Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Okay, since there are quite a few different words that can be used in different circumstances with varying degrees of correctness. I've started a table below to help organize things. Discuss anything you add to the table below it so you don't have to sign in the table itself. I've started one row so those unfamiliar with wikitable syntax can see how to add new rows for new words. Mr.Z-man 18:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for usage or sources for definitions? The latter aren't readily found for any term. —Scott5114↗ 01:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we have sources for usage and the dictionary supports it, then we have a sourced definition. This seems to be a red herring; we don't need a source to say that "U.S. Route 66 was eliminated from the U.S. Highway system, becoming K-66 in Kansas" is a clear statement. --NE2 11:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is for usage in articles; we'll have to figure out what to do with the article (might it make sense to expand its scope to something like changes of highway designations?) --NE2 11:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That question was specifically directed at the mediator. —Scott5114↗ 15:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for usage (or a dictionary definition that would also apply). If we use terms that aren't used elsewhere, it is basically original research. Mr.Z-man 18:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the biggest area of confusion is that these words are typically referring to the designation and not the roadway itself. Some people think decommissioned means that afterwards it is no longer of use. Even the decommissioning of a Naval ship doesn't mean the ship no longer exists, there are many that are still in use, one such example is as a tourist attraction. The USS Alabama being one such example. --Holderca1 ^talk 17:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're still concentrating on a single term to use, when we don't need a single term. We don't even have a single term for a highway designation (unless that counts): route number doesn't cover lettered routes, and there are designations like the Great River Road. We don't need a single term to describe many rather different situations. --NE2 00:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that; we do need a term to use for infoboxes, disambiguation, and so forth. This discussion is starting to bear some fruit. —Scott5114↗ 00:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've already avoided the issue in infoboxes; see U.S. Route 66 for example. For disambiguation, we've been using years for a long time (U.S. Route 48 (1926) for example), and for categories "former state highways in [state]" works fine. It's only when we're writing about a specific case that we seem to have a dispute. --NE2 00:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an idea that seems to have been said by a lot of people so i have merely made it more clear. Every time it seems that the discussion gets side tracked and the objectivity gets lost. It is clear that using a single word is not the way forward at that more accurate words need to used for the given situation.

There are three main categories which roads seem to fall into if their status has been changed:

• Where a road is no longer in use - This would be the area where the word "decomissioned" seems to be in continuity with its dictionary definition. Or another well used word, "abandoned"

• A road that has been renumbered as with highway 666 - No reason why "renumbered" cant just be used here.

• A road which has had its status changed ie. From State Highway to county route or vice versa. - I see no reason why the term "redesignated" cannot be used. The result of the redesignation can then be stated.

• When a state highway becomes a generic town road - status was removed, designation was removed, or similar phrase

In the event people dont agree with this each category needs to be discussed in order until a consensus is reached. Don't move on to the next term until the current one has been agreed apon. Otherwise this discussion will never get anywhere and stay stuck in the mud as it has been.

I would also suggest, after consensus is reached, that these should be placed into a subpage of the Project and, if there is a good consensus, marked as a guideline for highway articles. Mr.Z-man 02:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either that or a special article styles subpage of WP:MOS, linked from the project page. There is already Wikipedia:Manual of Style (U.S. state highways). --Athol Mullen (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a worldwide issue. I'll suggest Wikipedia:Manual of Style (highways). --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it is a worldwide issue. My point in mentioning that there is already an MoS subpage specific to US state highways was that there shouldn't be a problem getting a similar subpage created to cover consensus wording emanating from this project. --Athol Mullen (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to have to disagree with this, I am still not sure why people are stuck on decommission meaning that the road is no longer in use, that isn't the dictionary definition. The situation where decommission is most commonly used is the decommissioning of ships of the Navy, and typically these are still used after being decommissioned, either as part of the reserve fleet or as a static tourist attraction. --Holderca1 ^talk 15:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we removed the fourth category, would this work for you? I think "decommissioned" is a valid interpretation of the dictionary meaning if it were applied to roads whose designation was completely removed, especially if the route number is no longer used elsewhere in the system. --Polaron | Talk 15:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I don't think it should be used for the first category, abandoned or closed would be a better term, since decommission doesn't mean to close anything, it would misleading to use it in that way. I do agree that the fourth category would be where decommission would be best used and is most consistent with the definition. --Holderca1 ^talk 15:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"decommission doesn't mean to close anything"? What dictionary do you use? --NE2 16:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to find a definition for decommission that means "to close"; it's always "withdraw from active service" or something along those lines. In the case of highways, decommissioned refers to the route number, not the highway itself, and almost all of these articles seem to be referring to the route number, not the highways themselves, as the route number changes. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 18:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should be writing about the highway; if we're writing about the route number we're not doing it right. --NE2 18:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of hard to write about the one without the other. A large portion of many state highway articles concerns the route designations. It makes sense to have a consistent style (or styles -- if there is significant documented local variation in usage). While I personally don't see why decommission has caused such an issue, I don't have a problem with using other terms -- so long as they are at least as clear as "decommissioned" and are not so awfully misguided as "deleted". older ≠ wiser 18:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, "decommissioned road", referring to a road that's now a trail. We even have a definition from a probably reliable source. --NE2 19:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't talking about a decommissioned road, we're talking about a decommissioned highway designation. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 19:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, we're talking about a decommissioned highway. --NE2 19:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While napping I had a chance to think, and the issue is that when you say "Route 66", you mean both the physical road and the designation: "Route 66 is paved with concrete", "Route 66 was eaten by Godzilla". (No, my dream did not involve Godzilla eating Route 66. :)) So when we say "Route 66 was decomissioned", that would also logically apply to the roadway. Now, you could say "the Route 66 designation was decommissioned" and most people would probably "get it", but it still might be confusing exactly what happened: was it renumbered, downgraded in "status", or downgraded in maintenance? Was State Route 69 (Utah) decommissioned in 1993, or was it simply renumbered? --NE2 23:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might have something there NE2, Thats would be a lot less confusing and as long as , in that same paragraph you explain exactly what happened to the designation, there would be little or no confusion or cause for concern.Seddon69 (talk) 10:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only problem is that you can't decommission a designation, it doesn't make any sense. When you say you decommission something, you are removing its status, not the object itself. A road's status is its designation. --Holderca1 ^talk 16:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No thats incorrect, when you decommission something it is possible to remove the object. See this link here. Thats the problem, it can be used in multiple ways about the same thing. IOts trying to decide how to make it clear wht the usage is. Seddon69 (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it wasn't possible, of course it is possible, when you decommission a ship, it is possible for to be sent off to be dismantled and sent to scrap. But to say decommission always results in the object itself being removed is wrong, which is what I was trying to say. Proper usage of the term would be, "Route 5 was decommissioned and abandoned", "Route 5 was decommissioned and demolished", "Route 5 was decommissioned and turned over to the city for maintenance", "Route 5 was decommissioned and became a county road." Actually, you can't really use just the word decommission to describe what happens to a road, maybe we don't need to use it at all. All of the above can be more concise without it. "Route 5 was abandoned", "Route 5 was demolished", "Route 5 was turned over to the city for maintenance", "Route 5 became a county road." Just like you can't use decommission alone when you refer to ships, you can't do it with highways either. So perhaps as a compromise, lets just do away with using it all together. Just saying "Route 5 was decommissioned doesn't really tell you anything. I still stand by that the word isn't a neologism, it is applying the dictionary definition to a highway, but being concise trumps everything anyway. No need to add extra fluff to the articles. I think in my efforts to back up that it wasn't a neologism blinded me to that fact. --Holderca1 ^talk 18:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence do people require for:

• the use of the word "decommission" specifically for the removal of the road itself?
• the use of the word "decommission" merely for the removal of its status as a state/US/County highway etc?

In my opinion i would say that for the latter one, use of the term needs to be found before 1984. This would disprove that it is a neogolism created due to route 66 being "decommissioned." Seddon69 (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To use it, we need a clear definition in a reliable source. --NE2 19:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the road was completely removed, not just renumbered, closed, had its status changed, might simply removed or the more descriptive demolished (or a synonym like razed) be more appropriate? The American Heritage Dictionary defines "decommission" as "To withdraw (a ship, for example) from active service." Speaking as someone who is unfamiliar with the inner workings of the highway system like this, the best way to go, when in doubt, would be to use the most descriptive phrasing possible. That is, if there could be any confusion about what the term means, use a more descriptive term. If "decommissioned" might be too vague for a status/number change, just use a more descriptive, wordier term. Its much better to avoid confusion than save a little space. Mr.Z-man 20:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The definition as it applies to highways is the exact same as it applies to ships. Take a look at the template at the bottom of ship decommissioning. Just as a ship can be practically used following decommissioning, so can a highway. I think people just misunderstand the term decommission in general, not just as it pertains to highways. For those that think that decommissioning a highway means to abandon it, close it, demolish it, etc... What do you think it means to decommission a ship?? Sometimes it does mean to dismantle it and send the remnants off for recycling or scrap just as sometimes when you decommission a highway it it torn up. Just as a ship can be decommissioned and then be used as part of the reserve fleet, a state highway can be decommissioned and still be used as city street. --Holderca1 ^talk 21:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This might be an interesting article here. We arnt the only people that are having a problem with the term decommissioned. In regards to the National Forest Service, their official definition, taken from another source is as follows:

• Road Closure – an impediment to unauthorized travel would be placed or replaced at the entrance to a road. This may include a range of removable impediments for future use from a locked gate to berm placement.

• Road Decommissioning – removal of gravel surface, culvert removal, scarification of road surface, pulling back unstable fill slopes, berm placement (gates or debris, boulder or root wad piling), planting on disturbed soils and removing the road from the system.

I have also emailed the US Department for Transport asking for their official definition. I would suggest that this definition is the one used on wikipedia. Seddon69 (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Most definitely. There is no reason to use "decommissioned" when better wording/phrasing is available. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 00:04, 18 November 2007 (GMT)
• I could live with this. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• A sound idea on all levels. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 00:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It's good to see this in clear, well thought out writing. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 00:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I think that this is exactly what is needed. In effect, we're diambiguating "decommissioned" into distinctly different sub-categories. --Athol Mullen (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd like to make sure I understand this - the only time you're suggesting to use "decommissioned" is when the road was actually closed? I think that's essentially what I've been proposing almost from the start :) I'm not sure however that using "decommissioned" in that case is a good idea - it's correct but will be misleading for the roadgeeks that are familiar with its expanded use. If you read "Route 5 was decommissioned" you won't be sure whether it was closed or just changed in designation. I do suggest that if we make a guideline, we don't say "use these words" but "these words or their synonyms work" or even "these words don't work". Multiplex could be worked into it, and maybe we should come to a consensus on when to use freeway/expressway/etc. --NE2 03:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concerned about the last bit. The West Coast definition of a freeway and an expressway are different from the East Coast definition... --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually…that's only CA, and it's defined in state law. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 03:50, 18 November 2007 (GMT)
      • Eh... no. Expressway --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually a number of other states use it, including Oklahoma. This is something to discuss later though; I suspect the final wording will specify "at-grade expressway" or something similar, but let's put it off for now. --NE2 03:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also…didn't we rid "multiplex" a long time ago? 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 03:57, 18 November 2007 (GMT)
          • I assume NE2 means putting "don';t use multiplex" in the guideline. But let's just get teh decom'd in there and passed, then worry about the other stuff later. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes this is what you have said before NE2. In fact this is what lots of people have said before. I did this as someone who has knowledge of the dispute but is not involved in Highways or in USRD. That way i could not have a predetermined bias. In regards to the road geeks, the usage of the term decommissioned has such a wide meaning anyway that its confusing to the rest of the world. To many states use to many different words to describe things so i think that in this case terminology should be used that is accurate and understandable to the rest of the world. We will come to infoboxes and other things later (although i see no problem with the current method) and also other words than are a problem can be delt with at a later date like Rschen7754 suggested. Lets do it one step at a time.Seddon69 (talk) 08:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• clear as mud to me 8) master son^{T - C} 05:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsure. I have a question here. NE2's main problem with the term decommissioned is that it is a neologism. And when others give examples of usage, NE2 points to that nice long linked phrase, "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term.". But, what about everything else, such as deleted, et cetera? If this question can be answered, then I'll probably be able to completely determine my feelings. That having been said, I still think common sense should apply here. --Son (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally speaking, if the term being used is the same as its dictionary definition (even if the definition doesn't specifically say highways), it isn't a neologism and doesn't need sourced. So terms such as abandoned or demolished wouldn't need a sourced defintion when used. But terms such as deleted or cancelled are used in ways that are inconsistent with their dictionary definition and would need to be sourced if used. --Holderca1 ^talk 21:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, after putting too much thought into this, my thoughts differ enough from those above that I am adding a section. Too many are confusing decommission with closing permanantly or destroying when that is not what it means. It is certainly possible for that to happen as a result of the decommissioning, but that is what happens after it was decommissioned. I like to use the older form of decommissioning, decommissioning of ships. Nuclear reactor decommissioning has muddied the waters a bit and is much more recent use of the term. When a ship of the Navy is decommissioned, it is effectively retired from active service. This doesn't mean it is permanently closed. It could then become part of the reserve fleet, a static museum display, etc... The same is true of highways. So I propose that if the word decommission is used in reference to highways, it has to be accompanied by what happened, simply saying a route is decommissioned doesn't tell the whole story. But, to keep things concise, we don't really need to use it at all. See these examples:

• for highways that are no longer in use but the roadbed is still in place, use abondoned: "Route 5 was abandoned"
• for highways that were torn up, destroyed, demolished, use demolished: "Route 5 was demolished"
• for highways that are now city streets, use turned over (be sure to say who it was turned over to): "Route 5 was turned over to the town of Anytown"
• for highways that were renumbered, use renumbered: "Route 5 was renumbered as Route 25"
• for highways that were downgraded, i.e. US Route to a state highway, use redesignated or downgraded: "US Route 5 was redesignated as State Route 5" or "US Route 5 was downgraded to State Route 5"
• for highway that were realigned, use realigned but depending on what happened to the old segment, one of the above may need to be used as well: "Route 5 was realigned to the north and the old alignment became Business Route 5" or "Route 5 was realigned to the north and the old alignment was turned over to the city"

I think I hit on all the possibilities, but I think this should be a good compromise. --Holderca1 ^talk 18:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that basically we just need to ignore whether or not decommissioned is a neologism because its an argument that is never gonna get any closer to being decided. I agree with what you have said with the stating of precisely what happened to. For the time being i think the term decommission needs to be avoided as much as possible due to the confusing nature and to use the following examples above for each case of road until an official definition of the term from the department of transport can be obtained. This is to allow some sort of continuity in the articles and for them to be understandable in an everyday context.Seddon69 (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I think this is probably as good as it will get. Seddon69 (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 23:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, except that we shouldn't limit ourselves to any one term for each case; redesignated works for a renumbering, for instance. Basically describe what happened without confusing terminology. --NE2 01:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree completely. --Holderca1 ^talk 03:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can people clarify whether they still think [6] is a bad edit? --NE2 06:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • master son^{T - C} 13:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)it's perfectly legit - the highway still exists - and why are we including blank fields in the first place? master son^{T - C} 13:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• NE2 stole all of my words. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 03:30, 20 November 2007 (GMT)
• Full support. --Son (talk) 04:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• agreed master son^{T - C} 13:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This doesn't seem much different than Seddon's section above, but, anyway... Basically my thoughts are the same as NE2's in that we should have no limit to the terms that can be used if an alternate term can sufficiently describe what happened to the designation. Other than that, support. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rschen7754 (T C) 01:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this pretty much can be considered as a consensus. I think we can inform the Mediation Cabal that the issue has been dealt with and that we can now go on to create a MoS for highways and include a section on this subject. --Seddon69 (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll let this sit a day or 2 more to make sure there is no opposition, but this is a good conclusion. Mr.Z-man 23:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an overview i can say that pretty much this is what has been decided:

• The word 'decommissioned' or any other single term is not appropriate in many different uses as this is confusing.
• The word 'decommissioned' or any other single term can be replaced with multiple, more accurate and therefore less confusing terms. e.g. renumbered, redesignated
• That a Highways Manual of Style needs to be written to assist in editors in using easy to understand and correct terminology.

I think that has been a pretty quick and successful end to what has been a very long discussion Seddon69 (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like a little more confirmation that edits like [7] are fine; I don't want to start making changes and then get right back where we started. --NE2 13:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That particular one was edited correctly. I would have to see some others (which i don't have time to at the moment) master son^{T - C} 16:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference this guideline should probably be recorded somewhere that can be easily referenced. Mr.Z-man —Preceding comment was added at 00:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its something that is gonna be worked on in time. Along getting more involvement from UKRD Seddon69 (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:North-South Expressway Interchanges contains a lot of badly written articles that seem to me to be about interchanges. I'd appreciate if somebody else could look at them and see if they agree. --NE2 09:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the next step is to decide whether to create a manual of style of Highways or not. If we do it needs to have cooperation from the three main roads projects, US Roads, UK Roads and Canada Roads. Do you think it needs to happen? Seddon69 19:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would put the decommissioned stuff in there and mark it as a guideline. Then I would go back and possibly add the rest of the stuff, as this discussion could take a long time. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If this MOS entry were to be expanded besides the neologisms, then it'd have to be lightweight and flexible for all highways articles. But back to the original focus of this, it could be fairly easy to get a word usage MOS posted. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 20:25, 01 December 2007 (GMT)

I think that it would be good to get a MoS for roads and highways in general, starting with what's already been hammered out. Over time, we can expand it as needed. The talk page for that MoS would obviously become the focal point for such discussion. --Athol Mullen 02:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this already seems to exist in narrow form as WP:ELG; it would just need to be expanded to be less exit-specific. That said, I have to note that "cooperation with MOS" is conspicuously absent from this discussion's "it needs to have cooperation from..." list, and that conflict in this regard has already been taking place (as Rschen7754 can well attest). It is good that a notice about this discussion was at least posted to WT:MOS. MOS regulars are increasingly concerned about the fragmentation of the MOS all over the place, and the "this is part of the MOS" claims that topical projects are making for their article-writing and nomenclature quasi-guidelines that no one outside of the project that created them has ever even noticed existed, much less reviewed in depth for consistency with the site-wide style guidelines. So, let's try not going that route. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decommissioned doesn't apply to exit lists. The exit list guide is only intended for the formatting exit lists, which has to be unified and precise to avoid misinterpretation. Think of it like a map legend. That said, perhaps we could see about making a Wikipedia:Manual of Style (highways) page, which would include links to WP:USSH and WP:ELG as subtopics. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is apparent that you are not aware of the gravity of this issue, the conflict that it took to achieve this resolution, or of the necessity to include this in a highway-specific MOS guideline separate from ELG, for exit lists do not relate to "decommissioned." --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. IMO, Whether or not this specifically go by the name of part of the WT:MOS, something needs to exist. There are many things that are in and have been in contention, and when a consensus is reached it needs to be recorded in one place not strewn about everywhere. There are thousands of articles that exist under Highways and many mroe that have yet to be written. There needs to be basic guidelines about what should and should not be put in an article. If it isnt wanted in the complete MOS then so be it but this needs to exist in some form for the sake of this project and the many projects and articles associated with it. Seddon69 (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have any complaints about me doing a draft copy of a decommissioned guideline for now? Seddon69 (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No complaints here; we need something to get the ball rolling. That's how WP:ELG was started. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 02:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know about that one. Definitely a candidate for merging into an overall highway MoS. --Athol Mullen (talk) 09:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the comments above. In my view, the essence of the highway MOS needs to be developed before any merge is considered. That said, I don't think it's a good idea to merge, especially since ELG is an established page. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 14:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, while I was waiting in line at the bookstore, I saw a thesaurus and got to thinking. Perhaps we could make a highways thesaurus/usage guide that provides alternatives for many terms. I know by the time I get to the end of a route description I've gotten tired of using "intersected", "crosses", and "meets", so it'd be useful for sparking up prose, and we could include the whole "DO NOT ENTER USE DECOMMISSIONED" thing in with it, listing the alternatives below. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has come up of a possibility of a task force for both Canada Roads and here for the territories. This task force would include:

1. Guam
2. American Samoa
3. Puerto Rico
4. U.S. Virgin Islands
5. Johnston Atoll (1 road surprisingly)
6. Wake Island
7. Northern Mariana Islands (225 miles of road)
8. Nunavut
9. Northwest Territories
10. Yukon Territory
11. Midway Atoll (20 miles of road)

In short, this would be the first interproject task force, and would cover twice the area than induvidual ones. Tell me what you think.^Mitch32^contribs 21:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iono, the nature of the Canadian Territories is pretty different than the US Territories. (Arctic compared to tropic, almost no roads compared to lots of roads, etc.,). I'm not sure how this would work, really. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 22:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The basics is that we merge territories from both countries into this new idea. ^Mitch32^contribs 23:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The general purpose I see behind this is that the territories spoken of here have amount of roads (though I would exclude Puerto Rico from it since it has more roads than maybe 3 or 4 of the others combined) so regardless of location, its about combining small scopes into one. — master son^{T - C} 23:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same could be said for the U.S. Virgin Islands - in 3 islands there's at least 50 roads.^Mitch32^contribs 23:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say exclude Puerto Rico. It has unsigned US Interstate Highways. --Son (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that additional projects like this aren't really needed unless there are multiple editors actively editing the articles that such a project would cover. An additional layer of bureaucracy isn't really necessary if only 1 or 2 people are working on these articles. --Polaron | Talk 02:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at some of the GAN nominations that are to do with roads i noticed that when you have say NY 35 that most do not have non-breaking spaces if they are not wikilinked. I feel that its something that needs to be looked at. This is from a recommendation of MOSNUM:

I realise that this is a recommendation but its something that is now being picked up a lot more on in GAN and definitely at FAC.Seddon69 (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My personal feeling is that it's a valid recommendation for the upper-tier articles but it's too minor a detail to fix in the lower-tier ones that really need expansion more than anything else. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 16:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: IMO, the issue can be handled if/when an article is sent to a process (GA/A/FA) that looks for MOS compliance. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 16:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, I would see any occurrence of these being corrected - ideally. In reality, for things like these, concentration on B class articles for this is what we would need to do. Also GAs and As should be reviewed often, and any FA that has these problems (well, they would have to be reviewed to prevent delisting - should that be the only problem ;) ) Stubs and starts have more pressing issues, such as completeness.  — master son^{T - C} 17:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Apparently Commons has WikiProjects. I've been thinking back to the superseded shield situation on Commons, and concluded that it would be better for Wikimedia as a whole to have a centralised place to discuss and set standards for highway images, particularly shields and maps. While on the subject of maps, the map for I-5 is used on 10 wikis, including the Deutsch Wikipedia. The current maps have no standard, and by consultation with the community over there, there can be a true consensus on how maps on Wikimedia should look. Because of this, I propose that a Highways WikiProject be created over at Commons to coordinate discussion efforts on shields and maps at the very least. However, as this proposal has the ability to drive users here crazy, I would like to hear a myriad of opinions (from all road WikiProjects; not just US) to see if this is feasible. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 03:52, 05 March 2008 (GMT)

We do have standards for maps. --Holderca1 ^talk 04:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]