do business with Sunoco. Given that logic, I'd prefer the sample statement read something like, "food concessions along the Pennsylvania Turnpike are operated by HMS Host Corporation, which operates a number of franchised chain restaurants along the turnpike." without mentioning specific restaurants. Dave (talk) 00:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, on US toll roads, that approach is probably much better. It covers the basics without violating WP:NOTTRAVEL. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't even have to mention they are chain restaurants; franchised should be enough. –Fredddie™ 01:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

 * But if there isn't a single concessionaire, that doesn't work. My point wasn't to be too specific (a list of every option at every plaza is overkill), but a simple listing that gives some detail is appropriate. You get people insisting on too much detail, you remove it and trout them. There's something nice, linguistically speaking, of giving three examples with a "such as A, B or C" and omitting the rest. The reader's curiosity is satisfied, but they aren't overwhelmed. That said, if it's brand names that's an issue, "A, B or C" becomes "pizza, Chinese and sandwiches".  Imzadi 1979  →   01:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case how about, "The food and gas suppliers vary from service plaza to service plaza. The single largest food supplier along Imzadi's Turnpike is Fredddie's Chicken Joint, which as operations at 37 service plazas" (Or if you prefer the 3 largest food suppliers) I think its important to specify why anything was singled out was singled out, e.g. volume, historical value, political conflict of interest with the owner, whatever. What I want to avoid is somebody, thinking their hometown has been neglected, to add "But at the Hickville service plaza they have a Quiznos." =-) Dave (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Overall, I do not think we need to mention which specific restaurants and gas stations are at a specific service plaza per WP:NOTDIR. The overview of the service plaza section can list a sampling of what specific restaurants and gas stations can be found at service plazas, but do not need to list out every restaurant and every gas station at every service plaza.  Dough 48  72  16:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * How about external links? IMO most toll road websites have a page dedicated to plaza services. If we did that, the responsibility for upkeep would be on them, not us, plus we'd get around the problem of listing company names. Mapsax (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If the relevant turnpike authority indeed maintains such a list, that's a great idea. Dave (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just checked IL/IN/OH/PA/NY; they vary between lists for all plazas, individual pages for each plaza, and a mixture of both. Linking to individual pages is probably best from an informational standpoint, but it also sets up a lot of potential linkrot.... Mapsax (talk) 12:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Summer 2012 Newsletter
This is a call for submissions to the next issue of the newsletter. Please add anything you want included in the Newsroom.

As a special reminder, to whomever does the leaderboard update for this issue, there is a lag in between the actual counts of articles for each assessment and what is being displayed on the tables. These statistics should probably be double-checked by hand and update manually for the newsletter submission.  Imzadi 1979  →   09:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Route 276
Should it have its own page or be a redirect somewhere? I created it just for fun. Tinton5 (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Generally, you should not create an article "just for fun". I've been told that this is a hoax; see . --Rschen7754 21:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This kind of hoax wouldn't even be funny on April Fool's Day. :( –Fredddie™ 22:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So, what should we do about it? Tinton5 (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The article will be speedy deleted as blatant hoax, because the dual replacement designations of SR 0994 and SR 0747 makes it impossible to redirect. Mitch 32 (There is a destiny that makes us... family.) 22:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

DOT articles and USRD scope
Did we ever come to any sort of agreement on whether or not the articles on the state departments of transportation, or their equivalents, fall within our scope? I seem to think we had about three possible options:
 * 1) Since DOTs handle multiple modes of transportation in addition to highways, they're better suited for WP:WikiProject Transport and should be retagged;
 * 2) Since they primarily were created by merging additional functions into an existing highway agency, they're still under our scope;
 * 3) Some states have highway-only agencies or toll road authorities that would still be within a highways-only scope, even if other departments are not.

Dealing with Michigan as an example, the Michigan State Highway Department was created in 1905 (Michigan Department of State Highways after 1965), and had the various aviation, marine, rail, public transit and non-motorized transportations functions merged into it in 1973. The new agency was called the Michigan Department of State Highways and Transportation until the name was simplified to its current form in 1978. MDOT celebrated its centennial in 2005, based on the 1905 creation date of its highways-only predecessor. I guess at least in Michigan's case, Michigan State Trunkline Highway System (and its subordinate lists and articles) and List of County-Designated Highways in Michigan (and its subordinate articles) would function as the USRD-specific subarticles to the department. The MDOT article would deal with a summary of those topics in addition to the State Transportation Commission, the Michigan Aeronautics Commission, the Bureau of Aeronautics and Freight Services, the state's Amtrak services, etc. While the largest and most visible function of MDOT is probably the highway system, the article will be touching on planes, trains, boats, and buses too. Especially since we have articles that deal with the highway system itself as a topic, the DOT's history and highway functions are really a summary of the those articles. I'd untag MDOT on the basis that just because Michigan discusses transportation in the state in general as well as listing some highways, we wouldn't tag the state article too. My opinion is that for many states, the same logical would hold as well, especially if there's an article on the highway system, or a main list article that covers it in sufficient detail.

Looking at Category:State departments of transportation of the United States, Maryland State Highway Administration, Massachusetts Highway Department (unless merged into Massachusetts Department of Transportation), and Nebraska Department of Roads; and agencies like the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority in Category:Expressway authorities wouldn't necessarily fall outside of our scope because they're all limited to highway-only functions.

Thoughts?  Imzadi 1979  →   11:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My first impression is that they would still come under our scope, because DOTs, even those which handle more than roads, still tend to expend the vast majority of their budget on the highway system. It is certainly possible that the article on Michigan DOT could fall under WikiProject Michigan, MISH/USRD, Transport, and Aerospace or whatever else that DOT handles, and carry all of those tags. I might be persuaded otherwise, though.

 * If we do end up keeping them under USRD we need to hash out a standard of some kind for what should be in these articles. Oklahoma Department of Transportation needs expansion but I'm not entirely certain what I should put in the article or where to go for sources. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's part of the dilemma: we don't have some kind of "formula" or set of expectations and standards on what to cover in a DOT article. Of course, it doesn't help that no two DOTs are that much alike on an organizational of functional level. When it comes to our typical highway articles, we have a pretty well-tested and logical system for covering the panoply of various kinds of roadways from things like M-185, Brockway Mountain Drive, and Maryland Route 36 to Interstate 355 or Interstate 70 in Colorado. The fact that a roadway is only used by bicycles, tourists or it has some mixture of freeway and at-grade designs hasn't necessitated many variations on our "Big Three" formula.  Imzadi 1979  →   11:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * IIRC, Ohio Department of Transportation was a GA at one point in time - we could take a look there. --Rschen7754 19:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It was, but it has NPOV issues (sanitized against any criticism of the department), gaps in the history, issues of undue coverage, MOS issues, and outdated information. I would not recommend using it as a model article, even if it had GA status at one time.  Imzadi 1979  →   23:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not think Departments of Transportation should be within the USRD scope as they often cover more than roads. Many DOTs around here, such as DelDOT and PennDOT, also deal with airports, railroads, marine transport, and driver's licenses. WP:TRANSPORT is more suitable for DOTs.  Dough 48  72  00:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Of the projects I most work with, this is the only one that has strict limits on what is not in scope for the project. The others tend to have a more laze-fair attitude of, "if it's remotely related to trains/ghost towns/bacon/whatever, we'll take it." By way of comparison, WP:TRAINS accepts articles about train routes, companies, rolling stock, locomotives, depots, tunnels, bridges, mountain passes important to railroads, and towns founded by railroads. In other words, much more liberal scope than this project. I don't agree with how exclusive this project is; but don't dispute that it's the project's prerogative to be exclusive if it so chooses. With that said, given that every article in our project has a link to the DOT in the infobox, IMO it's obvious that the DOT should be in scope. IMO the DOT articles should be a high or top importance article to the project. Dave (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "With that said, given that every article in our project has a link to the DOT in the infobox" except all of the various county roads that fall under our scope aren't maintained by a state DOT and don't link that way.  Imzadi 1979  →   17:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I still disagree that DOTs should be in our scope just because they have links from road articles. As I mentioned above, DOTs often cover more than just roads. If a DOT was tagged for USRD, it mind as well also be tagged for WP:TRAINS, WP:AIRPORTS, and WP:BUSES. As such, I feel that WP:TRANSPORT is the most appropriate for DOTs as they cover all forms of transportation.  Dough 48  72  17:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Attempt at the 4Mth article
and I tried to get the 4Mth article. While unfortunately, that went to another article, Idaho State Highway 48 got mentioned in the press release: --Rschen7754 00:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That is so incredibly nerdy. Well done! –Fredddie™ 03:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:M-22 (Michigan highway)
There is a discussion regarding whether the mention of M-22 merchandise is external promotion. Comments would be appreciated. --Rschen7754 08:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

A highway with three termini
M-114 had three termini at the time it was decommissioned in the 1940s. Any ideas on how best to display this in the infobox? I'd use the sections, except that the leg along 3 Mile Road was signed the same way as the other two legs along East Beltline Avenue north and south of that intersection when the highway was decommissioned. I'm thinking a simple third terminus, or terminus_c with the accompanying West would work.  Imzadi 1979  →   04:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of a a few other instances where a similar solution could come in handy. Unfortunately the wikipedia articles for these roads are inconsistent in how they handle that scenario. However, I'll throw them out there for possible ideas for a solution.
 * Utah State Route 36 - It has 2 southern termini that form a wye connection with each leg of the triangle being ~3-4 miles long. However, it's in a remote portion of the Great Basin desert and isn't really notable. Currently the wikipedia article is silent on the subject, and currently Google maps errantly only shows one of the 2 branches in map view, but the 3rd leg of the wye is visible in the satellite view.
 * Nevada State Route 3 - Before decommissioning, this road forked at Carson City with one branch proceeding towards Lake Tahoe and the other Reno. However, this was largely an unsigned designation, as both forks were signed with US Highway designations for most of the route's history. Currently the infobox only shows one of the legs from the fork, the other leg is only mentioned in the route description.
 * Interstate 10 in California, with the spur at the East Los Angeles Interchange. Currently the two articles mention the split but IMO the verbiage is confusing. IMHO, the best description for what's going on here is at the article for  Unsigned highway.
 * Dave (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You may also consider putting the leg on 3 Mile Road, or all three legs, into the section parameters. I have a few historic examples myself, ON 72 back in the 30s is the one that comes to mind. The infobox code change is prob ably the best long-term solution though. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  17:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * For now, I have the three legs each as a section, but it makes the infobox overly long. They're named "South leg", "West leg" and "North leg", and they each have the split point listed with the overall termini. I think a terminus_c would work better though.  Imzadi 1979  →   01:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Category renaming
Who supports the creation of Category:New Jersey Turnpike Authority, with subcategories Category:New Jersey Turnpike and create a Category:Garden State Parkway category, since both roads are maintained by the NJTA. This gave me the idea, with Category:Pennsylvania Turnpike currently being discussed for a name change. Tinton5 (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see a NJTA category being created with subcategories for the NJTP and GSP.  Dough 48  72  00:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How many articles are we talking about? If the categories are all going to be small, and there isn't a systematic method that requires such a category for consistency, they're of limited utility. For example, there are categories for all of the Interstate Highways for each state. The Category:Interstate Highways in Alaska only has four possible members, but it is part of a system that has Category:Interstate Highways in Alabama, in Arizona, in Arkansas, in California, etc. Such a systematic classification might be necessary for the authority, but there may not be enough articles to subdivide things further.  Imzadi 1979  →   03:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So you're saying a NJTA category would be sufficient for everything and subcategories would be too much? –Fredddie™ 03:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The NJTA category might be acceptable if there's other similar categories, and the goal is to systematically categorize all of them, even if there aren't that many articles to place in it. However, there probably aren't enough members to split it further.  Imzadi 1979  →   03:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The NJTP and GSP alone may not have enough articles to comprise a category, but a NJTA category for both roads would probably have enough articles.  Dough 48  72  19:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

More IRC problems
I try to log on and i get the message "	#wikipedia-en-roads #wikimedia-overflow Forwarding to another channel".  Dough 48  72  22:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Further, it says "[You have been forwarded here because the channel you tried to join is temporarily closed, too many people are trying to join it, or your connection is malfunctioning. Please try to join again in a few seconds. If that doesn't work, try registering your nickname (http://freenode.net/faq.shtml#nicksetup), or /join #wikimedia-ops for help.].  Dough 48  72  22:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Investigating, although I have no idea what's going on. --Rschen7754 22:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, somehow the flag got turned on requiring nickserv identification. I'll try and fix it; meantime, you can register your nick and identify to resolve the problem. --Rschen7754 22:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Problem resolved. --Rschen7754 22:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

needs-kml parameter now automatic (mostly)
I have updated the USRD template to automatically generate the needs-kml parameter. If an article should not have a KML, you still need to say needs-kml=NA; however, it should be taken care of for you otherwise.

This was my first time dealing with complicated template logic; I'm pretty sure everything works, but if you notice anything broken, let us know so we can fix it. --Rschen7754 10:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Great job! —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 15:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

AFD
Article alerts doesn't seem to be working, so here is an AFD of our article that was started today: Articles for deletion/Pennsylvania Route 370. --Rschen7754 06:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Is anyone else getting the feeling that USRD is attracting an unusual number of attacks lately? (First DE 17, now PA 370...) Who'd we piss off? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See my userpage. --Rschen7754 08:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

In related news, I think it would behoove us to not mention the gains we made during the GAN drive in the forthcoming newsletter. –Fredddie™ 04:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, unfortunately. --Rschen7754 05:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'd just leave it at yes. Sad to say, but for most of the newly promoted GA's that were on my watchlist, no actual article improvements were made. These were articles that were borderline B-GA anyways and they were just shotgun nominated. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but its nothing to brag about either. Dave (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that, you may wish to be proactive and do an audit of those articles that were promoted during the drive, just to heed off future GARs. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  18:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Story hatted on the newsroom. --Rschen7754 19:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:NeverLeavesBurrillville
Template:NeverLeavesBurrillville has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Shield Request
According to the Statewide Planning Map, Texas Park Road 1 is split up into PR 1A, PR 1B, PR 1C, PR 1D, and PR 1E, and is signed as so. I plan to create this article in the near future, and I would like for all the shields to be available. As I am unfamiliar with creating shields, I am requesting that someone experienced with it do this. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 17:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Request this at WP:USRD/S/R.  Dough 48  72  17:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please? Where are your manners, Dough?  Awardgive, we do have a shield request page, linked above, but I'll go ahead and do them later today. –Fredddie™ 19:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ –Fredddie™ 20:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Notability (geographical features)
This is the latest notability proposal to feature highways. --Rschen7754 23:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

GAR Delaware Route 17
Hi, just letting you know that I started a GAR at Good article reassessment/Delaware Route 17/1. -- ELEKHHT 22:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to make a few comments because there have been some concerns raised about sending more articles to GAN, and about the quality of our GAs. The two main concerns that have gained any form of traction are 1) the lack of KMLs and 2) complaints about history sections that are sourced to only the state DOT. If your article has a KML and some other source besides the state DOT, please feel free to send it to GAN. Otherwise, I would suggest holding off until the above discussion gets sorted out.

 * If your existing GAs have both of those, they are probably fine for now. If not, I would suggest adding them sooner rather than later; it improves the article, anyway. --Rschen7754 10:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I have to say I'm concerned with the apparent inflation of GA standards. Today's GAN threshhold appears higher than the FAC threshhold of a few years ago. Accordingly, I doubt I will have much very interest in bringing any more articles to GAN after this. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I have yet to see any evidence of inflation (raising) of the standards, so much as a suggestion that articles are not meeting the existing standard, but have been promoted anyway. But even here, the discussion continues at the DE 17 GAR. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I've been watching the GAR, and I agree that there is an inflation of expectations as they apply to the standards. M-35 and M-28 passed through GAN using http://www.michiganhighways.org as a source. Other early (2008) GAs for Michigan did as well. Now, I probably can make a very good case toward using the website given the number of times I see either MDOT press releases or Michigan newspapers directing people to the website, or the number of times libraries direct me there, but it remains a SPS. Because maps and documents from MDOT are considered reliable, and Chris Bessert's work on his website is not for Wikipedia purposes, I've been using old MDOT maps for four years through over a half-dozen FACs and over 150 GANs to document the historical changes of Michigan's highways. I don't see the issue and flat-out dispute that there's a problem with using an archive of maps from the Michigan State Highway Department/Michigan Department of State Highways/Michigan Department of State Highways and Transportation/Michigan Department of Transportation since a) I have a fairly complete archive scanned or on paper from 1919 through 2012, b) the maps are accessible from the Library of Michigan, the official state library, and c) for many years the state had either H.M. Gousha or Rand McNally do their cartography. If the LoM had a full inventory of Rand McNally maps through the years, I'd have paid to have them scanned for my research purposes. As it is, a FOIA request to MDOT in 2008 was returned to me with an estimated cost for $1000 for research time to answer 11 questions on M-28's timeline, yet I spend $73 to have maps scanned. That $73 investment has been used and reused for nearly 200 articles' worth of research.
 * Now, when I can, I scour various libraries' newspaper holdings and seek out as much as I can through the archives on http://news.google.com, Highbeam Research and other archives. Many times these old articles incur personal cost, either for the photocopy expenses to pull the microfilms up a few dollars each for digital archived copies. When I can obtain good or even decent newspaper coverage (Capitol Loop, M-6, M-186, M-553, M-1, U.S. Route 131, Interstate 496, Interstate 696) I work on taking those articles through ACR and FAC too. However, it seems to me to be the height of conceit for GAN reviewers to reject articles with map-based histories, when FAC reviewers, using the higher bar of "high quality reliable sources" have allowed them in addition or substantially in place of, news media or book sources (M-28, M-35, U.S. Route 41 in Michigan, Business M-28, U.S. Route 2 in Michigan). Sorry, but if GAN is not going to accept something that FAC has specifically allowed, even as recent as this past November–December, then that's an inflation of standards as applied.  Imzadi 1979  →   12:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no suggestion whatsoever that DE 17 should fail because it has used map-based sources; maps per se are not being challenged. Instead the discussion is whether, given the very limited (and primary) sources used, the article is capable of being a GA. And that concern arises out of advice given in Reviewing good articles, fourth bullet: "It appears that the article is as good as it will ever get, and will never meet the standards. (Not every article can be a Good article. If the references to improve an article to Good article standards simply do not exist, then you should not overlook that part of the criteria.)". --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Maps are not primary sources; they are secondary sources. The primary source is GIS data, surveyors' notes or measurements and aerial or satellite photography. A state DOT map would be a first-hand source while a similar map from Rand McNally, Universal Map or another commercial cartographer is a third-party source. Primary≠First-Party, and the GAR commenters are confusing and conflating the two classification schemes. I'm not claiming that DE 17's article is perfect, however, I will challenge this incorrect notion that all items produced by a gov't agency are primary sources, and that primary sources are bad. Such a notion if continued is an inflation of criteria, and I challenge you to point to which part of the actual GA criteria supports this concept. "Reviewing good articles" is a guideline and not a substitute for the actual criteria. If there are gaps in coverage in an article, point them out, but don't fault the specific sources, which meet policy and the criteria.  Imzadi 1979  →   13:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

 * The dicussion does not hinge on whether maps are primary or secondary sources (though I'm hard pressed to agree that a Deleware DoT map is not a primary source w.r.t. a Delaware maintained road.) No sources are being faulted. The discussion hinges on whether the broad coverage criteria of the GA criteria is met when an article is pretty much entirely sourced to a single organisation. And where there is a concern like this, we must surely look to the supporting guidelines. So. There is an actual criteria - broad coverage. And there is a guideline suggesting that for lack of an abundance of references, some articles should not be promoted to GA. And there is a question: does DE 17 and articles of its ilk fail the criteria, not least based on the guidelines advice. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that people are saying "only primary sources, not broad enough coverage, delist". You're wrong on the primary vs. secondary classification of a DelDOT map. They're first-party secondary sources. There's primary source paranoia around here, and people are using that as a faulty justification to brand whole categories of articles as "bad", even though our policy explicitly allows primary sources to be used! I'm not saying that many Delaware highway articles couldn't be improved, however I'm very concerned that the "angry mob" I'm seeing will go after other road articles without making some important distinctions. The only guideline that really applies a first- vs. second- or third-party distinction is WP:GNG regarding notability.
 * I'm disgusted to see DelDOT maligned on this article when MDOT maps and publications are used in FAs on Michigan highways in much the same way. Yes, I make a point to find as many newspaper articles on history as I can, but not every highway gets such coverage. Not all roads are controversial. Not all construction is notable, and not all construction that makes the newspaper is worth including in the Wikipedia article on that road. Repaving a road is regular maintenance, yet the local papers will probably report temporary road closures for that work. They cover road closures like that so that commuters know to leave for work early in the morning or to take an alternate route. In the historical timeline of the roadway, when MDOT did regular maintenance isn't important. (An article on a lack of regular maintenance might be noteworthy though.) Just like your average two-car crash is very common place for most roads, so the news clipping that someone rear-ended someone else at an intersection on May 15, 1982, isn't important either. It's a balance, and yet I'm seeing people turning up their noses in faux disgust. You know what, I'm sorry if we edit in an area that makes it easier to write some articles, but if you want the kings of short, but high quality articles, go talk to the people behind WP:TROP.  Imzadi 1979  →   15:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Umm, we're still not connecting on this one. The question revolves around the concept of broad coverage, and whether that can be asserted for an article sourced from, effectively, a single source. It has nothing to do with primary versus secondary. Address, if you choose to, that concept. How can we assert broad coverage from a single source? What do you make of the guideline "It appears that the article is as good as it will ever get, and will never meet the standards. (Not every article can be a Good article. If the references to improve an article to Good article standards simply do not exist, then you should not overlook that part of the criteria.)". --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Are there demonstrable omissions in the historic timeline of the roadway? If there are, we have content that needs to be added for broad coverage. M-67 is essentially unchanged from its state when the signs went up in 1919. When US 41 was realigned, M-67 was extended slightly to continue to connect to another state highway on its southern end. As for the road itself, paving was completed at a later date, but otherwise the M-67 you or I would drive today is the same as the M-67 of yesteryear. As for DE 17, it's my understanding that Dough4872 doesn't have access to maps for every year published, or that some past years didn't have a new map. That means he may have gaps in coverage in the articles because he has gaps in the research. That situation should be corrected either way.

DelDOT is the official source for information on the the state highway system in Delaware as MDOT is the same for Michigan. That says something. I will assert broad coverage in terms of the historical timeline when I have official maps in my possession, either scanned or on paper, forming an archive from 1919 until 2012 with only a few gaps in the early years. When I worked on the US 41 article, I could pinpoint the opening of the Marquette Bypass to 1963 through those maps. Since then, I've found a newspaper article that pinpoints it to November 21, 1963. I've changed the citation over to get the more exact date, not because the MSHD maps from 1963 and 1964 are faulty nor because it makes the article any less broad in coverage.  Imzadi 1979  →   15:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Moving forward
Now that the GAR has closed as a Keep, what are we going to do to ensure this is less likely to happen in the future? We should make a list of things that we learned during the GAR and things that need improvement in general. Feel free to add to the list. –Fredddie™ 04:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

 * 1) The community wants technical details of highway construction somehow and somewhere.
 * 2) WP:USRD/NT needs a little polish so editors from outside the project can better understand our positions.
 * 3) WP:USRD/P needs to be summarized for the same reasons.
 * 4) Accelerated deployment of KML to all USRD GAs.
 * 5) A request needs to be made for a map if a USRD GAN does not have a map.
 * 6) If third-party sources (newspapers, etc.) are readily available, they should be used.

 * Note: All USRD FAs have KML. All new USRD A-class articles are required to have a KML, and I am adding KML to the remaining A-class articles that do not have it. --Rschen7754 09:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

 * I suggest a standard for maps should be developed. The DE17 map does not convey any real info to anyone unfamiliar with that corner of the state (and I'm not sure if people from Sussex County would find it very useful). Not least, the standard might mandate the use of labels for settlements such that users can relate the map either to the article description or to a more detailed and extensive external map. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Normally the map should place the location into context in a larger scale. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  10:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Placing the location into context could be done with insets showing the close-up view's location in a state and then the U.S., as is done in M-6 (Michigan highway). My preference is to see a close-up view of the profiled route rather than a view of a whole state with the profiled route a tiny red smidgen, such as in Delaware Route 17. The insets of the type used in the M-6 article, File:Michigan Locator Map with US.PNG, are already used as locater maps in other articles and are available in Commons.  V C  12:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Photo department proposal

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Another one of the concerns raised at the GAR was articles that lack pictures. To help deal with this, I propose the creation of a photo department. This would allow for 1) anyone living nearby to fulfill photo requests, 2) Flickr searches and getting photos licensed, and 3) people to look through their road photo archives (I know I have hundreds of road photos on my hard drive). Thoughts? --Rschen7754 08:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's an interesting idea, but isn't this the kind of thing the state task forces are for? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 12:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind there is a page for requesting photos in specific areas, as well as the reqphoto template. That has a much larger audience of participants; if you establish a specific USRD one you may just narrow the reach of your request. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  15:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Floydian. You are more likely to achieve success by asking people in the main photo request pool to take roads pictures, in addition to their usual interests, than by attempting to create a specific roads photo pool.  V C  16:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resources department proposal
One of the complaints at the latest GAR was the lack of non-DOT sources. To help address this problem, I would like to propose converting the Resource pages into a full-fledged department. The main difference (besides the wording) would be the addition of a requests page where editors could request either a specific article for those with database access, or just a check for secondary sources in general. To prevent overloading the department, we would have request limits similar to the shield and map departments, and disallow requests for sources for Stub-Class articles (because you can write a RD and get a jct list to bring it to Start!) Thoughts? --Rschen7754 07:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this might help.  Dough 48  72  00:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Technically it is a full department, but I was trying to kill it off in favor of each state subpage getting the resource listings. The idea was that for each state, there would be one page with that state's resources in place. For periodical databases, those transcend states in many cases because the databases aren't state-specific.  Imzadi 1979  →   01:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What would happen to the national resources? Also, I think the main advantage would be the request page, which would try and put all the random requests happening all over the place onto one page (I've seen Morriswa make a few to general Wikipedia places too, besides the IRC ones). One page would enable many people to take a look at the page and look through the databases they have. --Rschen7754 04:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should rebrand the resources department as a place to lump together both reference information and internal project resources. Reference information would include national resources not specific to one state or system (things like the map database and periodical database), and could incorporate Rschen's request page idea as a "Reference Desk" page. Internal project resources would include things like essays, embassy, and other similar pages. A case could even be made to have all the editing guidelines could be lumped into this department. --  LJ  ↗  01:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

AFD
Article alerts is being annoyingly slow again, but we have another AFD: Articles for deletion/Delaware Route 17. --Rschen7754 05:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons category issue
For years, we've sorted the individual route categories on Commons with the same sortkeys that we use for the articles here on enwiki, grouping the members of the categories by the hundreds digit of their number. Apparently one user has a severe case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and is challenging the long-time status quo. See my Commons talk page. (Posting here since this is an issue of national scope.) –  T M F  (talk) 12:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

KML update
All FA and A-class articles now have KMLs. There are 310 GAs remaining without KMLs. Thanks to those who are adding them, and if a GA that you wrote does not have one, please consider adding it.

Also, I will be checking for a KML on all USRD GAs that I review; other reviewers are starting to do the same, too, so please make sure you have one before you go to GAN. --Rschen7754 20:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Project page redesign proposal
The main WP:USRD page has gotten extremely long; I'm concerned about new users being overwhelmed with information. I've noticed that WP:MILHIST has a more compact design despite their project complexity. Thoughts? --Rschen7754 08:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This topic was part of one of the presentations at Wikimania. Many project home pages are too long, too complex, and too unwelcoming to newbies. I fully support this and offer my help to make this happen.  V C  14:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with anything to summarize things or spin them off to subpages, so long as our "branding" in terms of the header and navbox stays put for now. Maybe when WMF overhauls all of the Wikiproject pages through some sort of metatemplate system, we can change that.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have an idea in mind, but I'm drawing blanks as to how to implement it. I may have to get out the graph paper and then mail it off to Jimbo... –Fredddie™ 01:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I rather like the simple design of the main MILHIST page and the tabbed layout. We could implement something like that here, with a tab for the main page, article showcase, and all the department pages. It seems that the tab layout could be added while still retaining the current branding banners and navbox. The department pages might need some cleaning up to make those into decent splash pages as well. If all that were implemented, the main page could be pared down to the welcome, mission/scope, project organization, how you can help, and maybe some other brief items. --  LJ  ↗  01:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sold on the tabs. We have the navbox which has collapsing sections for each of the core areas already.  Imzadi 1979  →   17:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * MILHIST uses both, at least for pages on the tabs...Their tabs do seem to make it a bit easier to get to pages that provide an overall view of the project. But I'm not married to the tab idea--just like their implementation. We could probably do more reorganization of the navigation template, though--and make it a bit more compact (i.e. does it really need all the shortcut links?). --  LJ  ↗  08:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

So far, I have created a sandbox for how I'd change the main USRD page. Doing the main page inspired me to make a new assessment page. –Fredddie™ 23:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I just did a redesign of the Canada Roads Project main page over the past two days in the image of MILHIST. Not sure if it would be of any help for doing likewise yourselves, but at the least it may provide some ideas or inspiration. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  18:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

B-Class Guidelines Proposal
Proposed process: Any user may request a B-Class review for a particular article, whether to promote an article to B-Class or to demote an article from B-Class. It is highly frowned upon for a user to promote their own article to B-Class because this assessment boundary is the first to garner feedback from another user.

Feedback and other ideas welcome.  V C  00:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations.
 * 2) *Every paragraph in a non-Lead section of prose should have at least one reference, but preferably more. All controversial (i.e., likely to be challenged) or data-based statements (i.e., specific measurements) must be referenced. The Lead should only have references if necessary to reference a controversial or data-based point that is not mentioned elsewhere in the article.
 * 3) *Lengths in the infobox and road junction list must be referenced. Lengths should be referenced to GIS data or prose sources, but may be referenced to online maps if those are the only sources for an area.
 * 4) *The citations should be detailed enough for the information to be used by another person to find the work in question or to try to fix a dead link.
 * 5) It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.
 * 6) *The Lead should make reference to information in every formal section and subsection of the article.
 * 7) *The Route description should describe all major information about the road and its surrounding without going into too much detail.
 * 8) *The History should, at minimum, describe what was built where and when. If possible, there should be information on why and how the road was built and who built it or was instrumental in building it, but that type of detail is not necessary at this level of assessment. The History should generally be chronological and should cover every era in which the road has existed.
 * 9) *The road junction list should be accessible. To this end, use of the jctint series of templates is encouraged, but not required.
 * 10) It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content.
 * 11) *For the vast majority of articles, this structure includes a Lead, Route description, History, and road junction list. If other sections are necessary to reasonably cover the topic, such as Services and Related routes, those sections are present. If sections containing prose are excessively long, they should be split into logical subsections.
 * 12) It is free from major grammatical errors.
 * 13) *The prose does not need to be flawless, but there should be no glaring errors. The user should be able to smoothly read the article without stumbling through errors or having to stop to figure out what something means.
 * 14) It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams.
 * 15) *Articles must contain a proper infobox. That infobox must contain a map. Articles must have a KML file created and attached to the article.
 * 16) *Images, such as diagrams and photographs, outside the infobox are not necessary for this assessment level. If those images exist, they must follow copyright guidelines and be properly captioned.
 * 17) It is free from warning templates.
 * Regarding number 6 - I assume this includes mileposts? --Rschen7754 00:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Overall, I like the B-class criteria that has been proposed, but I have some concerns. I don't think a map or KML should be required at this stage as it is hard for some people to make them, especially the maps as that requires knowledge of GIS. I think that the U.S. Roads WikiProject template should be modified to have B-class parameters in which users can determine whether the article meets the criteria, similar to what is used on WikiProject Florida. I think having another user casually checking off whether it meets the criteria is the best way to go rather than creating a "B-class review" page similar to ACR.  Dough 48  72  00:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think VC is advocating a BCR page; merely a checklist. The rule of thumb in the past has been that a B should be a GA that has not gone through GAN.  Is this codifying that rule of thumb? –Fredddie™ 00:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I figured we were going to do a checklist, just wanted to make sure.  Dough 48  72  00:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I firmly believe in the KML requirement, as this ensures that articles are ready to go to GA, where KML is frequently required. This also makes sure that KML is deployed. That being said, very few of our B-class articles have KML, and obviously we would need some grandfathering in, lest we lose all our B's. --Rschen7754 00:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The purpose of making attaining B-class more formal is it acts as a way to make our articles more resistant to a potential GAR and would improve our already good pass rate at GAN (so yes Fredddie, this is codifying a rule of thumb). As for articles that are already B, we can have a very long grace period to perform audits, improve deficient articles, and add maps and KMLs.  V C  01:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Some comments:
 * 1) Direct quotations have to have a citation, regardless of their location, so one in the lead has to have a footnote. Data-based statements (the length of a road) don't need citations in the lead if they're repeated with citations in the body of the article. (I've never cited a length in the lead in any FAs, and they've all passed without issue.) To be honest, the infobox could be devoid of citations if it's information directly repeated in the body of the article.
 * 2) *I agree with your first two points. I am leery about not referencing a length in an infobox, but we can make this strongly encouraged instead of required.  V C  01:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Looks good.
 * 4) Also good.
 * 5) No complaints
 * 6) I wouldn't require a map. Technically, GAs don't require maps, although their presence is strongly encouraged. KMLs can be created more easily, so I could see requiring them, but not a map.
 * OK, maps can be strongly encouraged.  V C  01:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I'd clarify this so that a cn is not a deal breaker. If the presence of a citation needed tag means an article can't be a B, then we'll have people removing information that should be present in an article. I've used those tags as placeholders until I could pull the proper citation to add to the article. We shouldn't have any of the big banner templates, but inline stuff should be fine, even in a B-Class article.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) *Banner templates are definitely a dealbreaker. Inline templates should be as well because we are trying to prepare articles for GAN, and those inline templates will be brought up at GAN if the reviewer is competent. If you are using inline templates for your own purposes, you should wait until you solve the issue before nominating the article for review.  V C  01:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) **Set a limit on the number of them. Say a maximum of two. Having a lone (or two) non-contentious statement(s) without a source shouldn't be the difference between a B or C, or I believe the result would be as Imzadi predicts. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  03:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Most of this should be common sense, but the events that have transpired over the last few weeks have proven that some editors are sorely lacking in that department. It's sad that things have come to this point. I don't have an issue with anything discussed above, save for point five and a few comments about what B-Class should be.

The WP:1.0 team's "nutshell" description of the B-Class criteria is "The article is mostly complete and without major issues, but requires some further work to reach good article standards." I've always interpreted this to mean that the article is near GA-quality, but has issues (such as sub-par sources or an infobox without a map) that need to be addressed before the articles can be considered for GA. So, while I consider B-Class to be a small notch below GA and a launching point toward GA, I don't see it as a class that should be exclusively holding GA-quality articles that no one's bothered to nominate. That would effectively put near-GAs with very minor issues in C-Class, and that would really garble the assessment scale.

To somewhat echo the comments above, I'm opposed to requiring maps for B-Class articles but supportive of requiring them for potential GAs. I've strongly suggested the latter for the better part of two years, and no one in their right mind should be nominating articles for GA that don't have maps (and in this day and age, a KML). I support requiring KMLs for B-Class articles, but oppose demoting them if that's the only issue the article has, inside or outside a grace period. KMLs take 5-10 minutes to make on average, and getting one made can be as simple as prodding whoever is interested in making them for that state. –  T M F  (talk) 02:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not like the idea of requiring GAs to have maps due to the lack of the editors at MTF and the complexity of making maps for some people.  Dough 48  72  02:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So learn. Aren't you studying cartography? –Fredddie™ 02:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) If an editor is interested in getting an article to GA status, they should be willing to invest the time and effort needed to produce a good Good Article. That, of course, includes creating a map for the article. If the MTF isn't producing maps in a timely manner, you could learn how to work with GIS data and create your own. At last check, the MTF had some decent tutorials available, so claiming that the process is too complex comes off more as an excuse than anything. –  T M F  (talk) 02:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been busy working on a map with Scott5114 over IRC, or I'd have saved the reply I was drafting earlier. I tend to agree that there is more of a separation between B-Class and GANs or GA-Class. Some inline tags, subpar sources, etc should be allowable if the information that's expected is present. My view is that a decent editor with some modicum of ability and experience should be able to take a B-Class article and prepare it for a GAN in an hour or so, depending on what's needed. I also would grandfather in existing Bs without KMLs with some sort of grace period, or a "if this is the only issue, don't demote" policy.  Imzadi 1979  →   04:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't really like this proposal in general. I think if we implement this, we are risking inflating the importance of B-Class to the point that it overlaps GA. To me, B has always been the top rank of the "lower half" articles. It is the stopping-off point before you get into the serious article vetting levels. If we implement this, it feels as though we are basically creating a class redundant to GA—that is what GA is, right, asking someone else to review an article, which they do by ticking off all the boxes on a checklist? I think our existing informal standard of "big three sections reasonably complete and no glaring article issues" is quite enough to get the job done. That it is frowned upon to take assessment upon yourself shouldn't really need to be codified since it's pretty much a cultural norm that we have at all assessment levels (I can't speak for others, but even going stub to start is enough for me to have someone double-check that it does indeed qualify to be bumped up). —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I would like this B-Class proposal better if it became our interpretation of the Good Article Criteria. Then I like Scott's simpler B-Class criteria of "Big Three reasonably completed, properly cited, (my addition) and no glaring issues." –Fredddie™ 20:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the lead criterion could be weakened, since that is a simple fix for GA. --Rschen7754 20:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We could use this to implement a B+ Class that is a holding area for future GANs.  Imzadi 1979  →   21:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think adding B+ Class is going to help with anything. Actually, I think it will just create confusion. –Fredddie™ 22:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see a huge fundamental difference between these two proposals (with the modifications mentioned above). VC's does have the additional requirements on the lead, grammar, and KML, but I'm not really seeing anything else. --Rschen7754 09:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I like Fredddie's point about our B-Class criteria should be our project's interpretation of the Good Article Criteria. However, I would still like to keep the Lead and grammar requirements as part of a checklist. We just do not need to go into detail for those like we would items specific to our project. I think on some level that we need to duplicate or heavily supplement the GA criteria because, as we saw in the most recent GA drive, if we do not put up resistance to an article before GAN, it might not happen at GAN. If we are not going to enforce B-class as essentially GA-ready, then we need to be heavily suggestive by saying "you need to do X, Y, and Z or this article may run into trouble at GAN."  V C  17:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * For comparison's sake, here are the official WP 1.0 B-Class criteria:

 * I kinda like the flexibility of the B-Class criteria by itself as a way to know if an article is B-Class or not. What VC is proposing is way more rigid and, to be honest, I don't think hard rules are the way to go.  So I'm thinking maybe we're going about this the wrong way.  Along the lines of copying from MILHIST's Academy, and borrowing from Scott's FA how-to, maybe we should put together a class-by-class how-to manual.  I would then put VC's proposal on a page with the theme "I have a B-class article, now what do I do?"  We could cite examples from past experiences of how and why we do what we do.  I think it would be better than trying to distill everything down to bullet points. –Fredddie™ 19:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Uhhh...
How in the world do I put this in a junction list? (Aren't you folks glad you don't edit Oklahoma?) :) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

 * It'd be OK78 to OK48 north, would it not? They've just used "via" instead of "to". -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  13:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Floydian. I suggested a via for  a while back but it went nowhere. –Fredddie™ 14:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

New article idea
I have been thinking, that I would like to create a page on a list of traffic signs in the US. I know there is one for worldwide, at Traffic sign, but it looks incomplete. I would like there to be a gallery of each type of sign found in the US, so readers could have an easy way of looking them up, based from this: and. Perhaps we can start a List of traffic signs in the United States or something close to that. Tinton5 (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Although, I found this: Warning sign, but it is international. Tinton5 (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean like Road signs in the United States?  Imzadi 1979  →   18:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not even see that. Thanks! I feel dumb. Tinton5 (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Roads opened/designated in categories
I'm not sure I see the point of these categories, especially when they lead to edits implying that an Interstate Highway built in the 1960s was "open" in 1908. –  T M F  (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We're just as mystified as you are. –Fredddie™ 04:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not a huge fan. But I don't know if we have any grounds for a CFD except "I don't like it." --Rschen7754 04:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur with rschen on this... we may not like it, but I don't think we have a policy basis to oppose them. If anyone has thoughts on how they might be sent to CfD and eliminated, I'm all ears.  Imzadi 1979  →   05:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * First things first, though. Can we stop the categories from filling any further? –Fredddie™ 05:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not like the idea of these categories, especially as many roads opened in separate parts over several years.  Dough 48  72  15:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem I have with these categories (and the same thing applies to the infobox) is that, at least in the United States, these categories are prone to 1 of 2 major sources of inaccuracies. First problem, For most Interstate Highways they were designated in 1955-7 (depending on what you mean by designated), but didn't actually have any significant portions existing until the 1960's (coastal states) or 1970's (inland states) or even 1980's (Rocky Mountain states). So that designation date, while technically true, is practically meaningless. Second, the reverse is also true, for a highway that received its numerical designation in this century, but has existed in some form since the 1800s. I don't know if an argument for CfD could be based on those facts. Dave (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In Michigan, parts of our mainline Interstates were built before the system was created, but none were signed until 1959 when MSHD received confirmation of a final numbering and signage plan. So US 12 was already freeway in places before 1956, but it wasn't co-designated I-94 until 1959. So what year was I-94 "designated" in the state?  Imzadi 1979  →   20:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I looked through Overcategorization and we surely have a case to mass-CfD these categories of highways based on opening, constructed, or designated years. These categories are based on non-defining characteristics, arbitrary inclusion criteria, trivial characteristics or intersections, and subjective inclusion criteria. Is overcategorization a sufficient policy basis?  V C  17:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It might not be policy, but it might be enough. The concern I have is that there is Category:Bridges completed in 1914, and Trunk Line Bridge No. 1 is included. Can we make a case that roadways are sufficiently different than individual bridges not to be categorized by year opened to traffic or designated?  Imzadi 1979  →   20:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This tree has its roots in the cleanup of the ambiguous by year architecture categories for NRHP articles like Bear Creek Canyon Scenic Mountain Drive. Architecture as a category without clarification is ambiguous since it does not define what happened.  In the case of a road was it opened or designed etc.?  Note there there are already well used Category:Bridges by year of completion and Category:Tunnels by year.  So this category is the road equivalent of those.  So since architecture by year is not the best choice, what other options are available? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess my attempt to help to make Wikipedia a better site is not wanted. Since actually writing articles is not my forte, I tried some "easy-type" edits. This is why I edit categories, and use scripts/tools to do most of my edits.
 * I want to help and contribute meaningfully, but I don't know what to do. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The best way to become a better writer is...by writing. Who cares if the writing stinks?!  With time and confidence in your writing, you'll go back and redo your previous work.  I have, and I'm certain everyone else who's been around for a few years has done the same. –Fredddie™ 22:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been lucky to nominate 11 FAs for the project, with a 12th under review now. Each time I've gone through the process, I've learned something, big or small, and I've gone back to apply it to my older articles to improve them. Someday, I'll probably really dig into my oldest FAs and copy edit them. So yes, you can improve your writing by a) writing more and b) having others give you feedback on it. PR/GAN/ACR/FAC are great ways to get that feedback.  Imzadi 1979  →   22:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually started editing at the age of 15, and my first article, California State Route 78, is now a FA. It took me until I was 19 to get it there, but I had no clue what I was doing. Three years later, I have a second FA, and am working on a third. You get used to it over time. --Rschen7754 23:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * To add my voice to the chorus, I think we all have received some feedback that sounded harsh throughout our wikipedia "careers". The intent is to help make this site a better place. With so many Wikipedians with different ideas, a clash of ideas is inevitable. Don't take it personally. Anybody can have a idea they think is brilliant, that everybody else says, "Meh, that sucks". It's not a reflection on you personally. I'm even critical of myself, I re-read articles that I worked on a few years ago and say to myself, "what the heck was I thinking?" Dave (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Morriswa, we are here to help you. We can lead you through the process to write a good article. There are numerous pages across USRD that give advice for writing an article. As I mentioned in the past, you can always come onto IRC to get live help.  Dough 48  72  00:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you do decide to try FA, as Imzadi recommends, you might find User:Scott5114/How to write an FA from scratch useful. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Getting back to the topic at hand, to respond to the comments about bridges: The completion dates of bridges are less subjective and usually better documented than those of roads, so I think bridge (or tunnel) year categories would better withstand scrutiny than road year categories.  V C  14:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The comparison between the "Bridges by opening year" and "Roads by opening year" categories is apples-oranges in my book. Bridges are completely opened at a single time in some form - even if it's just in one direction - making the opening date of a bridge fairly cut-and-dry to figure out. Roads are rarely built all at once (unless they're as short as a bridge, in which case we're probably not covering them anyway), making it impossible to determine an opening date that isn't subjective. Should the date reflect when the first part was opened? The last part? The majority of the road? Really, who are we to say?
 * Also, a category holding bridges opened in, say, 1951 will generally reflect how bridges were built in the early 1950s, which is useful for anyone looking for a quick snapshot of the styles of bridge construction used during that time. The equivalent category for roads would have highways with parts built long before or long after a given year, depending on what criteria was used, and thus it would have no practical use. I don't see any reason to keep these categories around.
 * I'm indifferent to the "Roads by designation year" categories. There are many roads where the year is meaningful, like the routes assigned to existing highways as part of a renumbering, but there are also many roads where the year predated the physical road by years or decades, like Dave posted above. I wouldn't go around tagging articles based on the designation year, but I'm not going to revert anyone who does. A non-road editor would probably see the categories as cruft, though, because of how much the importance of the designation year varies by highway. –  T M F  (talk) 02:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Capital Beltway signage
Please see this discussion on the Help Desk, during which it was recommended that I come here. It regards my creation of a Capital Beltway sign image, and my uncertainty as to how it may be used. I want to do more of these, but I'm not sure how to determine if is worthwhile or even necessary. Thank you. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 16:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Neat! How did you make that? Did you have a standard drawing from a DOT? If you're interested in making more, you may want to check out WP:USRD/S, our shield-making department. –Fredddie™ 16:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I traced it from a photograph that I found online. It took about an hour. I actually have already made several others, but now that the status of the Beltway sign is in question, I don't know whether I should post them. (I would love for this to go into exit lists, but as you see it may not be allowed.) ... Thanks, I have already put my name on the Shield Department. It is fun to make them.  → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 16:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Michael, see my reply at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Shields task force. In short, if the sign was posted before 1978 without a copyright notice, it's in the public domain.  Imzadi 1979  →   17:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Concurrency vs Overlap
What is the difference between a concurrency and an overlap? MikeM2011 (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * They are synonyms to refer to two or more routes following one stretch of road.  Dough 48  72  20:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Two routes overlap in a concurrency. I wouldn't exactly call them synonyms, though.  I prefer using overlap to concurrency as it's simpler, both in concept and in verb usage (to be concurrent is the correct verb form of concurrency). –Fredddie™ 22:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Although to run concurrently is another option. Either verbiage is fine though, and in fact, concurrency is the linked term in the legendRJL footer template for junction list tables.  Imzadi 1979  →   23:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Lewis and Clark Highway
I have converted Lewis and Clark Highway to a dab page that may need to be cleaned up. If this can be converted to an article please feel free to do so. – Allen4names (IPv6 contributions) 05:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This was a great idea. Do you think we should incorporate the Lewis and Clark Trail on this dab page? –Fredddie™ 17:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It can't hurt to include it.  → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 19:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Map of USRD rel WW alt 4.svg
File:Map of USRD rel WW alt 4.svg is throwing an error, since it is one of your project files, you might want to fix that. No source and no author are indicated, but that automatically sets the no-author cleanup category, and I think a bot tags sourceless images as well. -- <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's still being categorized into the cleanup category Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source... so if someone could fix up the source parameter? -- <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah...
Now that I'm through with ranting for the moment...I just came back from Anchorage. I've been hobbling around on a badly bruised ankle for the past four days, so I couldn't cover as much ground as I wished. I did, however, snap a number of photos of Minnesota Drive and the Seward Highway. I hope that I can find/make some time to upload them soon.RadioKAOS (talk) 23:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Road junction lists
If an article has a road junction list/exit list that is in table format, what template can be placed on the page alerting users to the fact that it needs to be templated (Jct, Jctint, GAint, etc.)? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 03:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would we want to do that? –Fredddie™ 03:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There isn't one for that. There is now needs-jctint for the banner on the talk page for tracking purposes, similar to needs-map and needs-kml.  Imzadi 1979  →   03:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, "Why would we want to do that?"? Aren't all junction lists supposed to be built using the jcttop & jctint templates? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 03:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There are better things to be doing (like writing route descriptions) than wasting an AWB run to tag a bunch of articles. –Fredddie™ 03:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There is only a negative benefit in presenting a visually obtrusive tag to readers in order to encourage them to make a technical change that has minimal impact on the article. This is something for us to track as editors, and so the talk page is the best place to take care of that. -  Floydian  τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  04:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why this is such a bad thing. If some of you could explain why this is so terrible, then I might understand why you are so against it. By the way, I thought there used to be this very same template a few years ago. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 04:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it's redundant, and a waste of time, darn it as people have said above. --Rschen7754 04:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Floydian sums it up pretty well. Templates aren't required to make a properly formatted RJL table. This isn't like the mileposts template, which informs readers and editors alike that there is missing content. It isn't like jct that informs readers/editors that the content should be in a table, and is missing content. Your notice would be about something very esoteric that isn't required. Yes, we encourage the use of the templates because it allows us to future proof. Update the templates, and the articles re-arrange the values to produce the new format. However, an editor can hand-format a fully compliant RJL table without the templates, and MOS:RJL will likely never require the use of the templates.  Imzadi 1979  →   05:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Tagging articles is a pet peeve of mine. IMO article tagging is not much worse that vandalism, and I frankly find the tags insulting. I don't need someone to tell me a section is unsorced, has POV issues, or is missing co-ordinates with a huge orange banner. I could have figured those things out on my own by reading the article. Banners are visually obtrusive, often more so than the problem with the article the banner is warning about, and in many cases that problem with the article could be fixed with only slightly more effort. IMO the only appropriate use of such banners is to encourage more editors to get involved when an article is suffering from ownership issues and/or edit wars and all good faith efforts to actually fix the problem have failed.Dave (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that most banners are insulting to the intelligence, especially those that state something obvious, have an obvious solution, and point out something that will solve itself through the natural progression of article improvement. A History section with a banner stating this section is empty? There is an easy solution to that: delete the History section. Someone will write the History section eventually; there is no deadline.
 * The milepost banner is not as obvious to fix, but it is still disturbing. If there is an empty row column in a table, anyone should be able to interpret that as "no one has added mileposts yet," or perhaps "we do not yet know how to find or add this information."  V C  20:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Those banners could possibly be there for the benefit of users whose use of Wikipedia is far more casual than that of an active editor who participates in WikiProjects. You may have forgotten that Wikipedia is a go-to site for a significant portion of the general public, not just a personal plaything for 19-year-old college students with Aspergers and too much time on their hands.  Along those same lines, it's just more bullshit and platitudes to declare that "Wikipedia has no time limit", all the while oblivious to the fact that many of its contributors sure as shit do.  The encyclopaedia recently passed four million articles.  Want to take a stab as to how many of those articles reveal a complete lack of any historical grasp whatsoever?  What makes anyone think that someone else will come along in 20 or 30 years and get it right, if getting it right isn't presently all that important?RadioKAOS (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * How would these banners benefit said users? How does it benefit them to know about the internal coding of the junction list? --Rschen7754 22:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to take the USRD-specific banners, and the wrong direction template, for instance, and remove the visuals. Then we could use the templates as a shorthand for putting articles into tracking categories. –Fredddie™ 23:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

New parameter
So anyway, we now have needs-jctint= on the USRD banner, which takes yes, no, or NA. We have over 10,800 USRD articles now. With AWB runs and some set logic I got the number down to just under 3600. Unfortunately, that means that we're gonna have to do some work. I encourage all active members of USRD to partake in the work; the sooner we can get this done, the closer we are to reaching one of our goals for 2012. See the goals banner for the appropriate categories.

All FA/A/GA articles have been tagged; there are 70 that we need to convert to templates before the end of the year. --Rschen7754 09:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * To what "work" are you referring? Where is the goals banner? Maybe I can help. Thanks. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 13:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * USRD.  Imzadi 1979  →   14:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Issue with the Jcttop template
As it can be seen here, here, and here, there is something wrong with Template:Jcttop. As you can see, for some reason, setting the nocty parameter to yes and the location to none now adds a "The entire highway is located in none." banner above the junction table. This needs to be fixed, as it is currently causing problems at a GAN review, and will likely cause more issues in the near future. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 00:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is fixed. Now, to turn off the hatnote, you have to add off. –Fredddie™ 02:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 02:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

State highways with multiple segments
I have noticed that our coverage of state highways made up of multiple disjoint segments is inconsistent. In most cases, the segments are covered in one article, such as New Jersey Route 167 or Pennsylvania Route 29. But in other cases, we have multiple articles. For instance, we have Pennsylvania Route 97 (Adams County) and Pennsylvania Route 97 (Erie County), with Pennsylvania Route 97 serving as a dab page. Also, we have a unique way of covering Missouri Route 110, with the original incarnation covered at the Missouri Route 110 title and the new version covered at Chicago–Kansas City Expressway. I feel we need to be consistent in covering these types of situations. Should we lump all the segments into one article or should we cover them separately. Should we only combine them when related and split them when unrelated? Should we have dab pages when there are multiple segments covered separately?  Dough 48  72  00:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm of the opinion that this is something that should be left to the task forces. It can be difficult (read: unsourceable) to determine whether two segments of a highway are "related". Consider Oklahoma State Highway 58; both of its halves are on roughly the same line of longitude, but they have never connected. We have no sources on why they are like this. Are they related enough to share an article? I also want to say we've discussed this before. Maybe doing an archive search would be enlightening. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If we can't determine what to do based on whether or not they are related, I think we need to either have all of them split or all of them merged together.  Dough 48  72  03:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Scott5114. The decision on what to do in each particular situation should be handled at the local level, not the national level.  V C  12:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. There are likely cases where one segment is a fraction of the length of the other, in which case it would be rather pointless to fork the stubby segment into its own article. However, if each segment has its own lengthy cultural and historical story, it may very well warrant individual articles for each segment. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  14:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see how the current setup makes sense for most cases. The two segments of NJ 167 are directly related as they were both former segments of US 9 leading up to a demolished bridge, so they should be covered together. As for PA 97, the two segments are at opposite ends of the state and have no historical relation, so it makes sense to cover them separately. As for MO 110, the Missouri Route 110 title is for the original route in Jefferson County with a hatnote to the unrelated segment that is the Chicago–Kansas City Expressway. Since there are two unrelated MO 110's, and neither of them should get priority, wouldn't it make sense to make Missouri Route 110 a dab page and move the original incarnation to Missouri Route 110 (Jefferson County)?  Dough 48  72  17:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering one of the 110s is completely concurrent with I-35 and US 36, and doesn't have its own article (it is covered in the CKC article), the Jefferson County MO 110 should take priority. There is no real need to disambiguate if one of the articles doesn't share that title. A hatnote should suffice. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * While a hatnote works, is there proof that the Jefferson County MO 110 is more important? The CKC MO 110 is almost 200 miles long, compared to 6 miles for the one in Jefferson County, and the CKC has gotten more media attention.  Dough 48  72  23:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Under the doctrine of using the common name, in this case, the other MO 110's common name is "Chicago–Kansas City Expressway" or "CKC", not MO 110. The Jefferson County example wouldn't have another name to take precedence, so in this case, the MO 110 entry for the CKC would get the disambiguation term, and the original MO 110 could be left alone, applying hatnotes as needed.  Imzadi 1979  →   23:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Georgia State Route 368's major intersections section
I added a major intersections section to the Georgia State Route 368 article. Normally, I have no problem with this, but SR 368 ends at a state line, so I don't understand how to do this. Could someone correct this section, and let me know what I did wrong? Thanks. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * river= and location= are not substitutes for each other. --Rschen7754 19:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What would the correct code for that section be? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Take a look; I've fixed it. --Rschen7754 20:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Another option is to use a line of and show continuation that way.  See I-74's exit list for what I mean. –Fredddie™ 20:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Often Missing the Names of Mtn Passes
I'm reanalyzing my mc trip and find that for many roads/hiwys there are no indications of their mountain passes in lots of the road wiki pages (e.g. CA-299, UT-12...).

For UT-12 between Torrey and Boulder there is a distinct and high mtn pass with a distinct name I forgot. Also for 299 between Eureka and Willow Creek, there are two major elevations I don't find any name here. But I know there was a traffic shield with the name of at least one of the mtn. passes.

Unfortunately, also on Google Maps and Google Earth there is rarely an indication of the mtn pass names.

Since I was a tourist from Europe I have no idea of these names, but still want to know.

I appreciate if you could provide the names of major mtn passes of the (scenic) roads/hiwys.

Lorenz, Zurich, Switzerland

<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 09:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Mountain passes along a route can usually be mentioned in the Route description section.  Dough 48  72  15:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Lorenz, thanks for the feedback. If we find reliable sources that list them, we'll be sure to add them. –Fredddie™ 21:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you think we could possibly include mountain passes in our junction lists, much like we include bridges, tunnels, and ferries?  Dough 48  72  23:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I see where this could be helpful, but I could also see where this could be abused and every minor mountain pass would be included. --Rschen7754 06:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Where do you see abuse of it? I'd expect more that people would demand covering all, not abuse of adding all names. Mitch 32 (Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 10:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * IMHO, this is like major bridge/tunnel crossings, and a detail that should be included in articles on a case-by-case basis. Again, I understand that there have been cases in the past, but I dislike the attitude of proscribing potentially negative behaviors and content before there's a problem instead of prescribing best practices.  Imzadi 1979  →   13:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this could get to the point where every little gap in the range could be in the jct list as a mountain pass. How about a criteria that a pass must be worthy of its own Wikipedia article to be included on a jct list?  → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 00:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree in principle, but I'm not sure if we have to legislate this. I'm sure that if any one of us came upon a junction list that was clogged with mountain passes that we'd remove them. –Fredddie™ 00:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, hold on. Since when should this be in junction lists? I downright oppose that. It should only be in route descriptions and maybe a lead if notable enough. (Clearly I misread something.) Mitch 32 (Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 12:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If we include what we believe to be major river crossings in junction lists, then we should include major mountain crossings as well. I understand we need to have limits to prevent the abuse of including too many mountain passes, just as we should for river crossings. Therefore, I propose the following:
 * All mountain passes that close for extended periods during the winter—such as Chinook Pass, Independence Pass, Logan Pass, and Sherman Pass—may be included in junction lists without reservation. There should be a reference to a reliable source for the road closure.
 * All mountain passes that remain open during the winter, but for which the state highway agency makes notable efforts to keep open—such as Donner Pass, Snoqualmie Pass, and Loveland Pass—may also be included in junction lists without reservation. There should be a reference to a reliable source for the effort to keep the road open.
 * Unless there are other non-reservation situations introduced, all other passes must justify their inclusion on an individual basis on exceptional value, backed by reliable sources, to be included.
 * Mountain passes may be included in a secondary fashion, as a supplement to another junction list entry. Examples include a junction with a ridge-top highway, such as US 211's junction with Skyline Drive at Thornton Gap or I-405's interchange with Mulholland Drive at Sepulveda Pass; a highway terminus at a gap (no obvious example); or a state line, like where US 33 crosses Dry Run Gap at the Virginia–West Virginia state line.  V C  17:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that's good. --Rschen7754 18:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that mountain passes should be included if they are notable enough for an article, much like bridges.  Dough 48  72  18:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge or not?
I have been working on an article for U.S. Route 90 in Florida since late-July 2012. Once I finish it, does that mean that Beach Boulevard (Jacksonville, Florida) will be merged into the article? DanTD 16:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not know for sure whether Beach Boulevard will be merged into the main article, but I agree that it should be merged into the main article.  V C  17:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with VC. –Fredddie™ 23:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow. Maybe I should swipe some material from the Beach Boulevard article and put it in there as well. DanTD 23:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You could scrub Beach Boulevard of its USRD bits and rework it into a USST article. –Fredddie™ 01:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I didn't think of that. But I suppose if Queens Boulevard and Union Turnpike can be stand-alone articles along with New York State Route 25 and New York State Route 25C, I suppose this can remain one too. The only thing I wonder about is whether or not the current elements of the article can stay there, or f they have to be changed for USST. --DanTD 14:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Old exit numbers
I know we've had this discussion in the past, but we need to set a policy regarding old exit numbers in exit lists. The main concern is how long should we include the old exit numbers. Should we include them only in the transitional period, until 10 years after, or forever? We should come to a consensus on what it should be and possibly add it to MOS:RJL.  Dough 48  72  23:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Permanent inclusion—find a source and keep them in place. We're a reference work, and just because the numbers may not be active doesn't make them any less valid information in an historical context to include. Also, we can't really amend MOS:RJL from a discussion here, however, we can apply the consensus to WP:USRD/STDS since MOS:RJL is neutral on the concept.  Imzadi 1979  →   23:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have seen a picture from the 1970s of a consecutively-numbered exit along I-80 in Iowa. Does that mean I have to hunt down exit numbers from that era and include them?  I see your point about including them, but it opens a can of worms for those states that had consecutive numbers long ago but do not now. –Fredddie™ 00:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * When exit numbers are changed, how long does the signage reflect that? How long do the BGSs have " OLD EXIT 00 " tabs attached to them? Maybe the time period used in real life should be our guide.  → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 00:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The time period can vary with the state. Pennsylvania switched to mile-based exits about 10 years ago, yet signs for the old exit numbers still exist. It can be hard to track down whether or not a state still signs its old exit numbers, and signage can be inconsistent within a state.  Dough 48  72  01:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * PennDOT's leaving them up for the last 11 years hasn't exactly helped much. I still from personal experience have seen billboards / advertisements for Exit 46, 53, etc. running around on Interstate 80, as much as I know that its been 11 year since those were relevant. I do support them as staying in the article. Exactly who are they hurting really by being in there? We're not gaining or losing much by removing them. Mitch 32 (Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 01:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What then of the sequential numbering system used on Highway 401 up until 1978?... Somehow I remember several of the editors that have commented here opposing the inclusion of these exit numbers as historical and unnecessary. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  19:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

 * 1) Road junction lists should mainly reflect a highway as it is now. I am not opposed to all historical references in a junction list, but the historical references in the junction list should not be used comprehensively. I agree that we are a reference work, but comprehensive historical references belong in the History section.
 * 2) How notable are old exit numbers on an individual basis? I agree that old exiting numbering systems are notable, but individual numbers are unlikely to be notable on their own.
 * 3) States often announce that the old numbers will be displayed for 1 year or 2 years after implementation of the new system, but that rarely squares with reality. State transportation departments forget the old exit signs exist or let them hang around until gentries are replaced or the signs get blown down. To determine whether old exits are still signed without a reliable source is original research.  V C  20:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The question I argue is are we actually hurting anyone? If people are going to be on Interstate 80 in PA, and haven't been in 15-20 years, they may not know what exit is what. I'd argue having the old numbers next to the current one are actually a benefit to readers than removing them. I mean, if I get what you want, we're going to replace it with a passing mention in the article, which I don't support without the old exit numbers in the junction list. Mitch 32 (Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 11:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

New Jersey Route 495
}}

Note: I added these to facilitate discussion. –Fredddie™ 22:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a dispute in how the Lincoln Tunnel crossing should be handled in the New Jersey Route 495 exit list. My version uses the standard jctbridge with the river spanning the county and location columns and the state line continuation shown in a separate row but Djflem keeps reverting it to look like it currently does. Which version is better?  Dough 48  72  18:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say Dough4872's version is more accurate, as NY-495 is not in Weehawken, nor in Hudson County, nor in New Jersey.  → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 21:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Either way is a valid way of noting the continuation of a highway past its terminus in the junction list. We currently have no standard for this and it varies state to state. Dough's preferred version is what I refer to as "Iowa-style" because it is the way this sort of situation is handled in Iowa articles. Its benefit is that it is technically accurate in all aspects, however, while it is obvious on this article that New York City/New York County is not in New Jersey, in most instances that's not the case (consider U.S. Route 30 in Iowa—it may not be obvious that Washington County is, in fact, in Nebraska). You have already outlined the problems with the other way of doing it, which I refer to as "Michigan-style". For Oklahoma's articles, I do things a third way; see Interstate 35 in Oklahoma. While this explicitly notes the state line as the location, it's been pointed out that the "Oklahoma-style" method often results in the centered cell beginning with shields, which could be considered aesthetically displeasing at best and chafing on MOS:ICON at the worst. You might consider it as a compromise to settle the situation.

 * This might be something that we should standardize in RJL but for now it should be handled at the task force level. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I guess you all know where I stand. :) That being said, I do always make a point to add "Continuation into Nebraska" (in US 30's case) for clarification's sake. –Fredddie™ 22:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I decided to use the IA style per VC's recommendation that the continuation to the other state at the river crossing should be shown as not to give the impression the road ends at the state line with no continuation. The OK style could possibly work for the situation of NJ 495. The current style in the NJ 495 article is not the best as it does not show the river spanning the location column and implies that NY 495 enters Weehawken.  Dough 48  72  23:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you re-revert, I wouldn't include the end mileage in the NY junction; just leave the mile column blank. –Fredddie™ 01:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not? MP 3.45 is still relevant here. Mitch 32 (Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 12:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As it was, the NJ endpoint mileage was repeated in the NY line, which is wrong. –Fredddie™ 22:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Dough 4872's interest in destabilizing a consensus which he helped to establish is perplexing. Since Sept 22 2006 when municipality location was introduced into the exit list New York City/County have been not included in it. This is because NJ495 does not travel through or have any exits in New York, and including in that column would imply that it did. NJ495 ends in the tunnel at the mid-point of the river at the border established in 1834 (by compact between the states ratified by Congress). Having the river span the location would imply that that the river is not located within the places it is at that point, namely in Weehawken and Manhattan. For the purposes of an article about highway designation exclusively located in one state (NJ in this case), only the portion that is relevent to the state need be notated. Using the current format of destination/note, a simple correction can be made by shifting the NY495 info to the note column to the effect: road continues as NY495 at state line at river midpoint in tunnel.Djflem (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What about ending the list with the "Lincoln Tunnel under Hudson River" line at the bottom? (See the third sample I added above.)  → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 23:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Having the river span the location columns implies that the river separates the two cities, which it does. Having New York, New York in the junction list shows that the route continues on the other side of the river/tunnel and where it lands. There is absolutely nothing wrong with providing that for our readers. –Fredddie™ 23:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

 * The city line of the municipalities are not separated by anything: they abut each other, their shared border the midpoint of the Hudson River, the start/end point of NJ495. The Hudson at the point in question is located in Weehawken, New Jersey and there no reason to re-write history or geography to accommodate an exit list. I would suggest reversing the order of the list, thus east to west, beginning with the zero milepoint at Weehawken and ending in North Bergen.Djflem (talk) 05:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ...You do know that the zero milepost was established by NJDOT, using the west end of the route as required by the federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, correct? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Now we're just arguing semantics. Yes, legally, the cities border each other in the middle of the Hudson River.  I still say that under a river is a more notable location than the city limits of two cities in neighboring states.  If we ignore this fact, we're really doing a disservice to our readers. –Fredddie™ 11:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Misrepresenting the fact that the cities legally border each other in the middle of the river would indeed be disservice to the reader.Djflem (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

M-553 FAC
Unfortunately, M-553 failed FAC today, our first FAC that did not pass in several years. The main issue was that there was not enough support; it needed more independent review. While this largely is not our fault, does anyone have any ideas as to how we can prevent this from happening again? --Rschen7754 20:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Largely not our fault? The main problem, lack of reviewers, is out of our hands. I also think we're overreacting. Mitch 32 (Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 21:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We did what we could to let the project know through Article Alerts and the USRD Announcements template. Most of the active project members had already reviewed the article at ACR and had no review to offer at FAC, other than a support.  Dough 48  72  23:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoever reviews an article at ACR should support the article as soon as it is nominated at FAC. The expediency is due to the unfortunate "top is recent" setup of FAC. Four immediate supports are more likely to get reviewers' attention than one immediate support. Some of that attention will be negative, but in this case any attention is good attention because there will be activity. Prolonged lack of activity before a significant level of support is a recipe for apathy FAC-fail.  V C  23:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * However, I just don't understand how this changes anything. We could support it seven ways to Sunday, but we could still get no reviews, it happens. Why are we trying to require/fix things that isn't really something we control? Mitch 32 (Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 00:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure we could really do anything to stop this. I was hesitant to support because I don't want one of our FACs to devolve into USRD-bashing because we were voting as a bloc, and I don't know the MOS or FAC standards well enough to make a legitimate case for a support other than "It passed ACR so it's good enough for me".—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Making sure our ACR reviewers offer support at FAC is one thing in this process we can control and does not require much work beyond the ACR review. I agree with not rubber-stamping a support if you were not one of the ACR reviewers. However, I see no problem with doing the same if you were one of the ACR reviewers. Each ACR reviewer has done significant work in a rigorous, FAC-like process. Would it be more beneficial to also link to the particular ACR review conducted by that user?  V C  14:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this is at least worth trying. --Rschen7754 19:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've started trying to do image reviews at ACR, which is one of the areas that can hold up an open FAC. If I did one, as I did with California State Route 57, I link to the ACR in my FAC comments. That way the FAC delegates can jump over to the ACR, see what was said and done in terms of the image review, and check it off the list of things they'd want done in the FAC. If an editor did a substantive review at ACR, and links to that in their comments in supporting at FAC, then they shouldn't feel like they're "rubber stamping" anything.
 * P.S., the article has been renominated at Featured article candidates/M-553 (Michigan highway)/archive2.  Imzadi 1979  →   20:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am one of those people who thinks it looks bad if everyone who reviewed it at ACR immediately supports it at FAC. Right this moment, if I were to support M-553 at FAC, all four reviewers would have supported it within 3 hours of the nomination going live.  I think it throws up red flags if there are that many supports that quickly.
 * That being said, I have no problem with supporting at FAC any article I review at ACR. But, I will wait until at least one non-HWY person reviews the article. –Fredddie™ 22:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That also being said, this is a renomination/restart of an idle nomination; it's understandable if those who had previously supported continue to still support and reiterate that support in the new FAC. Any fishiness factor is negated by the fact that it was restarted right away. (Plus, let the delegates handle appearances... that's not our worries so much.)  Imzadi 1979  →   00:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

ACR backlog
Just letting you know that we have five ACRs open that need reviews. I plan on adding a sixth once one of my GANs goes through, so the backlog is only going to grow. If you could take some time to review them, that would be amazing. --Rschen7754 08:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Assessment log updates
How often is the Assessment log updated? In particular, where can I see an assessment log for the state of Georgia? Thanks. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The logs are updated whenever the bot runs and there is something to update; normally the bot runs daily. The USRD project-wide log is at Version 1.0 Editorial Team/U.S. road transport articles by quality log, and a Georgia-specific one is at Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Georgia (U.S. state) road transport articles by quality log. Assuming the bot is running daily, the state and national logs will only be updated if there were changes to assessment in the preceding 24 hours.  Imzadi 1979  →   22:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Daily, huh? I have been updating some of the Georgia state route articles (and updating the assessment on the talk pages). I have been doing this since August 25 (the date on both of the pages that you linked above. Is there a problem on the pages with the date, or did I just overlook the more recent updates? Thank you for clearing all of this up. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's supposed to run daily; if it isn't, well, go ask the bot operator.  Imzadi 1979  →   23:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Georgia went from a 5.733 to its current 5.697 in that time. If you were to improve all of Georgia's stubs to starts today, you would have a 4.959 and our full attention. –Fredddie™ 00:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The bot typically runs daily. There's been a technical issue for the past month or so that has prevented the log updates on wiki. See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index and recent archives for more explanation. The log updates won't be started again until some of the issues are resolved. It's getting better...there was a period in August where the bot-generated wikiwork table was only updated a two times within three weeks. --  LJ  ↗  09:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It should be back to updating normally, but the manual updater is disabled until further notice. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  14:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Second opinion
See Talk:U.S. Route 60 in Oklahoma/GA1. I would like a second opinion on whether certain features need to be referenced in the route description.  Dough 48  72  16:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Creating KMLs with GIS data [x-post from Maps Task Force]
Having a problem with GIS data and the creation of KML files for routes, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Maps_task_force/Tutorial —Mr. Matté (Talk/Contrib) 22:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:HWY/TFA
I've created a new page at the above link to put down suggestions for TFA and coordinate nominations for WP:TFAR. --Rschen7754 05:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

EZ-Pass only exit list color
This came up from an IRC discussion about Exit 352 on the Pennsylvania Turnpike and the fact that it is an EZ-Pass only interchange. What I thought of was that we should make a lighter shade of purple (i.e. lavender) to signify exits on a junction list for electronic controlled access. Ones that come to mind include the PA Turnpike (Exits 320, 340, 352), the Atlantic City Expressway (exit 17), IL toll roads, etc. I'll leave the floor open, curious to if the project wants to signify it. I personally don't think the "Partial access interchange" fairly covers this type of access. Mitch 32 (Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 00:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the concept, with the understanding that we wouldn't use it on ETC-only (with or without pay-by-plate options) toll roads. In those cases, I wouldn't want the entire table to receive a color, but I would endorse it for interchanges that are the exception, not the rule.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This does sound like a good idea, but I have three issues. First, the E-ZPass color would conflict with other colors such as the partial interchange colors for exits 340 and 352 on the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Second, what would we do in the case of exit 17 of the Atlantic City Expressway, where only part of the interchange is E-ZPass only. Third, we need to take into account there are many toll roads that are ETC only.  Dough 48  72  00:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be OK with either of these colors: or .  The latter is a complementary color of, the concurrency color. –Fredddie™ 02:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Right after I saved, I thought, "Shouldn't we be having this discussion at WT:RJL?" –Fredddie™ 02:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The question I have is, why discriminate? Why not include carpool lane only exits, or Fastrak exits, or Good2Go? --Rschen7754 02:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think tolls are a silly novelty anyway, so I don't see why we couldn't. –Fredddie™ 02:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not a fan of colors in general, but I am neutral-permissive about having an electronic-only exit shading. However, I have to disagree the electronic-toll-only color would conflict with the partial interchange color. The former is a shade of purple; the latter is a shade of red. That would be an issue if anyone has red-purple color blindness, but that is why we build MOS-compliant tables and create notes for redundancy with colors people may or may not be able to see.
 * I edit-conflicted with rschen7754, who has a good point about this possibly being a slippery slope. Fredddie, too, but no point to agree with there.  V C  02:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What I mean to say is that EZPass is very East coast centric. Western states typically use different vendors. --Rschen7754 02:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I was reading the original question by substituting other forms of ETC (electronic toll collection) for "EZ-Pass". Maybe I should clarify that if we did this, I would have the legend at the bottom of the table use "ETC" instead of "EZ-Pass" for some of the same reasons mentioned above (uses a generic term instead of a specific brand name for one service, wide applicability to additional situations like TxTag, Good2Go, MNPass, GeauPass, etc)  Imzadi 1979  →   03:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What about HOT or HOV only exits though? There are a lot in CA and incomplete doesn't fit those either, but they are not ETC. --Rschen7754 03:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Rschen brings up a valid point about HOV-/HOT-only exits, and there are tolled exits in other states where being assessed a toll on the ramp is a notable exception. (On I-355 in IL, some ramps assess a toll on exit in addition to the tolls assessed on the mainline toll barriers, but unlike the ticket systems used in IN or OH, tolls aren't assessed on all exits.)

So what I'm thinking is using the lavender for toll-specific exceptions: ETC-only exits, or exits where a toll is specifically assessed to use that ramp to leave the freeway. legendRJL would be updated to use a yes or y to display the legend for the color. HOV-/HOT-only items could use another color shade (yellow and blue are the only choices left of the basic rainbow) with a y option to display that addition to the key. This way these new additions only appear in the key where appropriate (Michigan doesn't have ETC nor HOV/HOT situations).  Imzadi 1979  →   03:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it is overkill to have colors for every exit that has a toll plaza along with every HOV/HOT exit. The notes column works fine.  Dough 48  72  03:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's more a case of calling out the exceptions to the general patterns. I've skipped colors where all interchanges are partial ones, rather than have the whole table appear in pink. Where there are valid exceptions worth noting, it can be worth calling attention to them.  Imzadi 1979  →   03:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we need to be consistent with the colors we use in junction lists. If not, I think we need to abolish them totally.  Dough 48  72  03:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Skipping colors in that instance is a valid extension of dropping the county column on a junction list. –Fredddie™ 05:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * But we have a set rule for whether the county column is needed or not. We do not for colors, as one exit may require more than one color (such as a partial interchange at a concurrency terminus). With this, we have to pick and choose which color to include for that exit and that can lead to edit warring.  Dough 48  72  15:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is a valid discussion for WT:RJL. –Fredddie™ 15:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Proscribing an option because it could lead to edit-warring is a straw man argument. As long as the "edit" link(s) in an article exist, there can always be edit warring. I summarily reject your argument on that subject in its totality. Edit warring is already against policy, regardless if it's over what photos to use or not use in an article, how to format a table or how to word a sentence. Period. End of Discussion. Never use that argument here again. Where there is a legitimate difference of opinion over photo, formatting or linguistic options, WP:Consensus will determine which options to use, and there is no need to legislate for any possibility.  Imzadi 1979  →   20:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Kind of going on the tangent here, but there can be certain concepts that are plagued with the potential for unabated edit warring... But that's more like the genre parameter of infobox musical artist, and certainly in this case you are correct that it's a straw man argument. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  21:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I fully disagree with the above comments. In an ideal Wikipedia, we shouldn't have the edit warring policy at all. However, edit warring is a fact. Where there are holes in the guidelines, we get threads like the one immediately above this one. The California project was torn apart for years over IPs and socks (who generally cannot be blocked effectively) who edit warred over the junction lists for years. I was powerless to do