AARoads:The Interchange/Archive 1

From the AARoads Wiki: Read about the road before you go
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2

__ARCHIVEDTALK__

Name of this page

I just created this as "Project discussion" to get it created, but that's a pretty lame name. Should we move it somewhere else?

Some suggestions from Discord:

  • Environmental impact statements (Scott5114)
  • Rest stop (Imzadi1979)
  • The Gulag (Moabdave, hopefully he wasn't too serious about this)
  • Breezewood (Rschen7754)
    • Cove Fort (Moabdave)
    • Limon, Colorado (Scott5114)
    • Other Desert Cities (LilianaUwU)
  • Service plaza (Imzadi1979)
  • The Interchange (Imzadi1979)
  • Maintenance yard (Scott5114)
  • The Roundabout (Fredddie)

Any other suggestions, or any on the list you like? (I think "Maintenance yard" is my favorite so far.) Scott5114 (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2023 (EDT)

Someone on the chat suggested roundabout. That also has potential, though I think interchange and Breezewood are the top two.Moabdave (talk) 23:09, 18 June 2023 (EDT)
Breezewood might make sense if we're planning on it being inconvenient and overcommercialized... :P Scott5114 (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2023 (EDT)
Good point. Maybe Breezewood would be best left for our equivalent of ANI, Arbcom or the log page for users with sanctions/editing restrictions until they show they can behave. ;) Moabdave (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2023 (EDT)
"Rest stop" was initially a play off the Traveller's Pub on Wikivoyage. I prefer The Interchange as both a play on the idea of a hub in the network and a place for the interchange of ideas. Imzadi 1979  13:27, 19 June 2023 (EDT)
Agree, “The Interchange” sounds like a good name for a project discussion page. Dough4872 15:49, 19 June 2023 (EDT)
Added one more. –Fredddie 20:42, 19 June 2023 (EDT)

Vote

I'd like to call for a vote on this topic. It's been a month, so let's pick something and get this page its final title. Please, list your vote below. Imzadi 1979  22:32, 16 July 2023 (EDT)

  • The InterchangeImzadi 1979  22:32, 16 July 2023 (EDT)
  • The Interchange --Rschen7754 22:46, 16 July 2023 (EDT)
  • I'm fine with whatever. But if you forced me to pick in a second round, I'd pick Breezewood. –Fredddie 11:58, 17 July 2023 (EDT)
  • The Interchange Dough4872 15:03, 27 July 2023 (EDT)

Links

What is everyone else doing with links to pages that won't exist on this wiki? Removing them, or converting them to interwiki links? —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:23, 26 June 2023 (EDT)

I think we should link to Wikipedia to articles that are outside our scope. However, I’m waiting until more articles are imported so we have less red links to go through and also possibly if we could have a bot convert these links. Dough4872 06:38, 26 June 2023 (EDT)
I'm asking so I can see how I would need to code the bot you're talking about... —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:56, 26 June 2023 (EDT)
Even if we wait until everything is imported, the challenge is distinguishing between an article in our scope (there are still some states with missing articles on SHs) and something that is not. --Rschen7754 21:00, 26 June 2023 (EDT)
My plan is to do something like take the list of SRNC naming conventions, toss it into an array, and if anything in the array appears as a substring of the link's target page, don't touch skip it. If it doesn't match the array, point the link to enwp. Won't be 100% accurate, of course, so it will need some further cleanup. But it's a start at least. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:41, 27 June 2023 (EDT)
Probably the thing to do is 1) wait until everything is imported 2) run a bot to check: if it is not on AARoads AND is on enwiki, then convert to w:. --Rschen7754 20:08, 27 June 2023 (EDT)
I've been converting some to enwiki links. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 03:48, 27 June 2023 (EDT)

County categories

A good number of articles seem to be categorized under "Transportation in Whatever County, State". How would everyone feel about retaining these categories but changing them to just "Whatever County, State"? Would be helpful for the county clinchers. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:23, 29 July 2023 (EDT)

Support. Yes, yes, yes. If you didn't mention removing the "Transportation in " I would have. –Fredddie 21:13, 29 July 2023 (EDT)
  • Support either “Roads in Countyname County, Statename” or “Countyname County, Statename”. We don’t need to use “Transportation” since our wiki is only focused on roads. Dough4872 00:13, 30 July 2023 (EDT)

Draft content policy

I have created a draft of a content policy, using User:Fredddie/Policies as a guide and formatting it according to the Standard/Support/Guidance/Option scheme used in the MUTCD. Please take a look and let me know what you think. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:34, 24 June 2023 (EDT)

Some points:
  • SRNC did not cover Canada so you might want to add something in that regard.
  • Under sources, you don't address maps at all.
  • The scope probably needs further examination. I know at the moment we allow articles on many national and state scenic byways, as well as auto trails, without controversy. For Canada you could probably say primary provincial highways and get 90% of the coverage. --Rschen7754 12:16, 24 June 2023 (EDT)
I said it on Discord, but I don't think our fair-use content policy needs to be as draconian as enwiki's. I think if we limited uses to five or even three pages, that should cover the vast majority of uses. Shields I wouldn't even worry about because they're going to be between 24px and 72px and unlinked. Reason being is that we are a roads wiki, we are limited by nature. –Fredddie 16:06, 24 June 2023 (EDT)
I think this is a good start for a content policy. I do agree with Rschen that we need to mention information about using maps as sources, since this was recently a contested issue on Wikipedia. In addition, the scope should mention other types of roads such as auto trails, scenic byways, and whatever else we decide to cover including the extent of coverage of secondary state highways and county routes as well as how business loops/special routes should be covered. The scope should also mention what types of roads we decide not to cover as well. Dough4872 16:47, 24 June 2023 (EDT)
Regarding Rschen's points, #1 would cover state maps, and all we need to do is add "maps and atlases" to the list in #2 to cover Rand McNally, et al. –Fredddie 16:55, 24 June 2023 (EDT)

Well, this is a draft, we can change the wording as much as we like before it becomes policy. Some responses, though:

  • Regarding the SRNC stuff, that's just temporary language that will be replaced when we decide what the new naming conventions are going to be.
  • It says reliable sources include...but it doesn't say other sources are excluded. (I've done my time WikiLawyering, remember. ;) ) But yes, we can shim maps in there somewhere.
  • The scope definition definitely needs to be expanded/made more precise, but it looks like it's several discussions on this page have not reached a conclusion, so I didn't bother to try to make the language perfect because it currently doesn't fully reflect consensus anyway. (The summary of the outcomes of the discussions will need to be added to the policy either way.)
  • For the fair use policy, I was mostly using the enwp fair use guideline as a known good template; we can certainly loosen it if it's deemed prudent and within our rights to do. Still, though, it is actually designed to be quite a bit looser than the enwp guideline as-is—note that because the fair use rationale is in a guidance "should" statement rather than a "shall", not having a fair use rationale is not grounds to delete an image! —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:00, 24 June 2023 (EDT)

Since there's been no comments in opposition since June, I have gone ahead and moved this to project space at AARoads:Content policy, so I suppose that means it is officially enacted. I've also created a policy landing page at AARoads:Policy that can be used any time you want to be all like, "you know, policy, over there," without being specific. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:57, 11 October 2023 (EDT)

AWB/JWB access

If you are interested in AA:JWB access, please sign up below. Admins and above have it by default. Presumably AWB works, but I have yet to try it since JS has been turned on. –Fredddie 18:42, 11 July 2023 (EDT)

User rights discussion

I think before launch we should consider the following two changes to user rights:

  • Restrict uploading to administrators and those with a special right only, to encourage people to upload to Commons.
  • Add rollback to the patrollers group to more quickly deal with vandalism.

Thoughts? --Rschen7754 22:12, 16 July 2023 (EDT)

Sounds good to me. We should also probably create a AARoads:User rights requests page to allow people to request patroller, uploader, and admin rights. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:14, 16 July 2023 (EDT)
Agreed with both of the above. Imzadi 1979  22:20, 16 July 2023 (EDT)
I agree with both points made by Rschen and Scott. Dough4872 22:21, 16 July 2023 (EDT)
Yeah, sounds good. (Is this a consensus forming? On AARoads Wiki?!) LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:24, 16 July 2023 (EDT)
This has now been done. --Rschen7754 12:07, 22 July 2023 (EDT)

Should we fold permissions into this page as well? I was thinking the AWB/JWB rights request could be here as well. It'd be one less forum and there's a thin line between permissions and rights. –Fredddie 14:54, 30 August 2023 (EDT)

I added the permission to the request page. along with a few clarifications. Imzadi 1979  05:35, 12 September 2023 (EDT)

For those who haven't yet commented, there are now some user rights requests that have been opened at AARoads:User rights requests. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:49, 14 September 2023 (EDT)

AASHTO Spring 2023

The meeting notes have been posted, [1]. Because this is AARW we can cite directly. --Rschen7754 14:14, 12 September 2023 (EDT)

{{AASHTO minutes|year=2023S}}: Special Committee on U.S. Route Numbering (June 9, 2023). "2023 Spring Meeting Report to the Council on Highways and Streets" (PDF) (Report). Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Imzadi 1979  02:08, 16 September 2023 (EDT)

Tracking files used on Commons

Wikimedia Commons user Rschen7754 suggested to me over there that my Usage Bot could usefully track the usage of Commons' files on this wiki. It would do this by fetching a list of the Commons files used on this wiki using the MediaWiki API and maintaining a collection of galleries on Commons so that "Commons:Files used on the AARoads Wiki" would appear in the "File usage on Commons" section of those files' pages on Commons. This would alert anyone proposing to delete or otherwise mess with those files to the effect that might have here. Does this seem like a good idea? --bjh21 (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2023 (EDT)

That would definitely be useful and appreciated! —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:50, 14 September 2023 (EDT)
I concur. This would be useful. Imzadi 1979  00:38, 15 September 2023 (EDT)
I also agree that this would be a great idea. Dough4872 20:28, 15 September 2023 (EDT)
Agreed, it would be useful especially if we start adding many more photos exclusively for AAroads wiki use. JJBers (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2023 (EDT)

I've now added the AARoads Wiki to Usage Bot's configuration, so if everything goes right it should populate c:Commons:Files used on the AARoads Wiki on Monday. --bjh21 (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2023 (EDT)

OK, it took a few more Mondays than that, but c:Commons:Files used on the AARoads Wiki is now populated, so Commons files used here will appear on Commons to be used on a subpage of c:Commons:Files used on the AARoads Wiki. --bjh21 (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2023 (EDT)
Thank you very much for your help with this! It's greatly appreciated. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:16, 10 October 2023 (EDT)

Adminship requirements

I do want to start this discussion since there are already requests for becoming an admin. What support percentage (support/support+oppose) are we looking for? Who is eligible to vote? And how long should requests last? Rschen7754 23:57, 14 September 2023 (EDT)

  • I would suggest 2 weeks, 75%. Maybe we introduce eligibility requirements later, but not now. --Rschen7754 00:00, 15 September 2023 (EDT)
  • If we want to return to the principle of "adminship is no big deal", then 50% + 1 vote should be sufficient. Experience on Wikipedia RFA (and the U.S. Senate!) shows that setting the bar much higher than that favors the status quo (and thus favors not promoting new admins). —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:04, 15 September 2023 (EDT)
    • I'm not sure about that. If someone doesn't have the trust of the vast majority of the community, they should not be admin. Ditto for the discussion below, I would say the threshold of support should be lower to remove an admin. --Rschen7754 00:10, 15 September 2023 (EDT)
      • That's a valid argument to make, but then if you look at most of the collectively-selected leadership roles that exist outside of the wiki world, very seldom do they require such a high bar. (By all accounts the governor of my state aligns pretty well with the majority political view here, and even he couldn't get all that much over 55%.) —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:23, 15 September 2023 (EDT)
        • It could be lower than 75%, after all one of our current admins passed enwiki with only 68%. --Rschen7754 00:32, 15 September 2023 (EDT)
  • I see two trains of thought here. The first is that adminship is no big deal and, thus, if more than 25% of voters don't trust you with such a meaningless bit, then you probably shouldn't get it. The other, of course, is that a significant contingent of people don't actually view adminship that way, whether they realize it or not, so having such a high threshold is just going to turn this into enwiki RfA, which has been broken for years. I land on the side of train #2. I'd say 50%+1 is plenty. TCN7JM 03:04, 15 September 2023 (EDT)
    • Regarding timeframe, I'd say it should be a minimum of seven days and a maximum of 14. If there's an obvious consensus (to be determined by closing crat) after seven days, close it. If the discussion is still ongoing, allow it to continue until the 14-day mark at the latest, at which point the closing crat calls time and interprets the results themself. TCN7JM 03:10, 15 September 2023 (EDT)
  • If I had my druthers, we'd save the high scrutiny for 'crats and hire more of them. That way they can give out rights (up to and including admin) at will. If an at-will admin screws up, they can be desysopped and the 'crat can get scolded for poor judgment on a drama board. I'm in the "adminship is NBD" camp. –Fredddie 19:53, 15 September 2023 (EDT)
    • So maybe we split the difference and say simple majority for admin, three-fourths majority for a bureaucrat? —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 12:05, 18 September 2023 (EDT)

I say split the difference and make the percentage a 2/3 majority; that way, you won't get any admins who half the community doesn't support, but you also don't have quite as high a bar as RfA. (In practice, the bar for RfA is close to 2/3 when you factor in the discretionary range, but I'd rather not do crat chats here for a number of reasons.) I suspect a lot of the toxicity of RfA has less to do with the threshold and more to do with editors using it as a proxy battleground for every long-running Wikipedia culture war, and I'm hoping that us having a fresh start will cut out a lot of that. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 16:04, 19 September 2023 (EDT)

  • I would support 2/3. --Rschen7754 01:40, 20 September 2023 (EDT)

Deadminship requirements

Unlike English Wikipedia, we should have a desysop process. What would be required? --Rschen7754 23:57, 14 September 2023 (EDT)

  • Unlike with granting adminship, removing admin rights carries the risk that users that have had administrative actions carried out against them may gang up on them and call for blood. So a higher threshold for taking the mop away than granting it makes sense. I would say that a two-thirds majority would be a good place to put it. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:06, 15 September 2023 (EDT)
  • I think 50%+1 would be more appropriate here - if half the community doesn't trust you, you shouldn't be an admin. But some wikis like Commons require that a discussion take place somewhere else as a first step, which could be a safeguard against removal. --Rschen7754 00:23, 15 September 2023 (EDT)
  • I agree with Scott here. It might not be an issue now, but if we get large enough that an angry mob could theoretically be sent to desysop you, the bar should be higher than a simple majority. However, I also understand Rschen's POV and could be persuaded to rethink this if we have some sort of common-sense protection against pile-ons. TCN7JM 03:04, 15 September 2023 (EDT)
  • Part of me thinks that desysopping should be by a majority vote of other sysops, while the vote of the rest of users could be counted as a single vote. –Fredddie 19:53, 15 September 2023 (EDT)
    • My concern with this is perception/closing ranks and a reluctance to let admins be held accountable for their own actions. --Rschen7754 23:51, 15 September 2023 (EDT)
      • That was my concern as well, but I was thinking of it coming from the other direction. –Fredddie 19:35, 19 September 2023 (EDT)
  • I've been going back and forth on this, and I think I agree with Scott, if only because we don't know how this community will evolve yet or what sort of controversies we'll have to deal with. I think 50%+1 would work if the community continues to look like what it is now - a pretty close-knit group of people collaborating to write about roads - but if we get big enough that the community starts to factionalize (like enwiki has several times over) I wouldn't want one faction of editors to control a desysop vote. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 16:42, 19 September 2023 (EDT)

Closing

We only have 2 bureaucrats. Is the expectation still going to be that bureaucrats have to recuse in requests they have voted on? --Rschen7754 14:09, 15 September 2023 (EDT)

Until we have more 'crats, I would suggest that 'crats just don't vote or comment on requests unless there is a procedural question. –Fredddie 19:53, 15 September 2023 (EDT)
If we are doing the decision on straight vote count, theoretically it shouldn't matter whether crats vote or not, because everyone will be able to count for themselves that the vote was 17-3 or whatever and thus that the promotion was appropriate. The enwp-style "closer gets to decide based on the vibe of the conversation after they throw out whatever votes they want to throw out" never sat well with me, so I'm loath to employ it here, even if I do get to play Chief Vibemaster here. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:39, 16 September 2023 (EDT)

Approval vote

The discussion seems like it's sort of stalled out, so how about we try giving this approval voting thing a spin? Vote will close in 14 days (nobody seems to have a problem with 14 days for admin discussions either, so we can just default to that). Vote for all of the following principles that you feel you can live with. Whichever gets the most votes in each section will win. Keep all discussion above this section. To prevent "badgering the opposes", don't explain your vote; if you want to do that, do it in the discussion thread above. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:14, 6 October 2023 (EDT)

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!

The result of the discussion was

  • Adminship requires a two-thirds majority.
  • Cratship requires the same vote threshold as adminship.
  • Deadminship requires a two-thirds majority.
  • Bureaucrats can close a vote starting at 7 days if there is an obvious consensus.
  • Bureaucrats may close discussions they have voted in.

Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:01, 20 October 2023 (EDT)


Adminship

Adminship requires a simple majority.
  1. Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:14, 6 October 2023 (EDT)
  2. Dough4872 09:35, 6 October 2023 (EDT)
  3. TC (Eli) 17:27, 6 October 2023 (EDT)
Adminship requires a three-fourths majority.
  1. Rschen7754 14:02, 6 October 2023 (EDT)
Bureaucrats can create admins at will.
  1. Fredddie 11:55, 6 October 2023 (EDT)
Adminship requires a two-thirds majority.
  1. Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:14, 6 October 2023 (EDT)
  2. Rschen7754 10:58, 6 October 2023 (EDT)
  3. -TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 12:09, 6 October 2023 (EDT)
  4. SounderBruce 14:14, 6 October 2023 (EDT)
  5. TC (Eli) 17:27, 6 October 2023 (EDT)

Closing time

Discussions must run for 14 days, unless the nominee withdraws.
  1. Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:14, 6 October 2023 (EDT)
  2. Dough4872 09:35, 6 October 2023 (EDT)
Bureaucrats can close a vote starting at 7 days if there is an obvious consensus.
  1. Dough4872 09:35, 6 October 2023 (EDT)
  2. Fredddie 11:57, 6 October 2023 (EDT)
  3. -TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 12:09, 6 October 2023 (EDT)
  4. Rschen7754 14:01, 6 October 2023 (EDT)
  5. SounderBruce 14:14, 6 October 2023 (EDT)
  6. TC (Eli) 17:27, 6 October 2023 (EDT)

Cratship

Cratship requires the same vote threshold as adminship.
  1. Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:14, 6 October 2023 (EDT)
  2. Dough4872 09:35, 6 October 2023 (EDT)
  3. Fredddie 11:57, 6 October 2023 (EDT)
  4. -TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 12:09, 6 October 2023 (EDT)
  5. SounderBruce 14:14, 6 October 2023 (EDT)
  6. TC (Eli) 17:28, 6 October 2023 (EDT)
Cratship requires a higher vote threshold, to be determined, than adminship.
  1. Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:14, 6 October 2023 (EDT)
  2. Dough4872 09:35, 6 October 2023 (EDT)

Deadminship

Deadminship requires a two-thirds majority.
  1. Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:14, 6 October 2023 (EDT)
  2. Fredddie 11:57, 6 October 2023 (EDT)
  3. -TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 12:09, 6 October 2023 (EDT)
  4. SounderBruce 14:14, 6 October 2023 (EDT)
  5. TC (Eli) 17:28, 6 October 2023 (EDT)
Deadminship requires a simple majority.
Deadminship requires a simple majority, but there must be a discussion somewhere else first.
  1. Dough4872 09:35, 6 October 2023 (EDT)
  2. Rschen7754 11:00, 6 October 2023 (EDT)
Desysopping should be by a majority vote of other sysops, while the vote of the rest of users could be counted as a single vote.
  1. Dough4872 09:35, 6 October 2023 (EDT)

Bureaucrats' role

Bureaucrats may close discussions they have voted in.
  1. Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:14, 6 October 2023 (EDT)
  2. Dough4872 09:35, 6 October 2023 (EDT)
  3. Fredddie 11:57, 6 October 2023 (EDT)
  4. -TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 12:09, 6 October 2023 (EDT)
  5. SounderBruce 14:14, 6 October 2023 (EDT)
  6. TC (Eli) 17:28, 6 October 2023 (EDT)
Bureaucrats may not close discussions they have voted in.
  1. Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:14, 6 October 2023 (EDT)

Request additional articles from Wikipedia

Where do we request to add additional articles from Wikipedia that are not on this wiki yet? For example, I think we need to add Inner–outer directions, but of course once that is done we would edit that to our own needs (e.g. removing the paragraphs in that article that are about rail lines) . Ran4sh (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2023 (EDT)

Edit - Scratch that request, apparently we already have it. But then we need redirects or edits from articles that use a different link. Ran4sh (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2023 (EDT)
Import requests can be left at AARoads:Cleanup#Error reports. Redirects are simple enough to make that you'd probably find it easier to make them yourself than to explain which ones need to be made; all you have to do is create a page with #REDIRECT [[Page to redirect to]] at the top and it should work (the only time it won't is if you accidentally create a redirect to a redirect, but this is easily avoidable). Welcome to the wiki! —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:18, 14 October 2023 (EDT)

Draft conduct policy

I've got another draft policy ready for review, at User:Scott5114/Conduct policy. Please let me know if you think anything is missing or needs to be changed! —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:18, 20 October 2023 (EDT)

I'd like a little more clarification on the semi- and fully automated edits section.
No user shall engage in either fully-automatic or semi-automatic editing without the approval of the community before beginning such editing.
The way I interpret this is, every time someone fires up JWB, they have to ask for permission. I hope that's not right. –Fredddie 17:24, 20 October 2023 (EDT)
There is an Option statement further down that addresses JWB: Administrators may grant a user the ability to use a piece of semi-automated editing software at their discretion. Administrators may also revoke this ability at their discretion if the user is operating it in an abusive or incompetent manner. Semi-automated editing ability is granted indefinitely, and need not be re-requested for each individual task performed with that piece of software. (the idea here is that an admin putting you on the list is "the approval of the community" for semi-automated edits. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:41, 21 October 2023 (EDT)

I would like to see something about "what to do if you are sanctioned by an admin/bureaucrat/whatever" specifically how to appeal the action and that insulting the admin will just make things worse. Dave (talk) 01:50, 21 October 2023 (EDT)

Well, who would you rather they insult? :P For real, though, what process do we want to have? Just an {{unblock}} template? And then what, if anything? —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:39, 21 October 2023 (EDT)
I don't care if we have a template or a formal process as Wikipedia does. However, I would prefer something like this:
If you were blocked or otherwise sanctioned by an administrator or other staff member, and feel the sanctions are unreasonable you may appeal your block by creating a new section on your talk page titled "Administrator sanction review". Calmly list the reasons why you feel the sanction was unfair. It is best to state the facts of the issue as you understand them and if appropriate propose an alternative remedy to the situation. Avoid attacking the administrator or site in general. Such attacks are almost never helpful to your cause and often make the situation worse. Notify the administrator who issued the sanction and or any other site administrator via ....
What comes after the via could be a template as wiki does or it could be a link to all the admins (maybe even a category page, if we make all admins belong to a category) with instructions how to message an admin from their userpage (i.e. click email this user). If we go with the "email this user" we might then want to say something like
As replying to the email could reveal the admin's email address, they may choose to reply to the email on the talk page, so be sure to indicate any information that is confidential and not to disclosed on your talk page.
thoughts? Dave (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2023 (EDT)
I think that it's probably a good idea to have that sort of thing written down, but it should probably be a separate page like AARoads:What to do if you get blocked, rather than being part of the policy. (Now that I think about it, part of what makes the enwp policy pages so daunting is that each individual policy goes on and on and on with lots of rules and procedures and edge cases that aren't part of the actual rules they're trying to communicate at all.) Part of my goal with the policies I've written so far is to keep them concise enough that a user can hold them all in their head; having to skim past a procedure most users will never need to follow seems like it would run counter to that goal. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:20, 21 October 2023 (EDT)
That's reasonable. But I definitely think this procedure should be written down _somewhere_ before we need to have one. This is definitely one procedure we don't want to wait until we need it to have it.Dave (talk) 22:12, 22 October 2023 (EDT)
As currently written 3RR has no exceptions for vandalism. --Rschen7754 19:42, 21 October 2023 (EDT)
Whoops, knew I was forgetting something. Fixed! —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:57, 21 October 2023 (EDT)

I like the draft conduct policy think it will work out well on our wiki. Dough4872 23:43, 21 October 2023 (EDT)

Since it's been two weeks with no real objections, I've gone ahead and moved this to AARoads:Conduct policy. So it is now in force. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:58, 5 November 2023 (EST)

Customize the wiki?

Is it a good idea to customize the wiki? If so, I have some suggestions.


Thanks! --Dwightland (talk) 12:52, 1 October 2023 (EDT)

You are free to edit your Special:Mypage/common.css as you see fit without it affecting other users. –Fredddie 14:12, 1 October 2023 (EDT)
Some changes to the theme are on our to-do list. However, we're still in the process of cleaning up the initial article import, so that's been higher priority. As Fredddie recommends, perhaps the best way to make a suggestion is to make the changes you want to see on your common.css, then show off what you've changed, and whatever the community likes we can move over to the site-wide CSS. Welcome to the AARoads Wiki! —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:41, 1 October 2023 (EDT)


Perhaps also have a differing favicon so I can differentiate the tabs from AARoads Forums. Andrepoiy (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2023 (EDT)

Maybe make the outside square blue and the shield green or red? —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:19, 6 October 2023 (EDT)
I'd like to use a "guide sign" version of the logo: outline the shield in red and place it on a green background, leaving the shield in blue and the lettering in white. Imzadi 1979  15:07, 10 October 2023 (EDT)
Perhaps we can make something where the favicon spells AARW instead of just AAR. Same with the main logo, put Wiki underneath Roads. –Fredddie 15:49, 10 October 2023 (EDT)
The problem with the "guide sign" version is that it wouldn't really be all that distinct for those with red/green color blindness (thus why I suggested blue background/red shield, since that would at least appear to be inverse color). I'm also not sure if, at favicon size, extra text would be all that legible. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:00, 10 October 2023 (EDT)

Pre-car highways

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!

The result of the discussion was that we should not cover them now, but this can be revisited in the future. –Fredddie 01:25, 8 November 2023 (EST)

i.e. ancient Roman roads, Japanese roads

  • I'd say these are outside our implied scope, which always seemed to correspond closely to the age of the automobile. The notable ones are likely to remain covered in Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979  14:02, 19 June 2023 (EDT)
  • I think it’s okay to cover pre-car roads in articles about modern car highways, but not in dedicated articles. Dough4872 16:05, 19 June 2023 (EDT)
  • No. --Rschen7754 19:15, 19 June 2023 (EDT)
  • I am open to inclusion of 18th and 19th century turnpikes or any other highway clearly engineered for use of wagons and other pre-automobile heavy vehicles. VC 20:41, 19 June 2023 (EDT)
  • I'm inclined to say no now, but I'm willing to revisit once we get an editor base. –Fredddie 21:56, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Yes, but not our first priority. First priority are articles under threat at Wikipedia due to map sources or whatever. Pre-car highways are so far safe over there.Moabdave (talk) 14:02, 21 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Usually not; many of them are only tangentially related to the modern-day roads that replaced them. We could cover them in a short "background" subsection of the History section if they were particularly relevant. Scott5114 (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2023 (EDT)
  • What VC said, essentially; I'm for including things like turnpikes that are direct precursors of modern highways, especially ones that evolved into modern highways. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 22:15, 3 September 2023 (EDT)

Historical highways

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


Historical highways will be included. --Rschen7754 02:41, 29 October 2023 (EDT)

same as above, except there is still something driveable today

  • If you mean decommissioned highways, they should be in our scope. Since we're covering state highways (and major county roads), former state highways should be included. Auto trails should too round out the early years of the age of the automobile that I have in mind for a historical boundary. That isn't to say that individual road articles can't and won't cover pre-car days, just that I think we get a rough boundary on how far back we want to go. Imzadi 1979  14:02, 19 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Decommissioned highways and auto trails should be covered. Dough4872 16:05, 19 June 2023 (EDT)
    • I think I mean more like wikipedia:Mammoth Road where there is still something drivable today, but the bulk of it is historical. --Rschen7754 19:04, 19 June 2023 (EDT)
      • Agree we should cover those types of roads, which would include pre-freeway turnpikes that are today modern roads. Dough4872 19:19, 19 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Yes, but higher scrutiny of whether the content should be part of another article, part of a list article, or a standalone article. VC 20:45, 19 June 2023 (EDT)
  • I'm OK with these. –Fredddie 21:56, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Decommissioned highways and auto trails should be covered. Scott5114 (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Possibly obvious from my vote in the above section, but yes. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 16:45, 6 October 2023 (EDT)

DOTs

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


DOTs will be included, near-unanimous acceptance. --Rschen7754 22:33, 24 October 2023 (EDT)

  • At some point, yes. We're going to end up linking to these agencies in the articles. Unlike cities and such, it would make sense to have our own articles at some point. I could even see splitting out article son some predecessors in a state, like maybe covering the Michigan State Highway Department separate from MDOT. Imzadi 1979  14:02, 19 June 2023 (EDT)
  • I know that DOTs are important to roads, but many of them also cover other aspects of transportation such as trains, planes, public transportation, and driver licensing. I’m not totally sure if they are fully in our scope to have articles. Dough4872 16:05, 19 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Yes, we should include the top-level transportation agency in every state, even if much of the agency's focus is non-road forms of transportation. VC 20:47, 19 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Yes, but the articles should be tailored to focus on their road activities with some mention of other aspects. SounderBruce 02:02, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Yes, but I am hesitant to do a straight import per Bruce. --Rschen7754 14:40, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Yes. –Fredddie 21:56, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
  • No, without prejudice - these articles are not under threat at wikipedia, and are not likely to be. If that changes then yes. Moabdave (talk) 14:03, 21 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Maybe, if a case can be made that the scope of our coverage would be substantially different enough from enwp's that it's necessary. Otherwise, all we're doing is setting up a page someone on Wikipedia can import from when they find it. Scott5114 (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Include both for the sake of completeness and out of spite to reduce page views on enwiki. TCN7JM 14:54, 31 August 2023 (EDT)
  • Yes - I'd be okay with narrowing the scope of the articles to just roads, but agencies that maintain road systems should be included. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 16:44, 6 October 2023 (EDT)

Highway-only government bodies such as FHWA

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


These will be in scope. --Rschen7754 14:18, 6 October 2023 (EDT)

  • At some point, also yes. I assume we'll be pulling over the index of AASHTO reports, so we should probably have an article on AASHTO. Including them and FHWA fits with the tolling agencies and DOTs. Someone should probably do separate articles on FHWA's predecessors. Imzadi 1979  14:02, 19 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Government agencies devoted to highways are within our scope. Dough4872 16:05, 19 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Definite yes. SounderBruce 02:02, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Yes. --Rschen7754 14:40, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Yes. –Fredddie 21:56, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
  • My response to the previous section applies here too. Scott5114 (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2023 (EDT)

Tolling agencies/electronic transponders

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


Tolling agencies/electronic transponders will be included in scope. --Rschen7754 22:33, 24 October 2023 (EDT)

  • As adjuncts to the DOTs, yes. Imzadi 1979  14:02, 19 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Toll road agencies and ETC systems are within our scope. Dough4872 16:05, 19 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Yes to both. VC 20:47, 19 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Yes, but only if said agency/transponder is used across multiple facilities. I would also support including historic agencies (such as the Washington State Toll Bridge Authority). SounderBruce 02:02, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Yes. –Fredddie 21:56, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Meh, no opposition but not our top priority. These articles are not under threat at Wikipedia. And given they are routinely mentioned in mainstream media, I doubt they will be. Moabdave (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2023 (EDT)

Companies that run service areas

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


Companies that run service areas will not be in scope. --Rschen7754 14:10, 6 October 2023 (EDT)

  • No. Imzadi 1979  14:02, 19 June 2023 (EDT)
  • I would say these fall outside our scope. Dough4872 16:05, 19 June 2023 (EDT)
  • No. --Rschen7754 19:21, 19 June 2023 (EDT)
  • No. VC 20:49, 19 June 2023 (EDT)
  • No. I don't think we should be mentioning the specific restaurant brands at a service area, either. –Fredddie 21:56, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
  • No. Moabdave (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2023 (EDT)
  • See my response to the DOT section. Scott5114 (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2023 (EDT)

Bike routes

(or other non-car highways - M-185 excluded)

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


Bike routes will not be included in the scope. --Rschen7754 14:07, 6 October 2023 (EDT)

  • Not really. Even though AASHTO handles the USBRs, I think that's a bit out of our scope. Imzadi 1979  14:02, 19 June 2023 (EDT)
  • While bike routes may be numbered, they do not deal with car transportation and probably are outside our scope. Dough4872 16:05, 19 June 2023 (EDT)
  • No. --Rschen7754 19:15, 19 June 2023 (EDT)
  • No, but parallel or overlapping USBRs (and their state equivalents) really ought to be mentioned somewhere in the route descriptions. This is something that was sorely lacking before. SounderBruce 02:02, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
  • No. –Fredddie 21:56, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
  • No without prejudice. Currently IMHO these are littel more than a novelty. Even the bike clubs lobbying for their creation don't seem to use them. If it becomes a serious thing, yes.Moabdave (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2023 (EDT)
  • No coverage independent of mentions in regular road articles. VC 19:14, 21 June 2023 (EDT)
  • 🎵 Does anybody really know what bike route this is? Does anybody really care? 🎵 Scott5114 (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2023 (EDT)

Road signs in X

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


Road signs will be included. --Rschen7754 02:42, 29 October 2023 (EDT)

  • I assume there will be some element of the AARoads community that will want to cover this topic area in depth. Once we're up and running, those editors should do things on a general level.

    Honestly, someone should put together a good history of the MUTCD, and the previous editions should all be transcribed to Wikisource, fork or not. (Note for later, get s: interwiki prefix working for Wikisource along with the w: prefix for Wikipedia.) Imzadi 1979  14:02, 19 June 2023 (EDT)

  • I think road signs fall within our scope and should be covered. Dough4872 16:05, 19 June 2023 (EDT)
  • I'm OK with these. –Fredddie 21:56, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Reluctant yes. On wikipedia these articles tend to be crapmagnets. But I also get that now that we're doing this on a roadgeek fansite it will be inevitable that we have them, but hopefully we can have guidelines to keep the crap off of them more so than the wikipedia cousin articles. Moabdave (talk) 14:12, 21 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Strong yes. If we could nail down, say, the exact dates that state highway shields changed from one style to the other, that would be a big contribution to the roadgeek community and would be a real coup for us. Scott5114 (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2023 (EDT)

Speed limits in X

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!

The result of the discussion was that we should cover speed limits, but only generally. Let's not import these articles and start fresh. –Fredddie 01:22, 8 November 2023 (EST)

  • Anything written here should be overview articles. I fear some overly detailed articles listing every speed limit along every highway. Imzadi 1979  14:02, 19 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Speed limits should be covered, but don’t need to be overly detailed and should be kept to a general overview. Dough4872 16:05, 19 June 2023 (EDT)
  • I'm OK with these. –Fredddie 21:56, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Reluctant yes. Same as my vote for road signs. It's a crapmagnet, but it's OUR crapmagnet. ;) Moabdave (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Yes, but nothing deeper than one article per country. VC 19:16, 21 June 2023 (EDT)
  • This should be covered as part of a system-level article and only mention the state statutory speed limits. We don't need an list of every 80 mph zone in the country. Scott5114 (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Per Scott, I'm not a fan of these. --Rschen7754 14:19, 6 October 2023 (EDT)
  • Yes, but overview articles only. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 11:53, 6 November 2023 (EST)

City streets

  • Not really. There will be some crossover/overlap, but I'd like to stick to roadways with state/provincial highway designations or major county road designations. Imzadi 1979  14:02, 19 June 2023 (EDT)
  • City streets have a different character and fall outside our scope which focuses mostly on numbered highways. Dough4872 16:05, 19 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Outside our scope, but I could see making exceptions for something like wikipedia:Santa Monica Boulevard. --Rschen7754 19:14, 19 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Most city streets are outside of our scope, but I support including principal arterials in this wiki, at minimum as part of a list article. Which level of government maintains the road and whether the road is numbered should not override the importance of a street for serving to move traffic. VC 20:57, 19 June 2023 (EDT)
  • I'll go against the grain here and support having articles on major streets in most cities and even some small towns or rural regions, provided they are identified as important by a higher body/level of government. SounderBruce 02:02, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
  • I'm OK with them to a degree. I think we could have a really good article on Broadway in NYC. But I would enforce a limit of how many streets we should have. 1 article per 50,000 residents is a number that has come up before. –Fredddie 21:56, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Same reasoning as bridges and tunnels. If the wikipedia article is usable for us, use it. If it's not, then we can create our own.Moabdave (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2023 (EDT)
  • No. A comprehensive article on, say, Broadway in New York City is going to cover a lot of ground that, frankly, none of us are interested in or good at writing or researching. Better to leave that to the urbanists. Scott5114 (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Massively in favor; the only difference between roads and streets is whether a government's slapped a route number on it. The argument of streets not being important enough is inconsistent- if that were true, we'd have to wipe New Jersey Route 59 from this wiki. Streets in a city are equally as important as roads out in the country. BMACS1002 18:00, 13 August 2023 (EDT)
  • I want to say yes but then we're gonna have to have a real discussion on what constitutes a notable city street. TCN7JM 06:46, 31 August 2023 (EDT)
  • Big yes. Why? At least in Toronto, some very important roads simply have no number because Toronto doesn't use numbered routes. I would argue that Yonge Street in Toronto would be more important than the majority of numbered county roads in the rest of the province. Similarly, Winnipeg has a ton of numbered city routes, but I'd argue that a lot of those are rather insignificant. Andrepoiy (talk) 12:56, 3 October 2023 (EDT)
  • I'm okay with having some streets, especially major arterials that are highways in all but a number designation. I think streets that are more significant for cultural reasons are better suited to Wikipedia, though, and minor streets probably aren't suitable to either place. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 00:21, 25 October 2023 (EDT)

Highway-adjacent areas

Do we have articles for these? Do we import them from English Wikipedia?

Road terminology

Articles in [2] (except for the List of highways numbered X pages)

  • Yes. --Rschen7754 23:29, 21 June 2023 (EDT)
  • These should be covered on here. Dough4872 21:36, 22 June 2023 (EDT)

Automobile associations

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!

The result of the discussion was that automobile associations will not be covered, except for w:Automobile Club of Southern California and w:California State Automobile Association. –Fredddie 01:20, 8 November 2023 (EST)

  • I could see some coverage from the era of auto trails, like how AAA signed highways. In that case, it's like covering AASHO/AASHTO. Imzadi 1979  14:02, 19 June 2023 (EDT)
  • I think these can probably be covered on here. Dough4872 16:05, 19 June 2023 (EDT)
  • No, however wikipedia:Automobile Club of Southern California might be an exception since they signed highways. --Rschen7754 19:16, 19 June 2023 (EDT)
    • wikipedia:California State Automobile Association too. Scott5114 (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2023 (EDT)
    • To add to this, if we covered all the automobile associations, we would probably have to include the AAA competitors. If we ever add the UK, there are multiple. It's a bit of a can of worms. ACSC/CSAA are different since they actually went and signed roads. --Rschen7754 01:43, 25 June 2023 (EDT)
  • I think there's going to be some overlap with auto trails. Around here, the associations were only worried about one road, but YMMV. –Fredddie 21:56, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Yes, but only as needed for the ones not welcome on Wikipedia. Moabdave (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2023 (EDT)
  • ACSC and CSAA would be fine; everyone else can pound sand. Scott5114 (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2023 (EDT)

Driving, drivers licenses

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


These will not be in scope. --Rschen7754 14:20, 6 October 2023 (EDT)

  • No. This is starting to get off topic, just like if we decided to cover vehicle models. Imzadi 1979  14:02, 19 June 2023 (EDT)
  • This falls outside our scope, which is focused on highways rather than all aspects of car transportation. Dough4872 16:05, 19 June 2023 (EDT)
  • No. --Rschen7754 20:41, 19 June 2023 (EDT)
  • No. –Fredddie 21:57, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
  • No - just use the wikipedia articles, they are likely to be under threat. Moabdave (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2023 (EDT)
  • No in general, although there might be some limited latitude for a summary of state driving laws for each state (e.g. whether or not it is illegal to use a cell phone while driving or pull into the intersection on a flashing yellow arrow). This sort of thing would be perfect for the annex if we have one. Scott5114 (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2023 (EDT)

Road safety in X

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


Road safety in X articles will not be included. --Rschen7754 22:34, 24 October 2023 (EDT)

  • No. --Rschen7754 20:40, 19 June 2023 (EDT)
  • I think road safety is outside our scope. Dough4872 20:45, 19 June 2023 (EDT)
  • I don't understand the question and I won't respond to it. –Fredddie 21:56, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
  • No - Just link to Wikipedia's article on the subject. Moabdave (talk) 14:38, 21 June 2023 (EDT)
  • No, although I would be okay if we included articles on specific safety features or items (see below). Scott5114 (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2023 (EDT)

License plates

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!

The result of the discussion was that license plate content shall be permitted to exist on this wiki but shall not be prioritized and shall be relegated to the Annex. TC (Eli) 01:15, 15 November 2023 (EST)

Articles like w:Vehicle registration plates of Oklahoma seem like they might be affected by the notability purges, and roadgeeks often have an interest in license plates as well.

  • Weak yes, simply because these are potentially useful reference materials that would be of interest to our readership and are at risk of being trashed. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 13:32, 26 August 2023 (EDT)
  • I think we can cover these since there is a lot of useful information these articles hold and it would be good to have them here if Wikipedia decides to go after them. Dough4872 16:48, 26 August 2023 (EDT)
  • This feels like Annex: material. Imzadi 1979  05:46, 12 September 2023 (EDT)
  • On the one hand, license plates are a pretty different topic from roads, and I don't think the stuff Wikipedia already has is at risk for deletion (trust me, people write entire books on license plate history). On the other hand, I kind of want there to be a license plate wiki that isn't bound by Wikipedia's content rules. I say put them in the Annex and see what happens. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 00:31, 14 September 2023 (EDT)
  • No, not that I think those articles should be deleted from the Internet, but because we have to draw the line somewhere. --Rschen7754 22:36, 24 October 2023 (EDT)

State highways less than 1 mile (?) long

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


Consensus is to not merge away articles solely based on an arbitrary length criterion. --Rschen7754 23:36, 10 November 2023 (EST)

  • I would say it's a case by case basis. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:35, 19 June 2023 (EDT)
    • Yeah. SH 110 in Colorado is a good example of this. It used to be a much longer and well-signed state highway that extended northeast out of Silverton and had a real purpose. It's also quite an old one, having been established back in the 1920s. These days, almost the entire route has been decommissioned, save for a block or two of Greene Street starting at US 550, which is now unsigned. The small length is only retained to connect US 550 to a CDOT maintenance yard in town.— MatthewAnderson707 (talk) 19:13, 19 August 2023 (EDT)
  • Depends on the situation. In a state like Maryland where there is a large number of short highways that would otherwise be permastubs, a RCS list is a good idea. If a state only has a couple short highways, then we can always do separate articles. Dough4872 23:20, 19 June 2023 (EDT)
  • I've never been in favor of these lists, and in a fork, even less so. It's one thing to have something like a list of lettered spurs from a common mainline highway merged, or a list of Louisiana's hyphenated numbered highways in a common series merged together, but I'm not keen on merging unrelated highways together just because they're all short. It's just seemed too arbitrary. In a fork, I guess I'd rather treat all highways with equal dignity, for lack of a better term, regardless of physical length. Imzadi 1979  00:51, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
    • Indeed, if we discriminate with highways, it should be for an objective reason like they are secondary. --Rschen7754 01:18, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
      • That said, I'm generally more in favor of splitting out stand-alone articles than merging them together on our own wiki. Louisiana's hyphenated highways are a case where merging makes sense since there won't be a lot about them individually, and the grouping merged together is a more cohesive story. Individual special routes though? I'd split wikipedia:Business routes of Interstate 75 in Michigan since they're all separate state highways. In fact, BL I-75 in Grayling is on the NHS/STRAHNET. They're really only merged together to deal with the deletion/notablity pressures on enwp, but if we use a metric of state-maintained or -designated (and equivalents in other locations), then these would have their own articles. Imzadi 1979  14:39, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
  • We should use better criteria to create RCS lists than route length. I favor listifying 3-mile boat ramp highways along the same criteria as 0.9-mile highways that do or do not serve boat ramps. If we cannot say more than five information-dense sentences about a highway, regardless of length, put it in a list. VC 19:30, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
  • I'm with Imzadi here. –Fredddie 21:56, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Agreed with Imzadi. It's a last resort for states where there's tons of short, barely notable highways with no other means to group them into a listicle. I.E. only if it's either this format or 50 permastubs.Moabdave (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2023 (EDT)
  • This is too arbitrary of a criterion for me to support. Scott5114 (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Keep the category. No need for a list. TCN7JM 06:48, 31 August 2023 (EDT)
  • Agreed with Imzadi. Merging shorter and less significant highways always felt like a compromise with Wikipedia's notability rules, and we don't need to do that here. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 12:58, 12 September 2023 (EDT)
  • Go ahead and split back out. --Rschen7754 00:21, 1 October 2023 (EDT)

Listicles

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


Closing both of these since the outcome is the same. In general these should be put in RCS lists but can be standalone articles if there is enough content for them. Alternative locations such as in the state detail articles or RCS articles split by state or in the main article are all permissible. --Rschen7754 14:51, 11 November 2023 (EST)

IH/USH BLs
  • I think these are best handled in an RCS list that is either standalone or in the parent article depending on number of routes, with separate articles for routes with more information. Dough4872 08:46, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
  • I think that if someone can write a decent article that these should be standalone. Remember, much of the mergers on enwp were to stave off deletion/notability issues under those notability standards. If we have a "state-maintained or -designated" basis for notability, then these topics wouldn't be subject to the same deletion pressures. I'd be all for in time splitting off each of Michigan's business loops/spurs and such into separate articles, as they once were. If others wanted to do the same in other states, more power to them, if they can write something decent. Imzadi 1979  14:30, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Create an RCS list, or stick in the parent article if there are low number, such as BL I-83 and BL I-81 (the only instances for their respective routes). Routes with a lot of information or that are clearly notable, such as BL I-70 in Denver, can be split off into standalone articles. VC 19:32, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Listicle, or list in a section of the parent highway's article, in most cases. In cases where the BL has an alternate designation (such as a state route) have one article for both. Dedicated articles for select cases, such as I-80BL Sacramento. Moabdave (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Seconding what Viridiscalculus said. Scott5114 (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Maybe we should be considering a different solution because of our technical limits. Business routes of Interstate 40 is hitting the limits as to what will load in a page (besides adding extra DB size) and maybe combining everything is not the best solution. Maybe we need to split that particular one up by state. --Rschen7754 14:15, 8 July 2023 (EDT)
    • If we're splitting it up by state anyway, why not just move the coverage of those to the state-detail articles of the parent highway? —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:43, 16 September 2023 (EDT)
      • I like that idea, the only issue is what to do about BLs that cross state lines. Dough4872 17:00, 16 September 2023 (EDT)
  • Listicle unless there's enough to say about a route that it can support a standalone article, and split the massive lists by state. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 00:31, 25 October 2023 (EDT)
IH/USH bannered routes
  • I think these are best handled in an RCS list that is either standalone or in the parent article depending on number of routes, with separate articles for routes with more information. Dough4872 08:46, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
  • See the section above, although I'll just note that I don't really consider some of the Alt./Emergency I-X routes to be actual highway designations in Wisconsin and Michigan. They exist for emergency detour purposes and aren't listed on the official state highway maps. Imzadi 1979  14:30, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
  • RCS unless the route has enough information or is notable enough for its own article, like US 1-9 Truck. There should be extra scrutiny for truck routes and emergency detours. VC 19:35, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Seconding what Viridiscalculus said again. Scott5114 (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Essentially what I said for the business routes (listicle unless notable), though alternate U.S. routes should have standalone articles, and I'm not even sure permanent detour routes need to be in the listicles. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 00:34, 25 October 2023 (EDT)

Connecticut special service roads

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!

The result of the discussion was to keep as a table. –Fredddie 01:22, 11 November 2023 (EST)

  • Table, most unsigned. --Rschen7754 21:45, 28 June 2023 (EDT)

Connecticut 500+ routes

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!

The result of the discussion was to keep as a table. –Fredddie 01:22, 11 November 2023 (EST)

  • Table, most unsigned. --Rschen7754 02:04, 20 June 2023 (EDT)

Montana secondary

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!

The result of the discussion was to keep as a table. –Fredddie 01:18, 11 November 2023 (EST)

  • Keep as a table. VC 21:12, 28 June 2023 (EDT)

Nebraska secondary

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!

The result of the discussion was to keep as a table. –Fredddie 01:19, 11 November 2023 (EST)

  • Keep the Spur, Link, and Recreation routes as tables. VC 21:13, 28 June 2023 (EDT)

New York reference routes

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!

Unsigned reference routes will be in a list; those that are/were signed will have articles. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:48, 24 October 2023 (EDT)

  • List only, of course most refer to parkways and should redirect there. Rschen7754 23:46, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
    • Okay with keeping signed routes. --Rschen7754 17:38, 25 June 2023 (EDT)
  • There are 4 reference routes that are signed as such and should keep their articles; otherwise a list should suffice in cases when they can't be lumped into another route's article.BMACS1002 (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2023 (EDT)

North Carolina secondary routes

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!

The result of the discussion was that these routes shall not be individually covered unless otherwise notable and that the network's coverage shall be placed in North Carolina Highway System. TC (Eli) 01:06, 15 November 2023 (EST)

  • Nothing, unsigned/paper routes. --Rschen7754 02:13, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Nothing, with the exception of the few secondary highways that are freeways or principal arterials. VC 21:56, 21 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Nothing but a paragraph on the SHS article. –Fredddie 10:02, 7 November 2023 (EST)

North Dakota county routes

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!

lol even LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:49, 24 October 2023 (EDT)

  • No coverage. VC 22:24, 23 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Lmao TCN7JM 06:18, 31 August 2023 (EDT)

Ontario

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!

The result of the discussion was as noted. –Fredddie 01:27, 11 November 2023 (EST)

Ontario secondary routes 5xx, 6xx
  • Case by case basis. Many of these go from Nowhere to Beyond-Nowhere. Some are notable enough for separate articles (ex. ON 599), remainder can be covered in RCS style articles until enough information becomes available to warrant a split. - Floydian (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2023 (EDT)
Ontario tertiary routes 8xx
  • Same as secondary. There's only a handful (<14), so they could probably all get covered in a single article. - Floydian (talk) 14:38, 30 September 2023 (EDT)
Ontario 7000 series
  • Table, unsigned. --Rschen7754 01:54, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
  • single article with a table. Similar to state highways to institutions. No 7000-series is notable enough for a standalone article. - Floydian (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2023 (EDT)

Quebec secondary 200-399

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!

The result of the discussion was that we will cover these. –Fredddie 01:45, 10 November 2023 (EST)

  • I may be biased, but we should include those. They're not like other secondary systems, as they're treated pretty much like any other provincial highway. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 01:52, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
    I have did not realize they were supposed to be a secondary system. If they're not, we should treat them the same as 1-199. –Fredddie 21:56, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
    Well, they technically are, but from what I've seen, most of them are maintained just as well as 100-199 (which can be either good or bad, considering this is Québec). LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 04:23, 22 June 2023 (EDT)
  • If they are functionally similar to the 100s, then they should be treated the same as the 100s. VC 22:09, 21 June 2023 (EDT)

South Carolina secondary

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!

The result of the discussion was no coverage. –Fredddie 01:14, 11 November 2023 (EST)

  • Inclined to say no coverage, mostly hidden numbers. --Rschen7754 23:47, 20 June 2023 (EDT)

South Dakota county routes

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!

No. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:50, 24 October 2023 (EDT)

  • Do we have any articles as it is? Why would we? –Fredddie 01:51, 5 July 2023 (EDT)
  • Lmao TCN7JM 06:17, 31 August 2023 (EDT)

Michigan

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!

The result of the discussion was that there is consensus to move. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:41, 24 October 2023 (EDT)

Michigan highways no longer need the highway disambiguator: M-1 (Michigan highway)M-1 (Michigan). This will also future-proof if we expand elsewhere where motorways are named M-nn.

Additionally, Michigan CDHs would transform from A-2 (Michigan county highway)A-2 (Michigan). –Fredddie 12:46, 30 June 2023 (EDT)

Support - Only need the state name in the disambiguator since we are a road wiki now. Dough4872 20:04, 30 June 2023 (EDT)
Support. --Rschen7754 01:48, 1 July 2023 (EDT)
Support VC 12:17, 1 July 2023 (EDT)
Support—and for those that need disambiguation by years, I'd suggest "M-56 (Michigan, 1919–1957)". In fact, that could be the overall standard when we need to include years: append it after the state name. In the case of concurrent duplicates, the state name gets preceded by a city/county or something else, so "M-28 Business (Ishpeming–Negaunee, Michigan)" and "M-28 Business (Newberry, Michigan)". Oh wait, that's how it already works, but it would apply to other states too. Imzadi 1979  23:48, 4 July 2023 (EDT)

Kansas

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!

The result of the discussion was that Kansas highways shall be titled K-# (Kansas). The disambiguator shall be required both for consistency with Michigan (and possibly Nebraska?) and because there are K- roads in other countries whose roads we may cover on this wiki in the future. Redirects without the disambiguator shall be welcome until that becomes a reality. TC (Eli) 01:16, 10 November 2023 (EST)

Kansas highways no longer need any disambiguator. K-4 (Kansas highway)K-4. –Fredddie 12:46, 30 June 2023 (EDT)

  • I am not sure about removing all the disambiguators. For example, Albania uses K for their municipal roads. Finland uses it for their secondary main class roads. --Rschen7754 14:05, 30 June 2023 (EDT)
  • I would leave them at least at K-4 (Kansas) for consistency with Michigan. Imzadi 1979  16:43, 30 June 2023 (EDT)
Agreed. It's obvious to us, it may not be to others. Dave (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2023 (EDT)
I am fine with consistency! –Fredddie 18:10, 30 June 2023 (EDT)
I also agree we should leave the state-name disambiguator per the above. Dough4872 20:04, 30 June 2023 (EDT)
Use K-X (Kansas). VC 12:19, 1 July 2023 (EDT)
Redirects from K-4K-4 (Kansas) would be welcome, though. (At least until we start carrying Albania, Finland, et al.) —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:16, 16 July 2023 (EDT)
I would support this. --Rschen7754 22:56, 24 October 2023 (EDT)

State highways where state is part of name

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!

The result of the discussion was topic closed as incoherent.

I don't think disambiguating would necessarily work for Iowa. We're a "highway" state, so Highway 100 (Iowa) would be correct-ish, but it wouldn't feel right. I'd be more inclined to just be Iowa 100 and leave the word highway out entirely. –Fredddie 19:22, 1 July 2023 (EDT)

can you explain what you mean by "it" in "it is not obvious"? You have Iowa as an example, but I'm not sure what other states would apply without clarification on "it".Dave (talk) 00:44, 2 July 2023 (EDT)
Sorry about that. I originally had my first comment in the section above this one. I mean states where the state name is an integral part of the highway name. Hopefully the new header clears that up. –Fredddie 01:45, 2 July 2023 (EDT)
Can you go into more detail about the state name being an integral part of the highway name, both in general and specifically for Iowa? I am thinking of those states where the routes are referred to in print as ST X (where ST is the postal abbreviation). I used passive voice because I am not sure how we are going to factor common usage versus how someone at the DOT would speak the route designation. VC 12:46, 2 July 2023 (EDT)
I guess it's one of those things that makes perfect sense in my head, but falls apart when I try to explain it. My mind keeps going to places like Iowa or Illinois that use 'Highway' or 'Route' for all highways or routes regardless of classification. Iowans call US 30 "Highway 30" and Illinoisans "Route 30" but it's the same road. –Fredddie 16:27, 2 July 2023 (EDT)

Interstate Highways

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!

The result of the discussion was no change from current practices. –Fredddie 23:29, 15 November 2023 (EST)

I wouldn't have a separate debate. Whichever option wins the debate for US highways I'd just use that same formatting, with the obvious substitution of "Interstate" for "U.S. Route" Dave (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2023 (EDT)

The way I reading this is that you would add the word Route to Interstate titles: Interstate 5Interstate Route 5? –Fredddie 18:37, 30 June 2023 (EDT)
Dope! Thanks for catching that. Fixed. Dave (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2023 (EDT)


Project scope

We probably need a policy page on what is and is not desirable on this wiki. This should include both geographic extent (only U.S. and Canada to begin with?) and what constitutes too minor to be worth having an article over (primary state highways and up, like the status quo from Wikipedia?). Scott5114 (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2023 (EDT)

International

One day I would like to incorporate all the (notable) roads, worldwide. Wegenwiki does a decent job at this, so it is possible.
On the flip side of the coin, that day does not need to be today and we should focus right now on the countries where we have an active editor base. While invites are still going out, that is currently the US and Canada. If editors show up wanting to edit other countries and display enough commitment/competence I don't think we should stop them from editing those countries. Should there be mass deletions on enwiki, we might have to revisit this to make sure the information is not lost, however.
As far as all of the border cases and less notable highways, perhaps it's best to come up with a list of categories and go from there. --Rschen7754 23:28, 18 June 2023 (EDT)
I think probably the best thing we could do for the other countries' articles is put a process in place to request an expansion of the scope to cover that country. Perhaps a prerequisite would be having the editor(s) requesting an expansion write something like five draft articles to judge availability of sources and commitment to the project, and then we would import any articles we had at that time. Scott5114 (talk) 04:17, 19 June 2023 (EDT)
Indeed, though we should allow for work already live on English Wikipedia to qualify.
At some point I would want to revisit this and start allowing for at least lists or basic system articles to be created in every country. Ideally not before 2024, though if there is a mass deletion of content on enwiki, maybe sooner. --Rschen7754 11:50, 19 June 2023 (EDT)
For the moment, let's get the US and Canada running. That fits closest to AARoad's mission statement. From there, we can assess bringing in other countries as we build infrastructure, both technological and personal. Imzadi 1979  13:40, 19 June 2023 (EDT)
Agree with Imzadi here on "let's not worry about this right now", but I wanted to clarify for Rschen that the reason why I suggested requiring five new articles is to evaluate whether the proposer is likely to stick around and actually maintain the project, or if they're just going to bounce once they get their favorite country's articles up. (So crediting enwp work toward that wouldn't really satisfy answer the question the process would be asking.) Scott5114 (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2023 (EDT)
I think we could look at their track record and see how active they are. Once someone has put in a lot of investment, they're probably going to want to keep those articles going. --Rschen7754 16:42, 24 June 2023 (EDT)
  • I agree it would be nice to cover as much of the world as possible, but let’s focus on the US and Canada first. Dough4872 16:05, 19 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Eventually, yes. –Fredddie 21:56, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Editor base might be an issue here, but I think it would make sense to add Mexico first once the US and Canada are stable, since it's the other major country in North America and it has highway connections to the US. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 22:27, 3 September 2023 (EDT)

Lesser-notable highways

Do we want to discuss this by system? CA county highways (currently RCS) are a lot different than say, Virginia secondary highways. --Rschen7754 19:25, 19 June 2023 (EDT)

Yeah that might help, since there is so much variance by state/province. Dough4872 19:33, 19 June 2023 (EDT)

There are four options for all of these: separate article, RCS list, table, nothing. If any route is more notable than the others it would typically be classified with, it could always get a separate article. There will be more of these added later. --Rschen7754 22:19, 19 June 2023 (EDT)

  • If there is no consensus I would suggest importing the status quo. --Rschen7754 01:59, 20 June 2023 (EDT)

Without going into detail in every section below, when it comes to secondary designations, I would create stand-alone articles on them if the state in question includes them on their official state highway map. Other clues for me are if the designation is used on BGSs along freeways for interchanges with them or intersection signage on surface highways. If these sorts of attributes are met, then we're talking about a true secondary destination and not merely an inventory number. Imzadi 1979  14:30, 20 June 2023 (EDT)

My default vote for all of these (except where noted) is we should have listicles for the class of roads. Articles are fine for the ones among them that have say more than 2 paragraphs of content available. (excluding bs filler stuff like "is not part of the NHS") Moabdave (talk) 14:27, 21 June 2023 (EDT)

State highways that only serve institutions

  • I think an RCS list would be a good idea for covering states that have a large collection of short state highways serving institutions such as Virginia. Dough4872 23:25, 19 June 2023 (EDT)
  • This is the format of the lists in Minnesota and Utah (among other states), so sure. –Fredddie 21:56, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
  • An RCS list or table might be justified for these, but only if we can come up with a uniform definition of what constitutes an "institution". However, would there be much of a difference between an article on one of these and one for a highway of the same length with a town at the end of it? Scott5114 (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2023 (EDT)
  • I'm on the same page as Scott, I think. Speaking from a Minnesota perspective, there are quite a few short "U.S. Route to population center" state highways that get standalone articles basically uncontested while the "state institution" ones get put into an RCS list. Aside from a few edge cases of designations that exist solely to loop around one plot of land, there isn't really a fundamental difference between these routes. I want to say both routes should get standalone articles, as I don't think it's a hot take to say that primary state highways should be allowed standalone articles if the content is there to support them. But I'm not sure that's the case for all of these routes. TCN7JM 06:59, 31 August 2023 (EDT)
  • Going off of what Scott said, we could just fold this into the MURA section for lists. A list is fine if it has a logical grouping that is clearly defined and sourced in the lead if it's not immediately obvious. That being said, since we're not beholden to enwiki's notability shenanigans, the highways serving state institutions should be split out. We can keep the list as a capstone article that talks about the law(s) that said state hospitals or whatever had to be connected to the state highway system. –Fredddie 21:08, 24 October 2023 (EDT)

Alabama county routes

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!

The result of the discussion was system article only unless you can really justify a highway. –Fredddie 23:47, 15 November 2023 (EST)

  • No coverage except possibly for roads notable on their own. VC 19:21, 21 June 2023 (EDT)
    • Actually, I would be fine with a County highways in Alabama system article. VC 19:37, 21 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Maybe a list, but probably no standalone articles unless one is particularly interesting for some reason (like it's an old alignment or has a cool bridge or something like that). Scott5114 (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2023 (EDT)

Arkansas county roads

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!

The result of the discussion was a system article, but no other coverage. –Fredddie 23:48, 15 November 2023 (EST)

  • Inclined to say no, not always signed, highly variable. --Rschen7754 23:41, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Systems article, but no coverage of individual county highways unless they are notable. VC 18:51, 28 June 2023 (EDT)

Arizona county roads

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!

The result of the discussion was only the routes that are historic USH routes. –Fredddie 23:49, 15 November 2023 (EST)

  • Maricopa County Route 85 is abbreviated MC 85. This is notable as MC 85 is a major thoroughfare in the Phoenix metro area and a former section of both US 80 and SR 85. If this doesn't warrant its own article, it should at least later become part of SR 85, when the Arizona articles are imported. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk) 02:30, 26 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Mohave County Route 91 (CR 91) comprises the entirety of old US 91 in Arizona. I'd recommend it be a section of a US 91 in Arizona article, or CR 91 being the main article with US 91 being a sub-section in the history section. Since its essentially the exact same thing. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk) 02:30, 26 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Possibly a list of notable Mohave County Routes. Ones that operate as significant or thoroughfare roads, since Mohave County has tons of them that literally make up only a few residential streets and what not. I'd put CR 1 (former SR 95 around Golden Shores), CR 10 (former US 66 - Topock to I-10 south of Kingman), CR 20 (major county road connecting Kingman to communities north inaccessible by other roads), CR 25 (similar situation to CR 20), CR 91 (former US 91) and CR 125 (former SR 62) as good examples for notable county roads. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk) 02:30, 26 June 2023 (EDT)


California

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


Alphanumeric routes will be listicles, other counties will generally have no coverage. --Rschen7754 22:38, 28 November 2023 (EST)

California county routes (alphanumeric system)
  • RCS, but some might be good enough for separate. --Rschen7754 02:04, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
California county routes (other counties)
  • If they're like Lake County where almost everything is a CR, nothing. --Rschen7754 02:04, 20 June 2023 (EDT)

Colorado county routes

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!

The result of the discussion was a system article, but no other coverage. –FredddieFredddie 23:50, 15 November 2023 (EST)

  • [3] - didn't really strike me as notable. --Rschen7754 23:44, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Systems article, but no coverage of individual highways unless they are notable. VC 18:52, 28 June 2023 (EDT)

Georgia county routes

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!

The result of the discussion was a system article, but no other coverage. –FredddieFredddie 23:50, 15 November 2023 (EST)

  • Systems article, but no coverage of individual routes unless they are notable. VC 18:53, 28 June 2023 (EDT)


Idaho county routes

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!

The result of the discussion was a system article, but no other coverage. –FredddieFredddie 23:51, 15 November 2023 (EST)

  • Systems article, but no coverage of individual routes unless they are notable. VC 21:00, 28 June 2023 (EDT)


Indiana county roads

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!

The result of the discussion was a system article, but no other coverage. –FredddieFredddie 23:51, 15 November 2023 (EST)

  • Systems article, but no coverage of individual county roads unless they are notable. VC 21:01, 28 June 2023 (EDT)

Iowa spurs

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


The Iowa spurs will be in tables. --Rschen7754 12:37, 25 November 2023 (EST)

Iowa used to have a robust system of spurs very similar to Kansas. A lot of the lowest-volume roads were removed in 1980 and the rest (save one or two) were removed in 2003. Most of these roads started at the connecting road and ended at the intersection closest to the town post office. Over the years, I went back and forth on if those should be an RCS list or a routelist table. I decided upon the routelist table because after a while, there's only so much you can say about a 1-to-3-mile road surrounded by cornfields. If someone wants to create all of the standalone articles, I won't get in their way. That begin said, I recommend the status quo. –Fredddie 22:49, 23 June 2023 (EDT)

Iowa county routes

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!

The result of the discussion was system article is in place. No other coverage –FredddieFredddie 23:51, 15 November 2023 (EST)

No individual routes or county lists. The draft I had been writing for years about the county road system, but could never publish it because reasons, I could publish here. –Fredddie 22:01, 21 June 2023 (EDT)

Kansas spurs

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


  • On English Wikipedia, bannered spurs are covered in the same articles as their respective parents (e.g., K-23 Spur in K-23), while town connectors are merged into a single long article with brief descriptions of each route. This approach seems to me reasonable, since each route is still findable on a search by designation (e.g., "K-86" typed into browser search plugin bar, or "en wiki K-86" in the search bar on mobile). (An addition to the to-do list: spurs article does not include the short-lived spurs off then newly constructed I-235 in south Wichita.) Argatlam (talk) 23:48, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
  • We should keep the existing scheme, with standalone articles if any of the spurs are particularly notable. Several of the spurs are Good Articles in Wikipedia; we will need to decide whether those are worth keeping standalone. VC 21:43, 21 June 2023 (EDT)
  • The existing scheme is fine. If someone's bothered to split one out and write enough about it that it made GA on Wikipedia, no harm in keeping it separate. (We should only combine routes when there's truly nothing to say about them.) Scott5114 (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2023 (EDT)


Michigan CDH and county roads

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


County-designated highways will continue to have notability. County roads will continue to be in lists. --Rschen7754 23:23, 23 November 2023 (EST)

  • The county-designated highways function as a pseudo-secondary highway system in the state. Unlike other county roads, they're drawn on the MDOT map in black instead of gray, and they have their designations noted with pentagon markers. They're marked on BGSs/junction signage as well. So exit 326 on I-75 in Cheboygan County has a C-66 on the BGSs, but exit 264 in Crawford County omits CR 612. These two factors satisfy my secondary test for some sort of state-derived notability.

    Based on all of the governmental nuances and importance of the county road commissions, I would at a minimum support the creation of county-level lists of primary county roads in the absence of external deletion/notability pressures, but that's a very long-term project. At least with the primary CRs, I'd use a GNG-style test for stand-alone articles outside of the CDHs, which are technically primary CRs. Imzadi 1979  14:30, 20 June 2023 (EDT)

Mississippi 700-900s

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!

The result of the discussion was No comments, leave as status quo (listicle). Rschen7754 14:14, 24 November 2023 (EST)

Mississippi county routes

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!

The result of the discussion was no comments in 4 months, so no coverage. –FredddieFredddie 23:53, 15 November 2023 (EST)

Missouri county routes

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!

The result of the discussion was a system article, but no other coverage. –FredddieFredddie 23:54, 15 November 2023 (EST)

  • Systems article, but no coverage of individual routes unless they are notable. VC 21:10, 28 June 2023 (EDT)


New Jersey county routes (500-599)

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


Will be included with individual articles. --Rschen7754 01:31, 18 November 2023 (EST)

  • Pretty much a secondary system, with a lot of them being just as important, if not more important, than state routes. I'm for their inclusion. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:05, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
  • The 500-series county routes are essentially a secondary state highway system with many routes spanning as much length as state highways, so these roads can have individual articles. Dough4872 08:46, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Standalone articles. VC 21:53, 21 June 2023 (EDT)
  • These routes exist at the same level as or higher than plenty of other state routes- if we're gonna keep NJ 167, these should be kept too. BMACS1002 (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2023 (EDT)

New Jersey 600-800 CRs

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


These will be handled in tables. --Rschen7754 14:17, 24 November 2023 (EST)

  • These roads are best handled in tables by-county since there isn’t much to say about them. Dough4872 08:46, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
  • In the case where a route is notable enough to have its own article, it's usually better off to call it by its road, rather than route, name; never once have I heard a single New-Jerseyan refer to a 600-series route by its number. BMACS1002 (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2023 (EDT)


Ohio county routes

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


No comments in 4 months, so status quo (no coverage). --Rschen7754 14:17, 24 November 2023 (EST)

Oklahoma secondary state routes

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


Will be covered in the parent route. --Rschen7754 16:57, 25 November 2023 (EST)

  • Currently covered as part of the parent route (OK-74B is covered in OK-74). This remains the best way to handle these. Scott5114 (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2023 (EDT)

Utah county roads

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


No coverage by default. --Rschen7754 20:11, 27 November 2023 (EST)

AFAIK only San Juan County even bothers to sign them, and most of those are dirt roads. Coverage only for ones where enough info exists to support them. Moabdave (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2023 (EDT)

Vermont 9xxx roads

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


Will be convered in tables. --Rschen7754 14:17, 24 November 2023 (EST)

Table. VC 22:20, 21 June 2023 (EDT)

Wisconsin CTH

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


Will be a systems article and no coverage of individual articles. --Rschen7754 14:17, 24 November 2023 (EST)

System article, but no coverage of individual highways unless they're notable. (I don't think we have any articles currently, unless you count former state highways and the like.) TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 13:21, 30 August 2023 (EDT)

Wyoming county routes

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


No comments, no coverage. --Rschen7754 12:48, 2 December 2023 (EST)

County roads

For the US, I don't think we should change how county roads are titled. (County|Parish) (Road|Route|State-Aid Highway|Trunk Highway) \s?\d+\s? \(<name> (County|Parish), <state>\) seems to work for us. This takes into account the Michigan CDH proposal above.

But what about Canadian county roads? I think Ontario is the only province that has any coverage. Should we use the same format as U.S. county roads? Should we add Ontario to the end of the disambiguator? Here's a list showing what that would be like.

Extended content
  • Chatham-Kent Road x
  • City Road x (Kawartha Lakes, Ontario)
  • Hamilton Road X
  • Ottawa Road x
  • Municipal Road x (Greater Sudbury, Ontario)
  • Municipal Road x (Prince Edward County, Ontario)
  • Municipal Road x (Muskoka District Municipality, Ontario)
  • Regional Road x (Durham Region, Ontario)
  • Regional Road x (Halton Region, Ontario)
  • Regional Road x (Niagara Region, Ontario)
  • Regional Road x (Peel Region, Ontario)
  • Regional Road x (Waterloo Region, Ontario)
  • Regional Road x (York Region, Ontario)
  • County Road x (Brant County, Ontario)
  • County Road x (Bruce County, Ontario)
  • County Road x (Dufferin County, Ontario)
  • County Road x (Elgin County, Ontario)
  • County Road x (Essex County, Ontario)
  • County Road x (Frontenac County, Ontario)
  • County Road x (Grey County, Ontario)
  • County Road x (Haldimand County, Ontario)
  • County Road x (Halliburton County, Ontario)
  • County Road x (Hastings County, Ontario)
  • County Road x (Huron County, Ontario)
  • County Road x (Lambton County, Ontario)
  • County Road x (United Counties of Leeds and Grenville, Ontario)
  • County Road x (Lennox and Addington County, Ontario)
  • County Road x (Middlesex County, Ontario)
  • County Road x (Norfolk County, Ontario)
  • County Road x (Northumberland County, Ontario)
  • County Road x (Oxford County, Ontario)
  • County Road x (Perth County, Ontario)
  • County Road x (Peterborough County, Ontario)
  • County Road x (United Counties of Prescott and Russell, Ontario)
  • County Road x (Renfrew County, Ontario)
  • County Road x (Simcoe County, Ontario)
  • County Road x (United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, Ontario)
  • County Road x (Wellington County, Ontario)
  • District Road x (Algoma District, Ontario)
  • District Road x (Cochrane District, Ontario)
  • District Road x (Kenora District, Ontario)
  • District Road x (Manitoulin District, Ontario)
  • District Road x (Nipissing District, Ontario)
  • District Road x (Parry Sound District, Ontario)
  • District Road x (Rainy River District, Ontario)
  • District Road x (Sudbury District, Ontario)
  • District Road x (Thunder Bay District, Ontario)
  • District Road x (Timiskaming District, Ontario)

I added Toronto for completeness, but I don't think the city has municipal numbered roads. –Fredddie 22:52, 5 July 2023 (EDT)

I agree we should keep the same article titles for US county routes and use the same format for county routes in Canada as well. Dough4872 06:39, 6 July 2023 (EDT)
This works well with my idea that we generally title articles as "<type> <number> (<place>)" where place could be more or less specific as appropriate based on the type involved. Imzadi 1979  13:02, 10 July 2023 (EDT)
To that point, I was thinking about how disambiguators are rare for placenames outside the U.S. Since this isn't Wikipedia, we could require disambiguators for sub-provincial divisions. –Fredddie 15:12, 10 July 2023 (EDT)

Replacement for Project Navigator

At the very least, having the template of the WP:USRD navigator was a good guide into how the project as it existed then was structured. Do we want to reintroduce that concept so new users can navigate the departments and task forces and whatnot? If so, how might it be done? BMACS1002 21:25, 5 November 2023 (EST)

It still exists at {{United States project navigation}} but it needs to be cleaned up. –Fredddie 21:36, 5 November 2023 (EST)
I have taken a pass at some cleanup but more needs to be done. --Rschen7754 01:49, 10 November 2023 (EST)

Kentucky

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


The rural secondary system and supplemental systems will remain listicles. Of course, more notable routes can continue to be split out. It is assumed that primary secondary routes (the class above the two mentioned) remain notable enough for their own articles. --Rschen7754 19:33, 22 November 2023 (EST)

Kentucky rural secondary system

These routes are already organized as RCS with the supplemental roads, and they should stay that way. VC 21:39, 21 June 2023 (EDT)

  • Is there a source for what constitutes a primary versus secondary route? If so, we could treat them the same way we do Texas FMs. Scott5114 (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2023 (EDT)
    • Yes, KYTC's State Primary Road System page has a reference to the state law defining the four types and describes the four types. This definition coming from the state was the key distinction for me creating the listicles. The key different between Kentucky and Texas is that Kentucky uses one numbering system for all four types. VC 21:15, 23 June 2023 (EDT)
  • I wouldn't be opposed to articles for the more notable of these routes on a case-by-case basis, now that notability is less of a concern. (Of course, this may be a moot point unless we get an active Kentucky editor.) TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 12:30, 19 September 2023 (EDT)
  • For as much work as VC put into those pages, they should stay as is. –Fredddie 22:23, 16 November 2023 (EST)
  • Not inclined to make mass changes from the status quo at this moment. --Rschen7754 15:06, 21 November 2023 (EST)
Kentucky supplemental

These routes are already organized as RCS with the rural secondary highways, and they should stay that way. VC 21:39, 21 June 2023 (EDT)

  • What VC said; aside from cases where one of these lines up with a city arterial or something like that, I doubt any of these are independently notable. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 00:40, 25 October 2023 (EDT)
  • For as much work as VC put into those pages, they should stay as is. –Fredddie 22:23, 16 November 2023 (EST)
  • Not inclined to make mass changes from the status quo at this moment. --Rschen7754 15:06, 21 November 2023 (EST)

Navboxes vs categories

Just wondering what everyone thinks about getting rid of navboxes (like Template:Newfoundland and Labrador highways) in favor of the adjacent categories (Category:Newfoundland and Labrador provincial highways). I'll try to compile a list, but I wanted to get a generic conversation going. –Fredddie 20:33, 13 September 2023 (EDT)

Not an exhaustive list
Template:Alberta provincial highways
Template:Alberta Provincial Highways (redir)
Template:BCHighways
Template:MBHighways
Template:Roads in Winnipeg
Template:WPGCityRoute (redir)
Template:Newfoundland and Labrador highways
Template:NS Roads and Highways
Template:Ontario Provincial Highways
Template:Ontario King's Highways
Template:Ontario Secondary Highways
Template:Ontario Tertiary Highways
Template:Ontario Controlled Access Highways
Template:Prince Edward Island provincial highways
Template:Quebec Autoroutes
Template:Quebec Routes (100-199)
Template:Secondary Highways in Quebec (200-series)
Template:Secondary Highways in Quebec (300-series)
Template:Saskatchewan Provincial Highways
Template:Trans-Canada
Template:Interstates
Template:U.S. Routes
Template:US Highways (redir)
I've long hated navboxes that are redundant to categories.Dave (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2023 (EDT)
I’m fine with getting rid of the navboxes in favor of categories as they both serve the same function of linking together common articles. The categories are better because they don’t pollute the “what links here” feature like the navboxes do. Dough4872 22:31, 13 September 2023 (EDT)
I'd drop the navboxes in favor of the categories. Imzadi 1979  02:15, 16 September 2023 (EDT)

Way, way back in the day the navboxes were laid out in a grid, so that the top row would be 1-9, second row would be 10-19, then 20-29, and so on. The cells where numbers were skipped were left blank. In the US and Interstate systems, all the primaries end up the same columns. I like this layout since it gives you a better idea of what numbers are and aren't used. (In fact, I replicated it at what is now AARoads:Oklahoma for my own use, so head on over there if you can't visualize what I'm talking about.) But you can't do that on enwp because it's "unencyclopedic". Would anyone feel differently about the navboxes if they were laid out like this? —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:20, 13 September 2023 (EDT)

I might be okay with that for primary Interstate and US routes, but it would not be a good idea for state highways because there would be too many routes on there. Overall I favor the categories better. Dough4872 15:40, 14 September 2023 (EDT)
I think this works best for project pages and would take up too much room on articles. Imzadi 1979  02:15, 16 September 2023 (EDT)

I will note that a number of these were nominated for deletion at AARoads:Deletion requests. --Rschen7754 01:50, 10 November 2023 (EST)

Ferries

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


Ferries that are government run will be included, but other ferries will not be. --Rschen7754 19:29, 22 November 2023 (EST)

  • Yes if/only if they are run by the state and functionally serve as extensions to state highways. No to privately run ferries. --Rschen7754 00:53, 8 November 2023 (EST)
  • Like bridges and tunnels, I think ferries are outside the scope of this wiki, but we can always mention them in articles about numbered highways that have ferries. Dough4872 07:19, 8 November 2023 (EST)
  • My thoughts on ferries are similar to my thoughts on bridges and tunnels; we should import the ones that are important to highway coverage (e.g. state-run pieces of state highways, ferries with an official highway designation like the SS Badger) and leave everything else. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 12:40, 8 November 2023 (EST)
  • I think TC31 has the right idea here. Things like the Washington State Ferries and SS Badger are worth including, but the four ferry companies that MoDOT lists on their website are not. A quick Googling shows that aside from Washington ferries, New York City, Illinois, Maine, Texas, and Wisconsin seem to have some state-run ferries, though I did not go in depth to see if they connected to state highways. Perhaps our ferry coverage could be in the Annex? –Fredddie 22:22, 16 November 2023 (EST)
    • Illinois and Wisconsin at least have ferries on state highways (the Kampsville Ferry and Merrimac Ferry respectively), though I'm less familiar with the other states. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 00:45, 17 November 2023 (EST)

Regional Task Forces

By what process do we want to reinvigorate the task forces, and how will they be advertised? I've established discussion above about the departments, but specifics about regional task forces can lie here. Do we want task force heads? Do we want to rename them to something more DOT-ish? I say yes to both. At bare minimum, links to each task force should lie in each state's Category. BMACS1002 21:21, 5 November 2023 (EST)

We should centralize as much as we can and get rid of verbiage that belongs in AARoads policy. I plan on incorporating more resources into those pages and that is what I see them mostly being in the future. There are pros and cons to having task force heads and I would have to think about that one before giving an opinion. --Rschen7754 21:45, 5 November 2023 (EST)
Given the current size of our editing community, we don't have a need to divide things too much, at least on the discussion side at this time. Keeping with Rschen's point, I would keep things fairly centralized. My mental model is to have Departments as a top level, both for central topics like Maps, Policy or Deletion and for countries. Within those areas, we'd have Bureaus for subtopics or subregions. A Michigan Bureau in the US Department could host the state-specific resources for that state without a need to set up anything else. Imzadi 1979  07:42, 11 November 2023 (EST)


U.S. Highways

Articles belonging to the United States Numbered Highway System should be named U.S. Highway nn instead of U.S. Route nn.

National - U.S. Route 1U.S. Highway 1
State Detail - U.S. Route 30 in IowaU.S. Highway 30 in IowaFredddie 12:46, 30 June 2023 (EDT)
Support. Imzadi 1979  16:42, 30 June 2023 (EDT)
Needs more work I'm ok with having a vote for Route vs Highway on the national highway articles. However, there are regions where route is indeed the better choice, so I would not impose one word on all states. For example UDOT consistently uses "route" across the board in documentation. My preference for state detail articles is U.S. Route 30 in IowaU.S. Route/Highway 30 (Iowa) (choice of Route or Highway should be consistent for the state and based on local and/or DOT usage)- This makes it clear the Iowa is for disambiguation and not part of the title. I've seen Google Maps many times borrow the wikipedia title. It also makes it easier to pipe link and have scripts parse out the disambiguation portion of the title when it's not needed or desired. Dave (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2023 (EDT)
Oppose this suggestion. Parentheses implies disambiguation, while "in Iowa" implies that we're talking about a part of a larger whole. In the case of a state detail article, we are not disambiguating between multiple highways with the same name.

I would also not support splitting the nomenclature of a nationally applied designation in the article titles. We should be consistent from coast to coast. Imzadi 1979  19:55, 30 June 2023 (EDT)

I don’t support this proposal entirely because, as Dave mentioned, some states use “route” instead of “highway” to refer to their US roads. I think the title for state-detail pages and national-detail pages not split into state-detail pages should be “U.S. Route X” or “U.S. Highway X” depending on the local term used. However, we may need to vote which term to use for national-detail pages that are split into state-detail pages. As for state-detail page titles, I prefer “U.S. Route X in Statename” since that clearly shows we are referring to the segment of a longer US route in a state and not a separate highway as the parentheses disambiguator may suggest. Dough4872 20:04, 30 June 2023 (EDT)
I've got to be honest, my teeth grit at the thought of having my baby titled "U.S. Highway 50 in Nevada". If that is the approved convention I might just add a hatnote to the article that says "Note: this article was not written by an ignorant redneck transplant to Nevada. Please to not attack the author for any perceived ignorance from the article title. It was forced on him, in the name of consistency" I get it, that if we agree consistency is king, half the country is going to have to grit their teeth somewhat, but that one truly does sound baaaaad. And it's funny, because "U.S. Highway 40 in Colorado" sounds normal to me. Colorado does seem to use Highway as much as or more than Route. Similarly I've come to accept U.S. Highway 395 as you hear that from area transplants who are at least making an effort to not sound like Southern Californians (or whatever), but U.S. Highway 50 is fingernails on the chalkboard. ;) Dave (talk) 10:54, 1 July 2023 (EDT)
Comment — I don't have a strong preference on whether we use Route or Highway, as long as we are consistent. Highway sounds a little better to me. But AASHTO's committee is the Special Committee on U.S. Route Numbering. In that case, I don't know whether "U.S. Route" refers to the U.S. Highway System specifically or all federally numbered highways, which also include the Interstates and *cringe* Bike Routes. However, I am opposed to inconsistently naming the state-detail articles with Route and Highway. It would be confusing to have articles titled U.S. Highway 30 in Iowa and U.S. Route 30 in Illinois. VC 12:30, 1 July 2023 (EDT)
Comment I think this could be confusing in Ohio, which technically distinguishes between a "route" and a "highway" (the portion of a route that the state owns). I don't know if other states make the same distinction though. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 22:45, 17 July 2023 (EDT)
A Waze forum thread reminded me that Oregon takes this to an extreme: a state route consists of multiple state highways that are independently numbered. [4] – Minh Nguyễn 💬 20:06, 11 November 2023 (EST)
Comment If we stick with a uniform standard, what do we do about the better known U.S. Routes/Highways where one version is ingrained in popular culture? If we go with Highway, we end up with "U.S. Highway 66" despite what decades of Americana would suggest, but the Route convention leaves us with stuff like "U.S. Route 101 in California" and "U.S. Route 61 in Minnesota" that also go against the popular name. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 00:56, 4 September 2023 (EDT)
I've lived within earshot of U.S. Route 101 in California for several years. Here at least, "U.S. Route 101" is just as popular as "U.S. Highway 101", which is to say, not very. If we want to sound idiomatic, we have to say "Highway 101" or "U.S. 101". Otherwise, anything else is understood as a formality that doesn't have to sound natural. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 19:52, 11 November 2023 (EST)
  • Either would be okay with me but we should be consistent nationwide, if only for our own sanity. --Rschen7754 23:39, 10 November 2023 (EST)

"U.S." vs. "US"

We have another mismatch or inconsistency issue to discuss. Currently on ENWP, we abbreviate the designations of United States Numbered Highways as "US #", although a few states have that hyphenated. We spell out the full names as "U.S. Highway/Route #" in text and "U.S. Route #" in the titles. As a pure styling matter, I think we should drop the periods in the titles and full name. This would follow the styling guidance from The Chicago Manual of Style, 16th ed., from 2010 and the 17th ed. from 2017. CMOS is a pretty standard style guide for American writing, and I think we should move toward following it. If nothing else, we'd have a consistency between punctuation on full name and abbreviation. Imzadi 1979  12:33, 3 July 2023 (EDT)

Oppose. I'm for the dots. Even for the abbreviations. –Fredddie 16:23, 3 July 2023 (EDT)
I’m fine with either, but think we should be consistent with using either dots or no dots for both the full title and the abbreviation, as in we would have U.S. Route X (U.S. X) or US Route X (US X). Dough4872 16:47, 3 July 2023 (EDT)
My first choice is the status quo. I can't justify that choice, only that I'm used to it and the inconsistency doesn't bother me. However, if the "consensus" (and I gag as i type that) is consistency is better I'd rather have no periods. Dave (talk) 01:30, 4 July 2023 (EDT)
I support the status quo. VC 15:14, 5 July 2023 (EDT)
Wikipedia has conditioned me to perceive the dotless form as sloppy. I cannot unsee it. As for consistency, I have a feeling this will force us to start writing "Washington, DC" in countless {{cite report}} invocations, which will take even more getting used to. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 22:45, 17 July 2023 (EDT)
I'm with Dave here. Support status quo; asked to pick a side, would prefer no periods. TCN7JM 00:02, 17 September 2023 (EDT)

Poll: USH

Many of the discussions seem to have gotten confusing, so for less ambiguity I have started another poll. --Rschen7754 19:00, 11 November 2023 (EST)

Should national USH articles be titled Route or Highway?

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


While this can be revisited later, the majority is currently 5-3 in favor of the status quo, U.S. Route. --Rschen7754 17:42, 25 November 2023 (EST)

  • Highway, purely for aesthetic reasons. BMACS1002 19:46, 11 November 2023 (EST)
  • Route. If we must standardize on a single naming convention, then it should be "route". There are states where highways are a subset of routes or even orthogonal to routes; calling routes highways is misleading, especially in the context of distances and junction lists. These situations outweigh the issue of sounding less idiomatic in other states. For those states that conflate the two concepts, "route" is common enough colloquially, in popular culture, and in Wikipedia precedent to overcome any potential confusion. On the other hand, if we standardize on "highway", then we would need to add clarifications to many articles and article sections. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 19:47, 11 November 2023 (EST)
  • Route. AASHTO seems to use “route” when referring to individual roads in the system. Also U.S. Highway 66 just doesn’t sound right referring to the most iconic US Route. Dough4872 20:27, 11 November 2023 (EST)
  • Highway—the system article uses this, the list articles mostly use this, the categories mostly use this, and I think the individual article titles should use this. As a matter of styling, we should be consistent. Imzadi 1979  21:32, 11 November 2023 (EST)
  • Route Except in cases where "Highway" is the official title for all designations in the system, "Route" just makes more sense definitionally. A highway is a physical feature; a route is an abstract means of getting from one place to another that can involve traveling on a highway. TC (Eli) 21:43, 11 November 2023 (EST)
  • Highway. I presume USRD originally went with Route over Highway because early on the project was mostly people from the Northeast, where Route is the prevailing term. –Fredddie 22:13, 11 November 2023 (EST)
  • Comment I appreciated the suggestion someone made at one point to adopt the same approach we took with Interstates so long ago: just “U.S. 123” or “US 123”, depending on the outcome of the period debate below. Is there any appetite for this approach? Unlike Wikipedia, we aren’t a general reference encyclopedia, so there’s no risk of confusion with things besides routes/highways that happen to be named after the United States. This would also head off a debate about renaming Interstates to “Interstate Highway 123”, for consistency, which would only further alienate editors from the states that would never call them that. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 10:49, 16 November 2023 (EST)
  • Leaning towards Route. I'm torn here, because the arguments are good on both sides. Both "route" and "highway" are somewhat established in the status quo, and both are favored by the relevant authorities (AASHTO uses Route, to the extent FHWA prefers anything it seems to be Highway, and the name of the system uses Highway). And of course, there are plenty of states on both sides who use one name and think the other looks really weird. I'm swayed by Minh and Eli's arguments that, to the extent that there's a distinction between a route and a highway, these are routes, and I also have a bit of status quo bias (i.e. we shouldn't create more work for ourselves without a clear benefit). TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 13:16, 16 November 2023 (EST)
  • Leaning towards Route, there is no clear answer here (either on merits or on consensus) and I would side with the status quo in that case. --Rschen7754 19:41, 22 November 2023 (EST)

Should state-detail USH articles be titled consistently?

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


Significant majority 5-2 to keep state-detail USH articles consistent. --Rschen7754 17:38, 25 November 2023 (EST)

  • Yes, otherwise it's just going to overcomplicate things. --Rschen7754 19:01, 11 November 2023 (EST)
  • Yes, per Rschen. BMACS1002 19:46, 11 November 2023 (EST)
  • No. I think we can use “U.S. Route X in Statename” or “U.S. Highway X in Statename” in different states depending on whether the state uses “route” or “highway”. Dough4872 20:27, 11 November 2023 (EST)
  • Yes—as a matter of styling, we should be consistent. Imzadi 1979  21:32, 11 November 2023 (EST)
  • Yes We're not necessarily beholden to what state-level sources use. Consistency just makes for a much easier time writing and navigating. TC (Eli) 21:46, 11 November 2023 (EST)
  • No. This would clean up the inconsistency we have currently where an article is Route in the title and Highway in the infobox. –Fredddie 22:13, 11 November 2023 (EST)
  • Yes I realize this is going to make some state-detail articles look off compared to the local convention, but the alternative is having state-detail articles that don't match the title of the national article, which IMO looks worse. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 13:21, 16 November 2023 (EST)

Should periods be used in U.S. in the title?

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


Periods will continue to be used in U.S. in the title (3-2). --Rschen7754 17:40, 25 November 2023 (EST)

  • Yes; in my opinion, the fancier the font, the more 'correct' the nomenclature. BMACS1002 19:46, 11 November 2023 (EST)
  • Neutral. I don’t have a strong opinion either way on whether or not we use periods as long as we are consistent for both titles and abbreviations. Dough4872 20:27, 11 November 2023 (EST)
  • No—this is a matter of styling, and we should look to style guides. The Chicago Manual of Style has called for the lack of periods in this abbreviation for over a decade now. We aren't The New York Times, which would still specify "H.I.V." among other abbreviations.

    To reply to BMACS above, we've discussed redoing the typefaces for the headings to use Overpass as a homage to highway signs, thus our headings would be sans serif. Also, it's less typing. Imzadi 1979  21:32, 11 November 2023 (EST)

  • No. TC (Eli) 21:46, 11 November 2023 (EST)
  • Yes. I've never bought the style guide argument and I still don't; we can decide upon any format we want. Ultimately this doesn't matter, but we've used the dots for almost 20 years. –Fredddie 22:13, 11 November 2023 (EST)
  • Yes if only because to the extent that they're consistent, the various DOTs and agencies that manage these highways use periods in the title. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 13:23, 16 November 2023 (EST)

Should periods be used in U.S. in the in-text abbreviations?

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


Periods will not be used in U.S. in the in-text abbreviations. --Rschen7754 17:41, 25 November 2023 (EST)

  • No; using a sans-serif font with that level of formality doesn't feel right. (I fully acknowledge all my votes are vibes-based, but if anyone has a better argument I can be easily swayed). BMACS1002 19:46, 11 November 2023 (EST)
  • Neutral. I don’t have a strong opinion either way on whether or not we use periods as long as we are consistent for both titles and abbreviations. Dough4872 20:27, 11 November 2023 (EST)
  • No—per above and also per the very common practice not to dot the abbreviation in DOT sources. We should keep these two consistently. Imzadi 1979  21:32, 11 November 2023 (EST)
  • No. TC (Eli) 21:47, 11 November 2023 (EST)
  • Lean yes. Like Dough4872, I think we should be consistent. –Fredddie 22:13, 11 November 2023 (EST)
  • No Unlike the full names, I don't think the DOTs even use periods for the abbreviations. If we're already abbreviating the name, we don't need to worry about looking formal. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 13:25, 16 November 2023 (EST)


Texas

Texas FM/RMs
This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


Listicle unless enough content available for standalone. --Rschen7754 23:31, 12 December 2023 (EST)

  • The current coverage model works well (listicle split every 100 routes). It might be nice to also have a table of all 4000 of them, though, for someone who is looking for a quick index and doesn't need the prose. Scott5114 (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2023 (EDT)
  • I wouldn't be opposed to having more separate articles for the more notable FM/RMs, now that notability is less of a concern. A lot of these used to have their own articles on enwiki. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 12:32, 19 September 2023 (EDT)
  • I could go either way (RCS listicles or separate articles), but if we did go back to separate articles, would we keep the listicles? –Fredddie 15:03, 19 September 2023 (EDT)
    • I think we'll want the listicles, since even if we have separate articles for more of the routes, we never had articles on all of them. Some of them just aren't that noteworthy, and others won't attract anyone interested in writing a full article for a long time. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 23:45, 19 November 2023 (EST)
  • Per TC31 and Scott. --Rschen7754 13:06, 25 November 2023 (EST)
Texas Loops/spurs
This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


Listicle unless enough for standalone. --Rschen7754 23:31, 12 December 2023 (EST)

  • A listicle would suffice for these. Scott5114 (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2023 (EDT)
  • A lot of the loops are notable, so those can have their own articles; listicles are fine for the rest. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 23:42, 19 November 2023 (EST)
  • Per TC31. --Rschen7754 13:06, 25 November 2023 (EST)
Texas business routes
This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


Listicle unless enough for standalone. --Rschen7754 23:32, 12 December 2023 (EST)

  • Treat them like any other bannered route. Scott5114 (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Per Scott. --Rschen7754 13:06, 25 November 2023 (EST)
Texas Park/rec roads
This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


Listicles. --Rschen7754 23:32, 12 December 2023 (EST)

  • A listicle would suffice for these. Scott5114 (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2023 (EDT)
  • RCS. --Rschen7754 01:45, 25 June 2023 (EDT)

Annex namespace

On Discord, we have discussed adding an Annex namespace for some of the cruftier things (for lack of a better term) that we will want on our site.

  • Trivia
  • Road-related but not really articles
  • Unsourceable stuff
  • Highest/lowest AADT

An analogy would how the Star Trek wikis are broken down. The main article space would be Memory Alpha. The cruftier Annex namespace would be Memory Beta.

What do you think? What are some other topics that we can toss into the annex? –Fredddie 01:40, 22 June 2023 (EDT)

As a first approximation, I would say "the annex can include anything you want as long as it's road-related". We should probably put a few limitations on it (we probably don't want to be hosting people's fictional highway plans, for instance) but it would be a good place for anything that can't be easily expressed in the form of an article (or is not sourceable). We may want to put a warning banner on it, for unfamiliar readers, saying that "regular policies do not apply here, so take this info with that in mind". —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:10, 22 June 2023 (EDT)
Aww, but I wanted FritzOwl Interstate System to be a thing. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 04:11, 22 June 2023 (EDT)
Don't you mean the FritzOwl System of Coat to Cost Highways? :P —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:29, 22 June 2023 (EDT)
Of course, how could I make such a silly mistake? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 04:30, 22 June 2023 (EDT)

Random thought: Many of our editing resources would probably be of general enough roadgeek interest to go in the Annex, rather than project space. (Things like where to find shield specs, map archives, etc.) —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:37, 24 June 2023 (EDT)

I would agree with that. I was also thinking that the speed limits and road sign comparison articles could go there, too. –Fredddie 15:30, 24 June 2023 (EDT)
Maybe this could be a Library: namespace? Imzadi 1979  15:33, 24 June 2023 (EDT)
Or the Help namespace that is already built into the wiki. –Fredddie 16:49, 24 June 2023 (EDT)
I'd prefer leaving the help namespace for actual technical documentation on MediaWiki and any extensions we install (meaning if you are an experienced editor here you can just ignore the whole namespace). We could do a library namespace, but I think that kind of unnecessarily silos the editing resources away from the other annex content (many of our editing resources would also be useful for people who are only casual editors here, but have a general interest in roads). If there's anything that is really 100% wiki focused and not useful to someone with general roadgeek interest, the AARoads namespace is the appropriate place for that. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:30, 26 June 2023 (EDT)
We actually should import the entire Help: namespace. In looking up MediaWiki extensions, one of the pages suggested doing that. Imzadi 1979  05:59, 12 September 2023 (EDT)

Support the proposal overall. --Rschen7754 16:23, 24 June 2023 (EDT)

I like the idea for an Annex namespace for information that would be too trivial for main article space. I also like the idea of a Library namespace for editing resources. Dough4872 16:39, 24 June 2023 (EDT)

Would we want this to be searchable on Google? --Rschen7754 22:59, 3 July 2023 (EDT)

That's a good question. On the one hand, being searchable and discoverable makes the content more accessible, but on the other, we're not making any guarantees that it is sourced, vetted, or even correct... —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:46, 5 July 2023 (EDT)

Annex poll

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


The namespace will continue to be searchable on Google. A hatnote or template should be implemented if possible. --Rschen7754 23:35, 12 December 2023 (EST)

Do we want the Annex: namespace to be searchable on Google?

  • No, there is no editorial control and it overemphasizes the more trivial content that we would have. --Rschen7754 01:29, 10 November 2023 (EST)
  • No, with unsourced/unverified content we could be spreading misinformation in people's search results and that's no bueno. --Duke87 01:38, 10 November 2023 (EST)
  • No since the Annex is more for trivial and unsourced content, it should not show up in Google search results, only mainspace should be searchable on Google. Dough4872 08:07, 10 November 2023 (EST)
  • The replies above are over-emphasizing some higher ideals of verifiability and notability, while ignoring the desires of an actual lay-person just trying to Google "what highways are numbered 27?" or information on road-sign comparisons… if it's not Googleable then it might at well be sat on your hard-drive gathering dust. So I vote Yes; however, I don't think doing so should be done lightly- Scott suggested a banner saying 'hey, you're probably looking at bogus content jsyk', I think that would need to be implemented; and, if there's any way to encourage mainspace articles to rank above Annex articles I say that ought to happen as well. BMACS1002 08:29, 10 November 2023 (EST)
    It is possible for an administrator to boost and penalize search results in this wiki’s default search tool, and we can also have the search tool omit the Annex: namespace by default. However, we don’t have that kind of direct control over an external search engine. In fact, if the content in the annex is perceived to be of poorer quality or relevance by a search engine such as Google, it may impact the entire site’s rankings for unrelated searches. I recall that MediaWiki has some kind of setting for noncanonical namespaces or so, but I have no idea if Google et al. respect whatever metadata it puts out, versus some hard-coded heuristic to only ignore talk pages. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 11:41, 10 November 2023 (EST)
  • Yes. I think BMACS convinced me that if we don't make it searchable, Annex content will be impossible for readers to find unless they're already familiar with the wiki. I think adding a banner to the namespace is a good idea, and if people start putting total crap in there we can always delete it, but I don't want to worry too much about low-quality content in a namespace that doesn't exist yet. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 11:16, 10 November 2023 (EST)
  • Yes – The no votes are nothing a hatnote can't fix. TC (Eli) 14:04, 10 November 2023 (EST)
  • Yes - if we're ashamed of some content it doesn't even belong in the annex.Dave (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2023 (EST)
  • Yes. We can always put a template on it. –Fredddie 16:41, 2 December 2023 (EST)

Unique identifiers

Just stumbled over here thanks to Stephen Harrison's article. Nice work so far.

Since this is not a Wikimedia site, there's no obvious way to link articles here to Wikidata items. It would certainly be possible to create an "AARoads" identifier, but that should have some unique identifier to map to (something that stays the same even if pages here are renamed). Apologies if this has been dealt with somewhere else, but I didn't find anything in the archives here, so I thought I'd suggest it. Guettarda (talk) 12:39, 9 December 2023 (EST)

Like Wikipedia, this wiki is powered by MediaWiki, which assigns a unique numeric identifier to each page. You can see it by clicking the "Page information" link in the Tools section of the sidebar. Wikidata has a AARoads Wiki article ID (P12052) property for linking to this wiki. I've prepared a bulk import of these statements but am waiting for the green light to upload them. Please chime in there if you have any feedback about the test edits I've performed so far. Thanks! – Minh Nguyễn 💬 16:23, 9 December 2023 (EST)

Article naming conventions

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


This discussion appears to have come to a conclusion. The table posted by Fredddie will be the naming conventions. --Rschen7754 14:03, 13 December 2023 (EST)

There had been some discussions over there years that "SRNC didn't quite get it right" but none of us were willing to re-litigate. Now that we are moving away from that other site, now is our chance to fix what needs to be fixed, and indeed that is not my intent. So, if you would like to propose a change to SRNC, add a third-level heading below and we can discuss the merits of each proposal individually. –Fredddie 12:41, 30 June 2023 (EDT)

Edit: SRNC and USSH only covered the US but that does not mean we can't discuss other countries here. –Fredddie 12:52, 30 June 2023 (EDT)
Also just to be clear SNRC was a huge debate that decided the naming conventions for Interstate, US, and state highways. We're talking about article naming conventions with this debate. Dave (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2023 (EDT)

Nebraska

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


The articles will remain at the status quo. --Rschen7754 20:56, 1 December 2023 (EST)

There was some discussion on Discord recently about Nebraska state highways, and it seems NDOT uses N-nn consistently, so following Michigan and Kansas, Nebraska Highway 2N-2 (Nebraska). –Fredddie 14:21, 12 September 2023 (EDT)

Support - I’m fine with this if this is how Nebraska primarily refers to their roads. Dough4872 08:08, 10 November 2023 (EST)
I dunno. I've seen a lot of "Nebraska Highway X" and "Nebraska X" from NDOT, as opposed to in Michigan, where it's pretty much exclusively "M-X". No opinion here but I think it's only intended as an abbreviation. TC (Eli) 14:17, 10 November 2023 (EST)
Do not support--While I'm open to being convinced otherwise, the N-nn nomenclature is nowhere near as consistently used on signs in Nebraska as K-nn is in Kansas or M-nn in Michigan. In Kansas, K-nn appears in text quite often on conventional-road distance-to-destination signs, while Nebraska DOT sedulously avoids referring to highways in this context. Also in Kansas, K-nn appears in text on distance-to-destination signs on freeways in rural areas, while Nebraska instead typically uses the appropriate route shield with a town and often the word "EXIT." (Both states typically use shields on interchange sequence signs, which are used only in urban areas.) Michigan DOT frequently uses M-nn in text on black-on-orange construction detour signs; the one example of N-nn on such a sign I can remember occurred on Highway 2 near Ansley over 20 years ago. While the N-nn nomenclature is pretty consistently used in NDOT press releases (which currently go back to 2021 on the live website) and, I think, on plan set title sheets, my sense is that it is far enough from being established in ordinary usage that converting "Highway nn" to "N-nn" leaves us no better off. Argatlam (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2023 (EST)
Oppose per above. --Rschen7754 00:20, 26 November 2023 (EST)

<state name> State Route x

This section covers multiple states that are currently named with the format <state name> State Route X. Among them California State Route 1, Nevada State Route 28 and Utah State Route 128.

California State Route 1State Route 1 (California). As the movie line goes "This dance is the Brazilian Creep. Of course in Brazil they just call it 'the' Creep". Nobody in CA calls a highway a California State Route, in neither official no colloquial usage. Again, the state name is there for disambiguation, it's not part of the title, adding parenthesis makes that clear. Dave (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2023 (EDT)

I'm not necessarily against this, but I've asked this question on the forum, what would be format for New York? New York State Route could be interpreted many different ways and all could be correct. –Fredddie 17:09, 30 June 2023 (EDT)
State Route 28 (New York). I don't see a need to handle it differently. Am I missing something? Dave (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2023 (EDT)
Is it "New York State" Route 28, New York "State Route" 28, or "New York State Route" 28? https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33051.0 is the original forum post. –Fredddie 18:08, 30 June 2023 (EDT)
The usual confusion for New York is there is a major city with the same name as the state. To outsiders, when they hear "New York" it's not always immediately clear if it's referring to the city or the state. However, IMHO, State Route 9 (New York) is crystal clear, we're talking about the state here. I'd argue that's more clear than any of the options for interpreting New York State Route 9. Dave (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2023 (EDT)
Generally speaking, I'm in favor of moving the state name to parentheses wherever possible. The trouble is that in a few states, the state name is part of the official type. I believe that New York is one of these states. Imzadi 1979  19:49, 30 June 2023 (EDT)
Indeed, this would be my only concern with the proposal. --Rschen7754 20:01, 30 June 2023 (EDT)
Having joined Wikipedia after SRNC took place, I am okay with leaving the articles at “Statename Route X” since that’s what I have been familiar with my whole editing career. However, I am not opposed to the “Route X (Statename)” naming convention as many people will often refer to state roads as “Route X” or “Highway X” without the state name depending on the state. Dough4872 20:04, 30 June 2023 (EDT)
If a state includes the state name in their route naming, yeah, let's keep to what's actually used. I guess we'd break those states out of this proposal and group them in proposal of "keep the status quo". However, the states that I'm familiar with, that's not the case.Dave (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2023 (EDT)
That's where I would disagree, I think we would cause confusion if we had some one way and some the other. --Rschen7754 00:22, 1 July 2023 (EDT)
Agreed, and the only real benefit to doing the parenthesis thing to begin with is the pipe trick (where if you don't include anything after the | in a link, MediaWiki will autopopulate it with the article title minus any parentheses), so leaving a few states out of that benefit just because their DOT or legislature said so would be rather unfortunate. (Also, I presume we will have the title still be "State Highway" in the states where that is what they're called...if I ever have to call a road in Oklahoma "state route" I will eat enough rocks that I turn into an immortal dragon and rampage across the countryside.) —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:07, 1 July 2023 (EDT)
That's my issue with forcing "U.S. Highway 89 in Utah" (or "US. Highway 50 in Nevada") in the U.S. Route proposal above. It makes it sound like that Wikipedia article was written by a transplant who wants all the benefits of moving to the state but refuses to adapt to the culture of the state. Just go to any Utah/Nevada forum and watch as people are mercilessly mocked for saying "The 395" or "The 15". Dave (talk) 10:44, 1 July 2023 (EDT)
And using "U.S. Route 23 in Michigan" makes it sound like an Ohioan picked the title for that highway. Remember, this isn't about article body text but the titles. If you look at ENWP articles now where there is the Route/Highway mismatch in state-detail articles, we already ignore it in the body text and use the appropriate term. Imzadi 1979  11:49, 3 July 2023 (EDT)
OK so it sounds like the proposal isn't perceived as bad, but I should reformat it as Old: <state name> State Route/Highway/Road x -> State Route/Highway/Road (<state name>). With the choice of Route/Highway/Road matching what was decided in the prior naming convention poll, unless someone makes a convincing argument that word choice was decided incorrectly last time. Dave (talk) 10:39, 1 July 2023 (EDT)
More generically: <type> <number (<state>). That's essentially what Michigan and Kansas would do above, except the type there is just a letter prefixed onto the number.
Remember to the reverse pipe trick that works on Michigan/Kansas articles now. In writing a new article, a hypothetical "M-999 (Michigan highway)", piping a link to another highway as [[|M-998]] expands to [[M-998 (Michigan highway)|M-998]] upon saving. Putting the CDHs under the same disambiguator enhances the utility of that trick since we're likely to get some additional CDH articles spun out over time.
To add to the discussions above, I'd contemplate Minnesota switching to "Trunk Highway X (Minnesota)" and Wisconsin switching to "State Trunk Highway X (Wisconsin)" since that's the more formal naming. Imzadi 1979  17:59, 1 July 2023 (EDT)

I might be the outlier here, but I actually prefer the current disambiguation system. If we have to disambiguate the routes anyway, we might as well make it explicit in the name which system they're part of. This is most relevant in states like Illinois that love to reuse route numbers; if you just say "Route 50" in Illinois, it's not clear if you're talking about the east-west route downstate or Cicero Avenue in Chicago, so you'd need to clarify the latter with "Illinois 50", "State Route 50", or just "Illinois Route 50" anyway. (Of course, I should also add that my strongest opinion on SRNC is that it's ridiculous that this debate ever went to ArbCom in the first place, so I'm not *that* opposed to a switch.) TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 15:39, 19 September 2023 (EDT)

For 48 out of 50 states, if you type the state name into the search bar, most of the results are highways in the state-level system. That's a good thing (and I'd argue Kansas and Michigan should also have some sort of state-name redirect for searchability's sake, but I bet I'm in the minority there). Consistency makes things easier to find and, in my opinion, easier to digest. When I see disambiguating parentheses in the title of a road article, I automatically assume the road is one of multiple identically named routes in the same system, like an auxiliary Interstate number that's reused in multiple states, or two unrelated highways in the same state system with the same number, or the many special routes of Interstates and U.S. Routes. The state highways in South Dakota have nothing to do with those in North Carolina, so why would we name the articles like they do? The factor that most defines these highways is the state in which they're located, so putting that at the front just makes sense to me.

As with Minnesota County State-Aid Highways, we're not beholden to official titles here, and if we were going primarily by colloquialisms, we'd name every California highway article "the <number>". I'd say consistency, readability, and searchability should be our main tenets here. TCN7JM 16:09, 19 September 2023 (EDT)

I gave my opinion above but I never explained why. I originally supported what is the current nomenclature during SRNC. However, three arguments cause me to lean towards making a change: 1) International consistency - otherwise we wind up with things like United Kingdom A1 road 2) Michigan and Kansas 3) Because this is our wiki we can insist on consistent naming schemes and have the means to enforce it, and we can require the parentheses on everything and don't have nonsense like this. --Rschen7754 01:48, 20 September 2023 (EDT)

To this I would ask two things.
  1. Who is actually searching for "United Kingdom A1 road"? Here in the U.S., if you're not intimately familiar with the official terminology, it's reasonable to assume you would call a state highway by its state name. The roadways are often branded with state symbology and the common abbreviations (officially and otherwise) are often just the state postal abbreviations. None of this is true in, say, Europe.
  2. Is it really prudent to move heaven and earth and discard almost two decades of precedent for the benefit of two states instead of taking smaller measures to help those two states conform in case readers/searchers are confused? (Like the redirects I mentioned above.) I don't wanna be the "it's always been this way" guy, but I feel like the articles being named this way for nearly the entire history of this project has to matter at least a little. Temporal consistency matters as much as nomenclatural consistency, in my opinion. TCN7JM 14:34, 20 September 2023 (EDT)
I don't think we necessarily shoehorn every state and country into one format. I'm loath to support moving Iowa's articles to Highway 1 (Iowa), etc. when Iowa Highway 1 and Iowa 1 are used almost interchangeably by the DOT. I think consistency among a specific set of articles (read: across one state or country) is more important. That all being said, Iowa Highway 1, State Highway 74 (Oklahoma), New York State Route 17, A1 (Great Britain), and N82 (Ireland) can all coexist without the need to make one group look like all the others. –Fredddie 16:23, 20 September 2023 (EDT)

I think it's useful to consider what each state's DOT or residents call other states' similarly named routes when they need to disambiguate. Since California was given as an example, I'll point out that Caltrans sometimes says "California SR X" and "Arizona SR Y" to distinguish the two states' state route systems. [5] Meanwhile, in Ohio, people say or write either "SR X" short for "State Route X", or "Ohio X" short for "Ohio State Route X" for routes near the state line. A title of "State Route X (Ohio)" wouldn't be terribly surprising, but it doesn't seem like a significant improvement over "Ohio State Route X". I think it's fine if Michigan, Kansas, and Nebraska stick to their catchy monograms with disambiguation as necessary, but that doesn't need to affect the rest of the country. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 03:05, 26 September 2023 (EDT)

Canada and US territories

Just to touch on it, I would support using this scheme for Canada as well, going with <type> <number> (<province>) and <type> <number> (<territory>) as appropriate for consistency. Further, I'd use that last formulation for the US territories for consistency. Imzadi 1979  11:49, 3 July 2023 (EDT)

I agree. It seems like the Quebec–Ontario border is the highway/route border, generally speaking. –Fredddie 16:26, 3 July 2023 (EDT)
I suggest Québec Autoroutes have no disambiguator (unless we plan on adding French Autoroutes). LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:34, 5 July 2023 (EDT)
Personally I would suggest future proofing so we don't have to do a bunch of moves later. (That being said, the current enwiki convention in France is Axx road). --Rschen7754 14:17, 6 July 2023 (EDT)
Pretty sure the official nomenclature for French Autoroutes is "Autoroute A(X)" anyways, though I could be wrong. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 17:50, 6 July 2023 (EDT)

Poll: SRNC 2.0

I think it's time that this got put to a poll since the discussions seem to be stagnant.

Should a prefix (P1) or a parenthetical disambiguator (P2) be used for disambiguation?

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


The articles will remain at P1 due to the majority, however some expressed a willingness to revisit the issue in the future. --Rschen7754 20:58, 1 December 2023 (EST)

Example: California, where the official name is State Route X. Should the articles be California State Route 78 (P1) or State Route 78 (California) (P2)? --Rschen7754 00:54, 16 November 2023 (EST)

  • P2. I think this is the best route forward. We've heard Imzadi1979 talk about the benefits of the parens and they make sense to me. –Fredddie 01:32, 16 November 2023 (EST)
  • P1. In addition to the points I've brought up in the discussion, I'm really quite unsure what's wrong with the status quo to the point that we would actively want to undertake moving almost the entirety of the project. TC (Eli) 01:46, 16 November 2023 (EST)
  • Neutral I personally prefer P2. However, neither is perfect for all situations and cases. So it's a lot of work to switch from one imperfect scheme to another.Dave (talk) 02:44, 16 November 2023 (EST)
  • P1 - Although I understand the motives for P2, I find nothing wrong with the status quo that was on Wikipedia for years and we would save ourselves a lot of work keeping the article titles as-is. Dough4872 07:49, 16 November 2023 (EST)
  • P1 Echoing both my comments above and what Eli said - a change now would be a lot of extra work for the project, especially since we don't have bots to help with things like fixing double redirects. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 10:22, 16 November 2023 (EST)
  • P1 but willing to revisit after we have more tools that would allow for easier management of such a move. The status quo works and is also beneficial for SEO. SounderBruce 15:06, 17 November 2023 (EST)
  • P2 Ran4sh (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2023 (EST)

When the state is part of the official name, should it be put into parentheses at the end?

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


A bit moot given the conclusion above, however the answer is no. --Rschen7754 20:57, 1 December 2023 (EST)

This would only apply if the outcome of the above poll is P2.

Example: Iowa, where the official name is Iowa Highway 1 or Iowa 1. Should the articles be named Highway 1 (Iowa)? --Rschen7754 00:54, 16 November 2023 (EST)

  • No. I'm starting to think it should be <place> nn, so for Iowa, it would be Iowa 1. –Fredddie 01:32, 16 November 2023 (EST)
  • No - The P1/P2 debate was intended for states where the official name is "State Route/Highway/Road 78". Also I agree with Fredddie. As this wiki is limited in scope to highway only. There's no reason why we could have the articles titled "California 78". For our scope it's clear what that means. Obviously in Wikipedia that scheme wouldn't work.Dave (talk)
  • No Ran4sh (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2023 (EST)
  • No After thinking it over, I don't think we should force P2 on states where it doesn't work. --Rschen7754 22:34, 17 November 2023 (EST)

Proposal summary

Following the format of WP:USSH, this is a summary of the proposals thus far. –Fredddie 20:36, 5 July 2023 (EDT)

NB: if someone could spot check the Canadian abbreviations, that would be great. I took a guess at what I thought they were. –Fredddie 02:34, 5 July 2023 (EDT)

State/Territory/District Official name Article title Abbreviation
Alabama State Route X Alabama State Route X SR X
Alaska Alaska Route X Alaska Route X[a] AK-X
American Samoa American Samoa Highway X American Samoa Highway X ASXXXX[b]
Arizona State Route X Arizona State Route X SR X
Arkansas Highway X Arkansas Highway X AR X
California State Route X California State Route X SR X
Colorado State Highway X Colorado State Highway X SH X
Connecticut Route X Connecticut Route X Route X
County roads County Road X
County Route X
County Road X (Y County, <state>)
County Route X (Y County, <state>)
CR X
Delaware Delaware Route X Delaware Route X DE X
District of Columbia District of Columbia Route X District of Columbia Route X DC X
Florida State Road X Florida State Road X SR X
Georgia State Route X Georgia State Route X SR X
Guam Guam Highway X Guam Highway X GH-X
Hawaii Route X Hawaii Route X Route X
Idaho State Highway X Idaho State Highway X SH-X
Illinois Illinois Route X Illinois Route X IL X
Indiana State Road X Indiana State Road X SR X
Iowa Iowa Highway X Iowa Highway X Iowa X
Kansas K-X K-X (Kansas) K-X
Kentucky Kentucky Route X Kentucky Route X KY X
Louisiana Louisiana Highway X Louisiana Highway X LA X
Louisiana parish roads Parish Road X Parish Road X (Y Parish, Louisiana) PR X
Maine State Route X Maine State Route X SR X
Maryland Maryland Route X Maryland Route X MD X
Massachusetts Route X Massachusetts Route X Route X
Michigan M-X M-X (Michigan) M-X
Michigan CDHs and county roads A-X
County Road X
A-2 (Michigan)
County Road X (Y County, Michigan)
A-X
CR X
Minnesota Minnesota State Highway X Minnesota State Highway X MN X
Minnesota county roads County State-Aid Highway X
County Road X
County State-Aid Highway X (Y County, Minnesota)
County Road X (Y County, Minnesota)
CSAH X
CR X
Mississippi Mississippi Highway X Mississippi Highway X MS X
Missouri Route X Missouri Route X Route X
Montana Montana Highway X Montana Highway X MT X
Montana (secondary) Secondary Highway X Montana Highway X S-X
Nebraska Nebraska Highway X Nebraska Highway X N-X
Nevada State Route X Nevada State Route X SR X
New Hampshire New Hampshire Route X New Hampshire Route X NH X
New Jersey Route X New Jersey Route X Route X
New Mexico State Road X New Mexico State Road X NM X
New York New York State Route X New York State Route X NY X
North Carolina NC X North Carolina Highway X NC X
North Dakota North Dakota Highway X North Dakota Highway X ND X
Northern Mariana Islands Northern Mariana Islands Highway X Northern Mariana Islands Highway X Hwy. X
Ohio State Route X Ohio State Route X SR X
Oklahoma State Highway X Oklahoma State Highway X SH-X
Oregon Oregon Route X Oregon Route X OR X
Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Route X Pennsylvania Route X PA X
Pennsylvania Quadrant State Route X State Route X (Y County, Pennsylvania) SR X
Puerto Rico PR-X Puerto Rico Highway X PR-X
Rhode Island Route X Rhode Island Route X Route X
South Carolina South Carolina Highway X South Carolina Highway X SC X
South Dakota Highway X South Dakota Highway X SD X
Tennessee State Route X Tennessee State Route X SR X
Texas State Highway X Texas State Highway X SH X
U.S. Virgin Islands U.S. Virgin Islands Highway X U.S. Virgin Islands Highway X Hwy X
Utah State Route X Utah State Route X SR-X
Vermont Vermont Route X Vermont Route X VT X
Virginia State Route X Virginia State Route X SR X
Washington State Route X Washington State Route X SR X
West Virginia West Virginia Route X West Virginia Route X WV X
Wisconsin State Trunk Highway X Wisconsin Highway X WIS X
Wisconsin county roads County Trunk Highway X County Trunk Highway X (Y County, Wisconsin) CTH-X
Wyoming Wyoming Highway X Wyoming Highway X WYO X
Province Official name Article title Abbreviation
Alberta Highway x Alberta Highway x Hwy x
British Columbia Highway x British Columbia Highway x Hwy x
Manitoba Highway x
Provincial Road x
Manitoba Highway x
Manitoba Provincial Road x
PTH x
PR x
Winnipeg city routes Route x Winnipeg Route x Route x
New Brunswick Route x New Brunswick Route x Route x
Newfoundland and Labrador Route x Newfoundland and Labrador Route x Route x
Northwest Territories Highway x Northwest Territories Highway x Highway x
Nova Scotia Trunk x (1-2 digit)
Highway x (100-series)
Route x (200 and up)
Nova Scotia Trunk x
Nova Scotia Highway x
Nova Scotia Route x
Trunk x
Highway x
Route x
Nunavut no numbered routes
Ontario King's Highway x Ontario Highway X Highway x
Ontario county roads Y <division> Road x <divisional> Road x (<division> Y, Ontario) [c] <d>R x
Quebec Route x
Autoroute x
Quebec Route x
Quebec Autoroute x
Route x
A-x
Prince Edward Island Route x Prince Edward Island Route x Route x
Saskatchewan Highway x Saskatchewan Highway X Hwy x
Yukon Highway x Yukon Highway X Hwy x
  1. ^ Named highways are at <name of road> Highway.
  2. ^ American Samoa uses four-digit numbers, padding them with the necessary zeros.
  3. ^ Replace <division> with County, District, Municipal, or Regional as required.

Comments

This looks good to me to start, especially on the article title column. We probably should do a quick survey to make sure that all of the official names are correct, that we don't have assumptions from 2005 repeated again. Per the Guam Dept. of Public Works, it appears that they have Routes, not Highways, and they refer to them as "Route x" in short form. I think that merits an update.

As for the abbreviation column, I'd switch Minnesota to "TH x", and I'd switch Wisconsin to "STH-x". I don't think ArDOT uses "AR x", so that one probably should be switched to "Hwy. x". Then we should look at harmonizing the rest of the column and standardizing spaces vs. hyphens and "Hwy." vs. "Highway" because this is forming part of our AARW style guide and not mimicking the internal style guides of government agencies or the news media. It appears that "SH x" and "SR x" are the more common, so "SH-x" and "SR-x" should be switched for consistency. Highway is abbreviated more than it isn't, so should be abbreviated in those few places it isn't now. As an abbreviated word, it should have a period at the end, while initialisms don't get periods anymore.

Lest someone complain that we aren't following their favorite state DOT's format, when I was transcribing the AASHTO documents, they called everything "S.R. x" for several years, regardless of how the individual departments actually named and abbreviated their highways. Various news sources insert or drop periods and go with spaces or hyphens based on their style guides. We get to set our style guide, and this is part of that. Imzadi 1979  00:43, 6 July 2023 (EDT)

In my experience/opinion, public-facing MnDOT sources (and common parlance) dictate that the Minnesota abbreviation should remain "MN". TCN7JM 06:42, 31 August 2023 (EDT)

Minnesota can't seem to decide whether "State-Aid" is hyphenated or not. Feels like it logically should be ("County" and "State-Aid" are both adjectives describing the "Highway") but quite a few official sources at both the state and county level do not use the hyphen. Thoughts? TCN7JM 06:37, 31 August 2023 (EDT)

I would hyphenate it. The general rule is that if you drop either word and the result makes no sense, it's a compound modifier that needs to a hyphen. An "aid highway" doesn't make sense while a "state-aid highway" does. Since this is a matter of styling, we aren't totally beholden to how official sources style it. Imzadi 1979  05:41, 12 September 2023 (EDT)
ArDOT does use AR XX, especially on signs like this one, which are common across the state. I think the prose should use "Highway XX", and the abbreviations should be AR XX. Hwy. XX and Ark. XX are seen rarely, but I believe these are being phased out in favor of AR XX. Brandonrush Woo pig sooie! 10:08, 1 October 2023 (EDT)

Just a note regarding Ontario's county-equivalent roads: They all have different nomenclature depending on the type of government. For example, Sudbury has "Municipal Road X (MR-X)", a bunch of places have "Regional Road X (RR-X)", Muskoka is "District Road X (DR-X)". Andrepoiy (talk) 12:51, 3 October 2023 (EDT)

Right. All of the templates reflect the correct nomenclature. This was more just to show the formatting. –Fredddie 15:57, 5 October 2023 (EDT)

I don't know if we need yet another poll to close this all up, but I'm good with this. --Rschen7754 16:05, 2 December 2023 (EST)

Specific road hardware and features

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


These will be included. I will also point out that many of the articles were imported already anyway. --Rschen7754 01:43, 21 December 2023 (EST)

Things like "guardrail", "traffic signal", "flashing yellow arrow", "cable barrier", "rumble strip", interchange types, etc. (Basically anything you might see in a Road Guy Rob video.)

  • I think these would be feasible if we took a more specific approach than Wikipedia and noted particularly unusual or notable instances of interchange types; which states do and don't have FYAs, etc. Scott5114 (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2023 (EDT)
  • I think these fall in our scope. Dough4872 21:36, 22 June 2023 (EDT)
  • I think we can go beyond Wikipedia here. Many of us have civil engineering training, so there could be some road-specific features we could go further with. Tri-chord vs. Cantilever signage for example, or runaway truck lanes. - Floydian (talk) 14:32, 30 September 2023 (EDT)
  • I have concerns along the lines that Scott mentions - can we do a better job than the Wikipedia article can? --Rschen7754 00:20, 1 October 2023 (EDT)
  • I think these are in scope, and like Scott suggested, we may want to take a different approach to these than Wikipedia does. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 00:24, 25 October 2023 (EDT)


American Samoa

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


The numbered highways will be individual articles. --Rschen7754 18:52, 1 January 2024 (EST)

  • Individual articles, I don't think it's good to merge primaries away to a list. --Rschen7754 01:59, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Individual articles for the three numbered highways, but keep the listicle around for unnumbered ones. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 14:19, 1 January 2024 (EST)

Arkansas institutional roads

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


The park and airport roads can have their own articles. RCS will be allowed for the other roads. --Rschen7754 14:11, 2 January 2024 (EST)

RCS. Perhaps a standalone article for the set of airport roads. VC 18:51, 28 June 2023 (EDT)

  • A good reference to refer to is [6]. 600 is interesting to me because that's a catch-all for every state park road, yet there is still a mileage to be calculated. It would be interesting to know what roads and what parks 600 comprises - similar for 980 (airport roads). The other 800+ can probably stay as is (table), though RCS could be considered if more information turns up. --Rschen7754 16:26, 22 November 2023 (EST)
  • RCS, but the sets of park roads and airport roads can have their own articles. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 14:23, 1 January 2024 (EST)


Guam

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


Individual articles. --Rschen7754 18:53, 1 January 2024 (EST)

  • Individual articles, I don't think it's good to merge primaries away to a list. --Rschen7754 01:59, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Individual articles, which seems to be the status quo. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 14:25, 1 January 2024 (EST)


Illinois county routes

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


Routes can be mentioned in a table, and be an article if more notable. --Rschen7754 14:13, 2 January 2024 (EST)

Systems article, but no coverage of individual routes unless they are notable. VC 21:01, 28 June 2023 (EDT)

  • Right now we have four county-level table lists of routes, and a few redirects to articles on individual roads (none of which have been imported yet, leaving the redirects broken). I'm in favor of importing those articles and keeping the existing lists, and wouldn't be opposed to more county-level tables for other counties. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 22:35, 3 September 2023 (EDT)
  • Table, though considering how spotty the coverage is and how short the roads are, I could be convinced to have no coverage. Notable routes can remain separate articles (which have since been imported). --Rschen7754 02:10, 29 November 2023 (EST)


Louisiana

Louisiana B routes (100-185)
This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


The Louisiana B routes will be in standalone articles. --Rschen7754 23:25, 12 December 2023 (EST)

  • The A routes <100 should always have an article and the mergers already done should be undone. Unsure about the rest. --Rschen7754 21:52, 28 June 2023 (EDT)
    • Most of the mergers of the B routes should be undone per TC31. --Rschen7754 17:32, 22 November 2023 (EST)
  • With a handful of exceptions, these are pretty substantial highways that should have their own articles (Louisiana Highway 126 is 97 miles long!). I think we can split them back out. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 11:36, 10 November 2023 (EST)
Louisiana C routes (300-1241)
This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


Listicles will be used for most of these routes. --Rschen7754 23:26, 12 December 2023 (EST)

  • The current RCS lists should be fine for most of these. More notable routes can have their own articles. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 11:37, 10 November 2023 (EST)
  • Per TC31. --Rschen7754 17:33, 22 November 2023 (EST)
Louisiana parish roads
This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


The RCS signed parish route list will remain, but no other route coverage. --Rschen7754 14:15, 2 January 2024 (EST)

Systems article, but no coverage of individual parish roads unless they are notable. The RCS parish route list should be eliminated. VC 21:05, 28 June 2023 (EDT)

  • I'm fine with keeping the RCS parish route list, since it has well-defined criteria; apparently few parish routes are signed in Louisiana, and the ones listed are. No individual articles though. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 11:39, 10 November 2023 (EST)
  • Per TC31. --Rschen7754 03:24, 16 November 2023 (EST)


Minnesota CSAH and county hwys

Minnesota CSAH
This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


These will be covered in listicles. --Rschen7754 23:28, 12 December 2023 (EST)

  • Similar to Michigan's CDHs, I'd be naturally incline to support something on CSAHs vs. CRs in the Land of 10,000 Lakes. Imzadi 1979  14:30, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
  • I'd say CSAHs are generally important enough to warrant RCS-style coverage given that they are technically funded in some variable part by the state. There's even a system in place to improve shorter state highways and then turn them back to county jurisdiction and make them CSAHs (this has resulted in quite a few Minnesota State Highways being deleted over the past couple decades). A few CSAHs were notable enough for standalone articles on Wikipedia and there are almost certainly a few more that are notable enough for standalone articles that nobody's gotten around to writing yet. I'll also say that CSAHs make up almost 70% of county highway mileage in the entire state and I'm fairly certain no one will want to write RCS content on most of it. At the very least, we should have tables. TCN7JM 06:14, 31 August 2023 (EDT)
  • Per TCN7JM. --Rschen7754 14:23, 24 November 2023 (EST)
Minnesota county hwys
This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


These will be covered in tables. --Rschen7754 14:16, 2 January 2024 (EST)

No coverage. Perhaps a systems article, but better if the CR and CSAH systems could be explained in the same article. VC 21:06, 28 June 2023 (EDT)

The distinction between CSAH and CR is pretty nebulous in practice, with some counties using the same shield for both designations and others not. All routes are maintained by the county but CSAHs are given some variable amount of state funding to achieve this. It would seem silly to include one but not the other, and sure enough, as I've gone through and bluelinked Minnesota, I've noticed all the previously existing county highway lists include both CSAH and CR. That's about the most coverage I'm willing to say CRs deserve: one routelist row. TCN7JM 06:04, 31 August 2023 (EDT)

  • Per TCN7JM. --Rschen7754 14:23, 24 November 2023 (EST)


Newfoundland - local roads (hyphenated)

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


These will be in tables. --Rschen7754 14:19, 2 January 2024 (EST)

  • Table at least, if that. There's tons of them [7] --Rschen7754 01:51, 20 June 2023 (EDT)

New York county routes

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


There is a time-sensitive nature to this discussion so it is being closed a bit early. The votes come down as 2 being open to RCS and 2 limiting to tables, with 1 (almost) no coverage. My vote also did mention not wanting to get rid of the RCS in Suffolk County. Given all this, listicles of New York county routes will be allowed, and further discussions (at deletion requests if need be) can be had on individual cases. --Rschen7754 14:07, 4 January 2024 (EST)

  • I think tables by-county are the best way to handle these routes. Dough4872 15:30, 22 June 2023 (EDT)
  • No coverage except for individual county routes that are notable, such as county routes that were formerly state routes like (signed) Onondaga County Route 57. VC 21:25, 23 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Table, with exceptions possible. What I don't want is something like this [8], a RCS on a bunch of <1 mile routes. --Rschen7754 21:31, 23 June 2023 (EDT)
  • All of the above, though individual articles that are currently active ought to be reviewed on a case-by-case basisBMACS1002 (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Tables or RCS/listicle are fine here, as far as I'm concerned, and I'm not in a hurry to get rid of standalone articles that already exist. Lists like the Nassau County one don't bother me; the whole purpose of this encyclopedia is to have more relaxed rules on road notability, so if someone wants to write a RCS on minor routes in a large urban county, I say go for it. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 16:44, 17 November 2023 (EST)
  • I don't think we should prescribe either tables or a listicle as a standard for these kinds of routes; if someone wants to do the research to flesh out a listicle more power to them. There certainly isn't much reason to delete or collapse a listicle if one already exists. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:15, 17 November 2023 (EST)

Nova Scotia collectors (2xx, 3xx)

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


These will remain standalone articles. --Rschen7754 14:20, 2 January 2024 (EST)

  • Standalone. Almost all are >10 miles, longest is 82 miles. Also sets a concerning precedent since if we merged them all away there would only be 25-35 articles left. --Rschen7754 01:02, 5 December 2023 (EST)

Pennsylvania quadrant routes

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


These will be in tables for 1000-4000, and 6000s.The 8000s and 9000s will be omitted. --Rschen7754 14:22, 2 January 2024 (EST)

The assumption is that all the 6000+ are not notable at all.

  • I think we can do tables by-county for the routes that are in the 1000-4000 number range, maybe could also include the 6000s since they are often former alignments of state and US routes. However, we can do without the 8000s and 9000s since they are basically ramps etc. Dough4872 08:46, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Per Dough. --Rschen7754 23:47, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
  • No coverage except for notable ones like SR 1002 (Lehigh County), Airport Connector, and President Biden Expressway. VC 22:07, 21 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Per Dough; this seems like a topic where if someone wants to put in the work to cover it, they can go for it. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 14:27, 1 January 2024 (EST)


Puerto Rico

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


Leaving as status quo, with 4 digit routes redirecting to 3 digit parents. --Rschen7754 14:26, 2 January 2024 (EST)

Secondary routes
Tertiary routes

Note that routes can be both secondary and tertiary

PR 1 is all four types of routes. –Fredddie 21:56, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
  • I would suggest leaving at the status quo for now. Going back to my notes, it seems that all 4 digit routes currently redirect to the 3 digit parents (and the number of digits does not necessarily line up with the class). We can revisit at a later point. --Rschen7754 20:37, 8 December 2023 (EST)

Saskatchewan

Secondary 200-399
This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


These will remain standalone. --Rschen7754 14:35, 2 January 2024 (EST)

Municipal routes 600-799
This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


These will remain RCS. --Rschen7754 14:35, 2 January 2024 (EST)

  • These aren't state highways and Masterhatch just went and merged them all away so I'm leaning towards keeping RCS. --Rschen7754 01:52, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
Northern secondary 9xx
This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


These will remain standalone. --Rschen7754 14:36, 2 January 2024 (EST)

  • Keep as standalone for now, dozens of miles in length. Many are unpaved, but this is northern Canada. --Rschen7754 15:42, 2 December 2023 (EST)

Tennessee secondary

Routes can be both primary and secondary

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


Secondary routes will remain standalone articles. --Rschen7754 14:32, 2 January 2024 (EST)

  • All routes with at least one nonconcurrent primary section should have standalone articles. Routes that are entirely secondary should be RCS. Unsigned routes that run entirely with a U.S. Highway redirect to that U.S. Highway. VC 22:15, 21 June 2023 (EDT)
  • It looks like most of the secondary-only Tennessee routes have standalone articles, and I think they should stay that way. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 00:47, 25 October 2023 (EDT)
  • Some of these secondary routes are 50+ miles. I don't think any mass merging should take place. --Rschen7754 23:26, 20 November 2023 (EST)

USVI 3dis

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


These will remain listicles combined with parent routes. --Rschen7754 14:33, 2 January 2024 (EST)

  • Most were merged away already to the parent routes. Leave as is in most cases since they were generally 1 mile or less. --Rschen7754 01:40, 8 December 2023 (EST)

Virginia secondary

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


These will be in tables, with reasonable limits in scenarios like Fairfax. --Rschen7754 14:32, 2 January 2024 (EST)

Capstone article. Otherwise, no coverage, unless one is notable. VC 22:17, 21 June 2023 (EDT)

  • I think we can do tables by-county for these routes but limit which routes are included based on a number range or functional classification, since some counties have a large number of routes that consist of every residential street. Dough4872 15:30, 22 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Because we are a road wiki now, table. Open to discussion on parameters. --Rschen7754 20:27, 28 June 2023 (EDT)
    • Would support including every route in a table, since this is a road wiki. --Rschen7754 19:47, 19 November 2023 (EST)
      • I don’t know if this would work for some counties like Fairfax County where there are thousands of secondary state routes since every residential street is considered a route. As I mentioned above we may need to draw a line somewhere. Dough4872 20:16, 19 November 2023 (EST)
        • Yeah, in that case I wouldn't support including every route. --Rschen7754 20:46, 19 November 2023 (EST)
  • Tables like the ones we have for the 600-700 routes seem fine to me; tables by county are also fine, provided we have some sort of limit on counties like Fairfax that make everything a county route. (Both formats run into some inevitable problems; county tables split up the routes that keep the same number across several counties, while tables by number break down for higher numbers.) Either way, tables are the way to go. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 23:37, 19 November 2023 (EST)

West Virginia county routes

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


The raw count is 4-2 for creating tables. There are 3 votes for only including whole numbers and 1 that did not specify. Thus, whole-number county routes can be included in tables. --Rschen7754 00:22, 3 January 2024 (EST)

Capstone article. Otherwise, no coverage, unless one is notable. VC 22:16, 21 June 2023 (EDT)

  • I'm open to tables of the whole-number county routes, but not fractional routes or anything else, since West Virginia makes almost everything some sort of numbered route. Even the whole-number routes are a pretty low priority though. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 23:39, 19 November 2023 (EST)
  • I think we can do tables by-county for selected routes, but we need to make a cutoff somewhere since there are so many routes. I think limiting it to whole-number routes like TheCatalyst31 suggested is a good idea. Dough4872 23:33, 20 November 2023 (EST)
  • Per TC31. --Rschen7754 00:09, 21 November 2023 (EST)
  • I think VC originally had the right idea. The WV county road system itself is complex, but after pulling up a county map, I don't think I could support including any routes. –Fredddie 00:55, 21 November 2023 (EST)
  • Capstone article is fine, but if someone actually wants to put the effort into making tables I don't think we should tell them they can't. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 15:44, 8 December 2023 (EST)

Locked out of my account

Hey all, I used to be a regular USRD editor, but I sort of drifted away long before Wikipedia coordinated an assault on the project. I created an account on AARoads Wiki (Username: Needforspeed888), but my computer did not save my randomly generated password, and since I forget to add my email address, there appeared to be no way I could reset my password. Is there a way I could regain access to my account? Thanks Needforspeed888 (temporary account) (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2023 (EST)

There is, but you would need to communicate with us by email (or Discord) somehow. Or, we could rename the old account and then rename your new account, but we would need to install the right extension. --Rschen7754 14:14, 5 December 2023 (EST)
If you could link my email address to my regular account, that would be great. Needforspeed888 (temporary account) (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2024 (EST)
I am not sure that this will be possible. I would suggest that we rename your old account to something else and that you keep this account (which we would rename to Needforspeed888). Is that okay? --Rschen7754 14:29, 4 January 2024 (EST)
That works too. Needforspeed888 (temporary account) (talk) 11:15, 6 January 2024 (EST)
Okay, sounds good. I'm about to step away for several hours but I'll work on it today and drop an email when done. --Rschen7754 11:43, 6 January 2024 (EST)
I’m in business. Thank you so much! Needforspeed888 (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2024 (EST)


Florida 4 digit routes

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


Except for 9336, these will be in a table. --Rschen7754 02:35, 20 January 2024 (EST)

  • Do these refer to state highways or county highways? FL 9336 gets a standalone article, the others maybe not. VC 18:57, 28 June 2023 (EDT)
    • Except for 9336, all unsigned state highways. --Rschen7754 21:48, 28 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Table, except for 9336. I will note that 5054 does currently have an article [9]. --Rschen7754 21:48, 28 June 2023 (EDT)

Hawaii

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


These will primarily be in listicles. --Rschen7754 02:39, 20 January 2024 (EST)

Hawaii 3 digit routes
  • I don't know what percentage of 3-digit highways are notable, so I don't know whether table, RCS, or standalone articles is the way to go. We could feasibly do, for example, a List of state highways on Oahu where we have coverage of all highways. Within those island-based articles, we could do RCS (with hatnotes to standalone articles for every entry) for the 2-digit highways, RCS (with limited hatnotes) for 3-digit highways, and tables for 4-digit highways. VC 19:03, 28 June 2023 (EDT)
    • Our article says Three-digit routes are typically secondary arterials or collectors, while four-digit routes are typically collectors and minor roads. Because HI is similar to WA in 4ds/3ds being related to 2ds, most of these were merged away to parent articles on enwiki. --Rschen7754 21:50, 28 June 2023 (EDT)
  • RCS (without prejudice to more notable roads), about half of the 3 digits are county and most are short. --Rschen7754 22:02, 1 December 2023 (EST)
Hawaii 4 digit routes
This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


4 digit routes will be in tables. --Rschen7754 23:24, 12 December 2023 (EST)

  • Table unless they are notable. VC 19:00, 28 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Table, [10] (admittedly not a comprehensive list) seems to indicate that 90%+ are actually county routes. --Rschen7754 21:59, 1 December 2023 (EST)

PEI secondary routes (3dpei)

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!

The result of the discussion was that three-digit routes shall be in listicle (RCS) format. –Fredddie

  • Table. VC 21:28, 28 June 2023 (EDT)
  • I wanted to wait for someone else to comment to not prejudice the discussion, but looking around Google Maps it seems that every other road is a secondary route or higher. I'm inclined to RCS or table. --Rschen7754 21:35, 28 June 2023 (EDT)

Closing: There has been zero movement outside of Rschen's comments, which I'm going to understand as a tacit approval. –Fredddie 02:29, 14 January 2024 (EST)


British Columbia pseudo routes and unofficial highways

This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


Counting SounderBruce's vote as neutral, the unofficial highways will go to RCS, the pseudo routes will be table. --Rschen7754 19:09, 3 February 2024 (EST)

  • The unofficial highways can go to RCS, the pseudo routes are too minor and should be table. --Rschen7754 01:50, 20 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Don't think we need to scrape the bottom of the barrel with these. Neutral on whether to include them in route tables at all. SounderBruce 02:02, 20 June 2023 (EDT)

New Mexico

New Mexico frontage roads
This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


At 2 votes for nothing and 1 vote for "something", there will not be coverage beyond a system article. --Rschen7754 19:11, 3 February 2024 (EST)

  • [11] is the current article. RCS, maybe even lower. --Rschen7754 21:54, 28 June 2023 (EDT)
    • Seeing the entire list [12], nothing. --Rschen7754 00:23, 29 June 2023 (EDT)
  • Limit the scope of the current article to the system in general, and maybe keep the signed routes in as a listicle. Nothing on the unsigned routes. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 23:52, 19 November 2023 (EST)
    • What isn't clear to me is whether all entries in the current article are signed. --Rschen7754 14:26, 28 November 2023 (EST)
  • The idea of a frontage road system is more interesting to me than the actual routes, so I wouldn't even have a routelist table. –Fredddie 17:08, 2 January 2024 (EST)
New Mexico FL routes
This discussion has been closed and is preserved as an archive of the decision of the community. Please do not modify it!


System article only. --Rschen7754 23:27, 12 December 2023 (EST)

  • Nothing - [13] is beyond our scope. --Rschen7754 00:23, 29 June 2023 (EDT)
  • I'd be fine with a system article if a New Mexico expert knows more about these, but nothing else. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 23:55, 19 November 2023 (EST)

Categorisation of lists

Category:Lists of roads in the United States currently has 27 states covered by 'Lists of roads in' subcategories and a few national 'Lists of <type of roads>' subcategories. Some states just have a single page that is in the category, but about twenty states and couple of types of roads are not present here.

Especially because it is a major way of navigating through the wiki (and we'd like it to be - cf AARoads:Deletion requests#Canadian navboxes), we ought to be consistent and thorough in how things are categorised. I started work on that, only to have some of my work reverted. My question is simply "Is this how we want to categorise lists? and if not, what?" so I don't waste my time trying to improve categorisation consistency and coverage only for it to be reverted. Si404 (talk) 04:56, 16 October 2023 (EDT)

I don't fully understand your concern. It would help if you listed some specifics, or explained the vision you have for what a fully fleshed out category tree would look like. What I would say in general is Wikipedia had a lot of navigation boxes and the like that in my opinion were redundant to, or better handled by, categories. It almost seemed like some editors created navboxes because they didn't know categories existed. I in general support the idea of more categories, less navboxes. Specific to what I've seen from the articles on my watch list you've edited is creating categories for things like lists of scenic byways. I also support this. However, I do see a some potential problems. One specifically is the states aren't consistent in how they handle scenic byways. Some states have separate systems for scenic highways, verses historical highways or other highways that are worthy of an elevated status for other reasons. Other states just lump all of those "highways we think are cooler than most" into a single "gold star on the forehead" list regardless of the reason this highway is "cooler than most". Then there's California which has the bizarre distinction of two lists, a larger list of highways that are "eligible to be a scenic highway" and "highways declared to be a scenic highway". I'm sure there's a reason for this, but I've never seen an explanation sufficient to make me stop scratching my head as to why someone would say, "this highway is pretty, it's definitely eligible to be a scenic highway, but let's not officially call it one." Utah also has a quirk, but it has not affected Wikipedia (but may someday affect us). Utah has an official list of scenic byways, and an official list of scenic backways. The difference being a backway is not necessarily a state maintained road. Most are dirt or gravel roads, and therefore are almost never sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article. However, maybe just being on that list is enough to justify an article now that we make the rules. ;) Point being, we may want a discussion of how to handle this. If consistency is king, we may have to invent a new term instead of "scenic byways", to handle the states that use the same system to distinguish highways for multiple reasons, like "state featured routes" or something. Alternatively we could accept that consistency is impossible if we use the state criteria and just use the terms as used by the states. That would likely mean having multiple sets of categories for similar reasons. Dave (talk) 11:11, 16 October 2023 (EDT)
Hi Dave - I guess lists ought to be (and to a large extent are already - I'm not reinventing the wheel here, just seeking to apply what is already there across more articles) sorted by type (ie Interstate, US, State, 'Scenic', etc) and by state. Most lists are in the format <type> in <state> (though maybe not named that) and so they'd go in two categories - [[Category:Lists of <type>]] and [[Category:Lists of roads in <state>]]. However, I wouldn't be opposed to [[:Category:<type>]] and [[:Category:<state>]] if stuff could be easily found rather than those being massive categories with hundreds of pages.
I agree that 'Scenic Byways' is perhaps not inclusive of everything listed on the lists. However the Template:Scenic Byways, it's header "Scenic highway systems in the United States" (which matches the category that some of these pages are in Category:Scenic highways in the United States), the page clicking that links to "Scenic byways in the United States", and that every state page's name uses the name 'scenic' or 'byway', with most using both meant that it was the obvious choice. I'm rather surprised it was a controversial choice - not least as it was imported from that hive of pedants called Wikipedia! However, the term 'Scenic Byways' is not anything I'm particularly bothered with (and I'm completely and utterly unconcerned by different states having different criteria - they do for every type of road) - it's whether we are happy with the most common categorisation of lists, or whether I am wasting my time trying to improve the wiki by rolling that categorisation out, because we want to go with something else. Si404 (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2023 (EDT)
Is there a state that is categorized "correctly"? Maybe I can see it better. Sometimes you need a picture. –Fredddie 15:03, 16 October 2023 (EDT)
Most of them are mostly categorized "correctly". I don't think any states are fully categorised "correctly" - because there is no "correctly" - that's the purpose of this discussion!
I'll give a worked example using something that is categorised well (but perhaps not "correctly" when we actually work out what that means): List of Interstate Highways in Connecticut is in Category:Lists of Interstate Highways and Category:Connecticut - it's sorted by both type and state, as all such lists should be (but many aren't). Should it be directly in Category:Interstate Highway System instead, or should there be a Category:Lists of Highways in Connecticut subcategory within the state category, or is a subcategory for the type and straight in for the state the way to go? Personally, I'm leaning towards the latter of those three options (see below for reasoning). Si404 (talk) 07:41, 21 October 2023 (EDT)
I don't see a need for a subcategory just for lists on a topic; they can just be in the parent category on the topic. We run the risk of making the category structure too complicated. Imzadi 1979  01:28, 21 October 2023 (EDT)
Hi, Imzadi1979 - glad you've responded
I agree that we shouldn't make the category structure too complex, however the biggest complicating factor at the moment is that lists (and generally, other stuff, but I started with the lists) are inconsistently categorised, making them hard to find, not that lists are in separate sub-categories rather than in the parent.
I would agree with you that the parent category is the better place for such lists, except that overly-large categories make navigation too complicated as you have to filter out a lot of stuff you don't want to find the stuff you do. Hence why Category:Interstate Highway System contains several container categories like Category:Interstate Highways by state containing subcategories (and I notice, rolling my eyes, that DC and PR's similar categories aren't in - no doubt due to petty pedanticism about 'state' that needlessly overcomplicates things) to tidy up the main category by boxing up 50 items in something clearly labelled. Having 52 pages that list Interstates by state in this top category would make the category rather cumbersome. Putting stuff in subcategories that are clearly labelled is not necessarily making things more complicated, but rather making things simpler. Especially for the end user.
On the other hand, states have far fewer lists than national categories would have and so the parent category Category:South Carolina (example given because it is one that is full of subcategories that ought to, if we're keeping them, ought to be in a container category to tidy things up). It also helps that the state categories don't have many pages in because the roads are subcategorised by type and don't clog up the parent category, so the lists sit fairly happily there (compare with Category:California, where they are in a subcategory that's currently somewhat lost due to the county categories not being tidied away into a container category and instead clogging things up).
I don't really care *how* the lists are categorised - there's good arguments both ways. I just want to make sure they *are* categorised to make using this wiki easier. Si404 (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2023 (EDT)
Could you sketch up a flowchart or tree diagram to show how the category tree should look? I don't see the problem with category California. California is big state, lots of roads. It will naturally be more chaotic than category Rhode Island regardless of what we do. Maybe if I saw that tree diagram I could visualize the problem better. However, one area where I do see a deficiency with our current category tree is there is no way for a user to browse from a scenic highway in California to a scenic highway in Michigan using categories. Currently the only way to do that is via this navbox at the bottom of the state system pages. However, I see an easy fix. We just create a new category called something like "scenic or historic highway systems in the United states" and tag pages like Utah Scenic Byways with that category. Is that what you had in mind? Dave (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2023 (EDT)
I won't make a flowchart or tree diagram, because that would over-complicate what is really something simple:
A 'list of <type of highway> in <state>' article (eg List of Interstate Highways in Connecticut needs to be in two categories to allow for navigation around the site:
  • one covering other lists of that type of highway (eg Interstate Highways).
  • one covering other lists of highways in that state (eg Connecticut).
These categories can be a subcategory eg Category:Lists of Interstate Highways, or directly in the parent category eg Category:Connecticut - and the question at hand is which one of these is the better placement for such pages. Si404 (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2023 (EDT)

That sounds reasonable, unless it created redundant categories. So just to be clear the categories you want to create are:

Anything else? (feel free to strike or add items to this list as appropriate, I don't mind)Dave (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2023 (EDT)

Basically that's it. Though it might be "state highways" if that's the more common term than 'state routes' - you aren't going to get anything but a generic that fits many perfectly and some not-quite-so-well but well enough if you aren't a Vogon (some states call them routes rather than highways; PR, etc aren't states - though the random page I went to calls the PR-578 a 'state highway' nonetheless - because that's the generic type and the technicality that PR isn't a state doesn't change that generic type). And it would be "scenic byways" (the phrase that survived wikipedia's pedant army) or words to that effect, with historic as a separate thing if required (and some pages in two type categories if necessary). I think US Highway lists are currently all in Category:U.S. Highways, so they perhaps are OK there - I've not yet checked. Category:Interstate Highways by state is a container category for [[Category:Interstate Highways in <state>]] Si404 (talk) 14:01, 24 October 2023 (EDT)
The problem with California (having this as a new paragraph as this is a related issue) is that subcategories are hard to find due to a flood of counties categories filling the category up. This would also be the case with every state with lots of county categories directly in the parent category, rather than in a container category keeping them tidy. I would also suggest that roads pages would need to continue to be kept tidy in subcategories (there's no roads directly in Category:California and that's pretty much the same nationwide) - precisely because there is a lot of them. Si404 (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2023 (EDT)

Naming convention addendum

How should we handle double disambiguators? On Special:DoubleRedirects there are a number of Kansas and Michigan pages listed that have names and years, currently using (year1–year2 state) as the disambiguator. Granted, these are redirects, but I believe there are a few articles out there. I don't necessarily have a preference, but I'd like to get something hashed out. –Fredddie 00:51, 15 December 2023 (EST)

I think we can title those as “Route (state, year1–year2)” for those double disambiguators. Dough4872 11:21, 6 January 2024 (EST)

Historic Byways

This is a call that we only have a few days to get the January Historic Byways completed. For that matter, we should just knock out the other months. Template:Main Page/Historic bywaysFredddie 20:22, 26 December 2023 (EST)