Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Washington/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

State law in the article

Since virtually none of the articles have it (including SR 525, which was used as an example), I've removed the "State law" section from the structure of the article. It seems wholly superfluous given the link in the infobox. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 23:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I would agree and I removed a similar link from the SR-203 article when I formated it with the Infobox. TSayles 04:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Civil dispute resolution

The purpose of this section is to do what the recent Arbcom case did not. The Arbcom told us to be civil, not to move war, to assume good faith, and to seek consenus. But the key word there is that it told us to seek consensus; it could not (and promised it would not) rule on what that consensus is or should be.

Thus, we are back where we started, although hopefully a little wiser. I propose that we re-start discussions from the very beginning. We all know where each other stands on this issue, but I would like everyone involved to restate what they think, and more importantly why they think it. This is both for our own benefit, and for the benefit of any new editors that wish to express their opinion on either the naming convention or the infobox.

Remember, this discussion is an effort to seek consensus, and neither side has consensus as of now for either issue. -- NORTH ^talk 23:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Naming convention

On the issue of the naming convention, I will act solely as a mediator. There are valid reasons for each of the two proposed naming convention, but it is in the best interest of the encyclopedia to reach a consensus on a single naming convention. -- NORTH ^talk 23:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

The Washington State Highways WikiProject has always used {{routeboxwa}}. SPUI proposed switching to the shorter {{infobox WA State Route}} in March, but the discussion yielded very little actual discussion, and a decision was made to table the discussion until after the mediation.

While I disagree with SPUI's hard and fast rule that an infobox must be less than a screen long, I do feel that many of the infoboxes on our pages are too long. The only information that seems to be lost in SPUI's condensed version (seen here and here) is the mileposts at the junctions, and even those are included on the second page. {{infobox WA State Route}} also seems to be more consistent with those used on Interstate and U.S. highways, as well as many other state route WikiProjects.

My preference would be to use something similar to SPUI's examples here, with the following two changes:

• Change the top part (with the RCW section and "Number based on") to match the current infobox.
• Take the map out of the infobox, and use it as a stand-alone image in the "Route description" section of the article. (Interstate 95 sort of does this.)

-- NORTH ^talk 23:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept North's changes with the understanding that the full route to route junction list will be retained as it was in the WA State Route infobox. Loss of the mileposts aren't a big concern of mine if they're included in an exist list later in the page, however I would like to see the full junction list retained since there really aren't many routes that the box would be overly long with it. And on the few that might be it's not against any policy or guideline and is much more informative. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 16:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's informative, but how informative does it need to be? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. While I disagree with a hard and fast one-screen rule, there's no excuse for the infobox to be longer than the article. (See State Route 20.) I'd prefer to cap it around 10 junctions. -- NORTH ^talk 23:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the way the New York State Routes Wikiproject is doing it is a good compromise. List major (whatever that means) junctions in the infobox and make a table of all junctions with state highways with mileposts in a separate section of the article. --Polaron | Talk 23:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I could go for that. (It doesn't seem that NY is being very consistent in implementing that standard though.) -- NORTH ^talk 23:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It was only recently adopted (like a week ago) so many articles have not been "upgraded" yet. --Polaron | Talk 23:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Understood.

Here's an example of SPUI's SR 500 infobox with the changes I proposed. (I'm not quite up on template coding, so I did it by subst'ing and editing SPUI's. I'll try my hand at making a template later.) -- NORTH ^talk 23:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

How's this? --SPUI (T - C) 01:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

My main thing when I said to "Change the top part (with the RCW section and "Number based on") to match the current infobox," is that I think the link to the RCW section should be on a separate line from the route name. (I don't care much whether it says "RCW blah.blah.blah" or "legal definition".)

I also prefer "child of" to "number based on", but I don't care much about that. -- NORTH ^talk 20:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the need to put the link on a separate line. The "child" wording seems rather informal - is it used by anyone official? --SPUI (T - C) 21:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't care much about child vs. number based on. (No, "child" isn't used by anyone official, but I can't find any source on WSDOT that groups the 5XX routes together using any sort of wording.)

The need of putting the RCW link on a separate line is to have the header of the infobox on its own line. If it fits on the same line as "Number based on", I'd be more in favor of that. -- NORTH ^talk 21:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I see the new infoboxes on User:SPUI/onthecaca with the header on it's own line, and I'm fully in favor of using the updated {{infobox WA State Route}}. Is anyone objecting? -- NORTH ^talk 23:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes! I can edit again! Well go ahead as long as there is no loss of info. That would be, either create the milepost box first before you switch over or copy and subst the routeboxwa to the talk page. Also I just made up "child" since that was the easiest way to put it. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 16:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we can definitely save the mileage table on the talk page if you want.

It's looking like consensus for the change to me... -- NORTH ^talk 16:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

As long as milage is saved and 10 or so (this should be slightly flexible since we don't yet have a def for "major") major junctions are in the infobox I can accept this change. Also do we really need the "child or decendent from" in the box? JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 17:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

10 is typically too many - we want a combination of major cities and major junctions, not every junction that happens to be with another state route. --SPUI (T - C) 17:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No one said anything about every junction with a state route. We're talking major junctions only here. I would propose major be any Interstate/US Route junctions along with any highly used state route junctions. I'm sure we can find usage stats somewhere. As for major cities, we don't need a seperate list in my opinion but just have the city the junctions are in be noted. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying we should pick junctions so they give a list of the major cities. So for I-5 we don't use 10 junctions in Seattle, even if those are the most "major" ones. --SPUI (T - C) 18:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and call this as consensus in favor of using the shorter infobox. I have implemented it on State Route 539 (Washington) as a test run, and the milepost chart from the old infobox on SR 539 is located on the talk page. -- NORTH ^talk 02:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, the compromise was that a junction list be placed on the article? Where is that in the WikiProject standards? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 16:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

My edits were only the first step in the changeover. The reason I haven't included anything about the junction list is we haven't decided on any formatting or whatnot. Should it resemble what was originally in the infobox, or something closer to a full-out exit list? Where should we put it: as a subsection of route description? its own section after route description? somewhere else? -- NORTH ^talk 20:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say more like an exit list. Also should this idea be taken to California? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

== Good night and good luck ==

It's nice to see that nothing's changed, and no one bothered to try to restart discussion on the naming convention. Since nothing has changed, I have chosen to leave Wikipedia. Have fun debating these issues amongst yourselves. -- NORTH ^talk 16:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

List of Washington State Routes organization and browsing order

First off, I encourage everyone to join the current discussion on Talk:List of Washington State Routes. User:Seicer would like to reorganize the list so that they are listed in numerical order, rather than 100-119 under US 101, 500-599 under I-5, etc. Input from editors other than Seicer and myself would be much appreciated.

Secondly, I'd like to propose that -- if we keep the list organized as it currently is -- we change the browsing order to reflect that. Since the routes are not numbered sequentially, it doesn't make much sense to browse them sequentially. Alternatively, if the numbering system isn't important enough to affect the browsing order, then it probably shouldn't be important enough to affect the list order.

If we do change the browsing order, the best way to do it (IMHO) would be to actually not have a browsing order at all in the infoboxes, and instead replace them with templates similar to {{Interstates}} and {{3di}} seen on the interstate highway pages.

Thoughts? -- NORTH ^talk 20:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Either way is fine with me. I wouldn't use templates such as {{Interstates}} though... those are big templates that applied to state highways will probably get deleted (example- VA, OR, RI). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

If we didn't use templates, how would we accomplish a browsing order that matched the numbering system? -- NORTH ^talk 20:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

After looking at the TFD debates, the consensus seemed to be that they should be deleted because they would be better served by a succession box, or something else more compact. If we were to change the "browsing order" away from sequentially, then Washington would not be better served by a succession box. -- NORTH ^talk 20:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Big templates are frowned upon in Wikipedia. If I recall correctly, that's why the templates were deleted. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

That's for the most part untrue. As I said, I just read through the old TFD debates. If they were implemented in a fashion similar to the Interstate templates (which have never been up for TFD), we should be fine. -- NORTH ^talk 20:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Well there should be one template with all the primaries and one for each primary. And they should probably not go on Interstate or U.S. Route articles. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, although they should go on articles like Interstate 5 in Washington, should we choose to create them. -- NORTH ^talk 21:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

How about a sequential browsing order for the parent routes only? Then you could make a template for each parent route that lists all its child routes. This template could then go on the parent and all its child routes. --Polaron | Talk 21:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

At Talk:List of Washington State Routes I made two sample templates for I-5 and US 101. I'm still trying to make them look better, NORTH has been helping fix it. Sonic3KMaster(鉄也)^(talk) 20:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

However, we still need to decide whether we're going to change the browsing order to match the numbering system -- or the List to match the browsing order. -- NORTH ^talk 21:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Decision making time

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was browse/list by parent route. -- NORTH ^talk 21:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

All right, so we've had time to debate the options. We've got examples of the templates up for your viewing pleasure at Talk:List of Washington State Routes. All that's left is to make an actual decision. I know voting is evil, nevertheless I'd like to do it in the form of a poll. As I see it, there are three voting options:

• Browse/list by parent route using SonicMaster's templates here (or something similar). Main state routes would have two templates, one similar to {{interstates}} listing all the main routes, one listing the spur routes related to that route. U.S. and Interstate highways would have only the spur template, the main routes template would be replaced by browsing at the bottom (see U.S. Route 97 for example). Browsing would be removed from the infobox for all routes. (If you like this idea, but not necessarily the specific proposal, feel free to vote for this idea and propose changes.)
• Browse/list sequentially. Route articles would remain unchanged; browsing would remain in the infobox. List of Washington State Routes would be reorganized so that instead of the table, we would have a list of the state routes (and state routes only -- U.S. and Interstate routes have already been split off into separate sections) ordered sequentially. The new list would look something similar to List of Routes in Vermont#Current.
• Change nothing. List of Washington State Routes would continue to be organized according to parent route; route articles would continue to browse sequentially.

Voting will last approximately a week (until August 23rd). -- NORTH ^talk 21:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Vote here

• Browse/list by parent route per my reasons listed at Talk:List of Washington State Routes#Duplication. -- NORTH ^talk 21:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Browse/list by parent route per NORTH's reasons, it'll be easier to find routes that way. Sonic3KMaster(鉄也)^(talk) 23:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Parent route looks good, as the numbering is more like the Interstates and U.S. Routes than most states. No opinion on whether we should use a modified browse section of the infobox or forgo the browsing altogether in favor of an Interstate-style box at the bottom. --SPUI (T - C) 23:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Browse/list by parent route -- But I would prefer browsing using the parent route sequence in the infobox and using only the secondary route templates (i.e. no primary route template). --Polaron | Talk 23:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Minor details

Two things left to work out before we close the poll and implement stuff:

I agree with Polaron's idea to only use the secondary route templates. Agreed?

The other thing is: where do we classify 3-digit US and Interstate routes -- i.e. US 195 and I-405? I'd prefer to classify them as main routes rather than secondary routes for three reasons. First, U.S. and Interstate routes by definition should not be classified as secondary routes. Secondly, they're numbered according to they own system -- I-405 rather than SR 504. And thirdly, at least in the case of US 195 and US 395, they shouldn't be classified as secondary routes, because they have their own secondary routes coming off of them. -- NORTH ^talk 08:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Polaron | Talk 13:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

None of the three-digit Interstates have spurs though. I'd list 2DIs and all U.S. Routes as primary, but 3DIs as secondary. --SPUI (T - C) 05:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Even despite the other two reasons I gave? (classifying U.S./Interstate routes as secondary routes seems wrong; they're not numbered according to the same system we're using to divide routes into primary and secondary) -- NORTH ^talk 08:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

They're also clearly spurs of other routes. Why would putting say I-205 in the "spurs of I-5" box imply that it's numbered the same as the non-Interstate spurs? --SPUI (T - C) 08:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't necessarily imply that it's numbered the same, but the purpose of the new template would be to list the state routes based on that route. Another reason that I-205 and 405 can't get the new template is because they already have the {{3di}} template that serves the same purpose as the new one for interstate routes. -- NORTH ^talk 05:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I've created the template header, and the template for I-5. The name of the template is {{3dwa}}, which takes two parameters, type= and route= (ex. type=Interstate and route=5). Then, in the same manner of {{3di}}, it calls a separate template for the route list, located at (for example) {{3dwa 5}}. I did take out the interstate routes, as this template wouldn't be used on the I-205 page since {{3di}} already is on that page; however, it's really easy to add them back. -- NORTH ^talk 22:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Update: I've completed the templates for I-5, US 101, and US 2 and put them on the perspective routes. Unfortunately, I need to sign off for the night. I'll see you guys later. -- NORTH ^talk 23:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll/Part2

Your state is invited to participate in discussions for its highway naming convention. Please feel free to participate in this discussion. If you already have a convention that follows the State Name Type xx designation, it is possible to request an exemption as well. Thanks! --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Newbie

I would be interested in helping on this project, but first I have a couple questions.

• 1 - Is the fighting over or at least calmed down below war stage?
• 2 - Can some one clean up this page and just leave the decisions on formating and stuff? (it is pretty easy to review the history if you really want to, without leaving it on the front page)
• 3 - Do you want a newbies help?

Jeepday 03:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• • The fighting... has gotten a lot better. There's more stuff including a med cabal trying to resolve all of this coming.
  • The discussions are archived after 30 days. If we come to consensus on something then the main page gets updated.
  • Go ahead, your help is welcome. :)

--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Example Infobox Display problem

I'm using firefox 2.0.0.1 on Ubuntu-edgy, and the {{Template:Project U.S. Roads West}} template is pushing the example {{Template:Infobox WA State Route}} to the bottom of the page. Am I the only one having this problem? If not, would enclosing the example {{Template:Infobox WA State Route}} in a table or something help? TSayles 04:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That template tends to collide with other elements... but I will be changing the Project U.S. Roads West template to be smaller soon so the problem will be fixed regardless. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Use of Photos

I like to take pictures of highways, bridges, etc. To what extent should photos be included in Washington State Highway articles? TSayles 04:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

2-3 per article max, but then galleries can be used (I assume)... probably a better topic to take to WT:USRD. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Need help in Washington

See WT:USRD#Need help in Washington -- NORTH ^talk 19:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Extent of Project

I think we should make articles on old highways of Washington from the 1930's-1960's. These include:

• Primary State Highways (this name not PSH should be the title)
• and Secondary State Highways (SSH)

The main article should be called: Historical State Highways of Washington

The category will be: Category: Historical Routes of Washington.

-Wiki890 00:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that a page like this already exists. Can't think of the name it's called, though :( --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of All USRD Clean-up Templates

All of the USRD Clean-up Templates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. master son^{T - C} 16:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Reversible Express Lanes Future Plans section contains speculation

The section is predominated by the proposed east link of Link Light Rail, which is only a proposal at this stage and likely depends on passage of the RTID package this fall. It sticks out like a sore thumb and probably shouldn't be included at this time as a matter of fact, when in reality it's in doubt whether it will happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.88.201.100 (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Reminder from USRD

In response to a few issues that came up, we are giving a reminder to all state highway wikiprojects and task forces:

1. Each project needs to remain aware of developments at WT:USRD and subpages to ensure that each project is aware of decisions / discussions that affect that project. It is impossible to notify every single project about every single discussion that may affect it. Therefore, it is the state highway wikiproject's responsiblity to monitor discussions.
2. If a project does not remain aware of such developments and complains later, then there is most likely nothing USRD can do about it.
3. USRD, in most to nearly all cases, will not interfere with a properly functioning state highway wikiproject. All projects currently existing are "properly functioning" for the purposes mentioned here. All task forces currently existing are not "properly functioning" (that is why they are task forces). Departments of USRD (for example, MTF, shields, assessment, INNA) may have specific requirements for the state highway wikiprojects, but complaints regarding those need to be taken up with those departments.
4. However, this is a reminder that USRD standards need to be followed by the state highway wikiprojects, regardless of the age of the wikiproject.

Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 05:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about state law sections

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#State law sections (I'm not sure if any Washington articles use them, but since routes are defined by state law I'm bringing this up here.) --NE2 21:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Logo

File:WP-WASH logo.png (Image:WP-WASH logo.png)

I have just made a logo for our WikiProject! This uses the sheilds of Washington State Route 202 and Interstate 5. Enjoy! — ComputerGuy890100 • Talk • 00:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Articles about pre-1970 highways

In some cases, these are pretty much the only option - for instance, PSH 3 was a long circuitous route. But in other cases it may make more sense to redirect to the current route, such as PSH 15 to US 2. There are also articles about the secondary branches, of which the only one currently existing is Secondary state highways as branches of Primary State Highway 7. Again the history should generally be in the current designation, making this a short list that might fit better on the PSH page (if not redirected) or the list of pre-1970 highways.

Does any of this sound reasonable? --NE2 12:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

See also Secondary state highways as branches of Primary State Highway 16 (Washington), Secondary state highways as branches of Primary State Highway 17 (Washington), and Secondary state highways as branches of Primary State Highway 22 (Washington) - all lists with one entry. --NE2 17:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

As there has been no objection, I will merge the primary and secondary lists. --NE2 06:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Does the following look good for coverage of primary highways?

• PSH 1: merge into a new article about US 99 in Washington
• PSH 2: either keep separate or merge into a new US 10 article
• PSH 3: keep separate
• PSH 4: merge into SR 21
• PSH 5: keep separate
• PSH 6: merge into SR 31?
• PSH 7: merge into SR 28
• PSH 8: merge into SR 14
• PSH 9: merge into a new US 101 article?
• PSH 10: merge into a new US 97 article
• PSH 11: merge into a new US 395 article
• PSH 12: keep separate
• PSH 13: merge into a new US 101 article
• PSH 14: merge into SR 16
• PSH 15: merge into US 2
• PSH 16: merge into SR 20
• PSH 17: either merge into SR 20 or turn into a separate article about the old Cascade Wagon Road via Gilbert
• PSH 18: merge into I-90
• PSH 21: merge into SR 3
• PSH 22: merge into SR 25

There would be a separate list of all primary and secondary highways. --NE2 00:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

That seems like taking an extra unnecessary step to me. I do rather like the idea of merging the SSH lists into the parent PSH, so we can keep them separated by parent highway. With this method there'd be nowhere for those lists to go. Plus, very few of these were actually one-to-one renumberings (i.e. PSH 2 became half US 10, half US 2), so redirecting to a single current highway seems like incomplete coverage in my book. -- Kéiryn ^talk 04:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The original route of US 10 did use all of PSH 2. The lists would go into a complete list of pre-1970 highways. --NE2 17:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The original route of US 10 did, but in 1964-70 PSH 2 was renumbered to half SR 10/90, and half SR 2, so a lot of the history of PSH 2 would be the history of US 2, as well as US 10. I think the issue is that with all the renumbering and rerouting that's gone on, the history of individual state highways are so intertwined, we can't really discuss the history of a single roadway in a single article. The only ones that I'd be in favor of straight redirecting are ones where there was a straight renumbering.

By "a complete list of pre-1970 highways", I assume you mean some sort of table with termini and the like? For me, that wouldn't be enough, it would show bias towards the present. These highways are equally deserving of route descriptions and histories in prose. Granted for some SSHs that prose would be identical for some current routes -- those would be redirected -- and some would not. IMHO, the best - and easiest - way to resolve the situation is to merge articles like Secondary state highways as branches of Primary State Highway 16 (Washington) into Primary State Highway 16 (Washington) (and, of course, expand the PSH articles for ones where the SSH article doesn't exist yet). -- Kéiryn ^talk 17:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's look at a clear example: PSH 22. This route was identical to SR 25 - should it not be merged? (Even the one spur, SSH 22A, is currently covered in SR 25 as former SR 251, though it might be feasible to split that.) --NE2 18:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I conceded that there were clear examples that could be redirected. That one seems like the clearest of the clear, given the 22/25 - 22A/251 symmetry. -- Kéiryn ^talk 18:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't sure and I'm still not sure about PSH 2. I missed where you supported redirecting straight renumberings - I assume this includes routes like PSH 11 and PSH 15? --NE2 18:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not as familiar with the PSH → SR renumbering as I am with it backwards. I'm assuming that those are cases where all of PSH 11 became US 395, but not all of US 395 was PSH 11? I'm okay with it if we're looking at it solely from the PSH standpoint. My main worry with losing the PSH-specific articles is what happens with the related SSH information? I'm not convinced that a list of all the highways is the answer.

Note: Headed offline now, be back with you later. :-P -- Kéiryn ^talk 18:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, how much SSH information would be needed on the PSH articles? Termini, 1964/current designations, and any notes? --NE2 19:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think the whole purpose of this is that former state highways are worthy of the same coverage as current state highways, i.e. a route description and history section. The issue comes in when you realize that all that information is going to be duplicated somewhere. What would you say to something similar to List of county routes in Rockland County, New York (1-38)? That is, give each route a bit of prose in the list, and use {{main}} to direct the reader to the actual article on the highway, whether it be the former highway (in the case of PSH 3), or the current highway (in the case of PSH 22). There might be certain cases where we wouldn't even use {{main}}, like when a SSH was split into two current SRs.

Eh, there are probably some kinks to work out in that plan, but hopefully you get the point. -- Kéiryn ^talk 03:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the premise, that every former designation needs the same coverage; we definitely should have full coverage, but in many cases it makes more sense to cover it in other articles. For instance, PSH 9 included Aberdeen to Olympia via US 12 and SR 8, but there's no reason the US 101 history can't act as a full history for PSH 9 including this section. (Any details on exact alignments would probably fit in the US 12 and SR 8 articles, but the general history of that roadway definitely affected current US 101 around the peninsula.) --NE2 04:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That's my fault. We essentially agree on the major points, but I worded my previous post very poorly. Former designations need the same coverage in the sense that somewhere on Wikipedia there needs to be a route description and history, just like there is for current routes. The question is where.

For a couple of PSHs, it would be in an article on the PSH. For any PSH or SSH that was renumbered as a single SR, it would go in the article on the current state route. For the in between cases, what I'm proposing above is that the detailed information go in articles on current state routes, but that we keep a short (1-2 paragraph) summary in a prose-style list, rather than a table-style list. (You never clarified exactly what sort of list of all pre-1970 highways you were proposing, but I was assuming it was going to be a table of termini and renumbering.) -- Kéiryn ^talk 16:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I still disagree that there needs to be a route description for former routes when they are one or more current routes. There was a recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 13#Assessment guidance for former routes, which created Texas State Highway 1#Route description for an over-800-mile route. --NE2 23:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Lengths

There may be some issues with lengths of routes that have physical gaps; I'm going to take some notes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Washington State Highways/Lengths. --NE2 04:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

OK - the only issue is that each time there is a physical gap or ferry zone (both clearly marked in the log) you need to subtract 0.01 from the total. Should we do this in the mile column of the junction list? --NE2 04:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The following routes have these:

• US 2 at SR 285
• SR 7 at 38th Street
• US 12 at SR 8
• SR 20 ferry
• SR 21 ferry
• SR 99 between SR 518 and SR 599 (and at SR 599 before this part was eliminated); at SR 509
• US 101 at SR 8
• SR 104 ferry
• SR 155 at the Grand Coulee federal reservation (mileposts continue through, meaning you actually add 1.80 rather than subtract 0.01)
• SR 432 at SR 411
• SR 501 unconstructed gap
• SR 509 at Des Moines Memorial Drive
• SR 525 ferry
• SR 529 at Broadway

--NE2 05:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:WA State Roads

Template:WA State Roads has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — NE2 02:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

How do you like the new page?

I have just revamped the project page to look similar to the developed WP:NYSR page. The page has everything from the old one with the addition of a monthly featured article (see here, recommend right here). So, I would like your comments and suggestions. — ComputerGuy890100^{Talk to me}_{What I've done to help Wikipedia} 00:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:WA U.S. Routes

Template:WA U.S. Routes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — NE2 14:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

What's this?-

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=48.185202,-117.060013&spn=0.032618,0.133896&z=13

You see, there are small signs that have the numbers 1889 and 9160. Do they exist? Are they county highways in Spokane County? — ComputerGuy890100^{Talk to me}_{What I've done to help Wikipedia} 00:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

My guess is yes, those are county highways (although that's actually Pend Oreille County), but they're definitely not deserving of an article at the very least until we get more sources. -- Kéiryn (talk) 03:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Question...

Is it okay to put in extra items into an article such as a chart showing notable places such as schools, state parks, etc. inside an article of a state route? I was thinking of a Points of Interest list for Washington State Route 531 along with a small section inside the route description about the bus route. Please leave your thoughts so I may deside wether or not to include the sections in. — ComputerGuy890100^{Talk to me}_{What I've done to help Wikipedia} 03:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Templates for deletion

At Templates for deletion, two project-related templates are up for deletion. They have reached no concensus and time is running out. Please vote. — ComputerGuy890100^{Talk to me}_{What I've done to help Wikipedia} 03:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Washington State Route 531

Washington State Route 531 has passed its GA! --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 16:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

Looks like the WP:WASH redirect has been changed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Washington. Any ideas for a new redirect? --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 21:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw that. Why did that happen? Now, WP:WASH redirect goes to WikiProject Washington State Highways. Sehome Bay (talk) 08:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:WASR seems like a decent replacement. Perhaps we could even rename the project Washington State Routes to match, but there are probably too many subpages for it to be worth it. -- Kéiryn (talk) 04:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I-5 appears on "List of Gaps in Interstate Highways"

Interstate 5 appears in the article List of gaps in Interstate Highways in the At-grade intersections and traffic lights section. That article claims that I-5 has at-grade intersections with small roads and driveways in southwest Washington. I cannot find evidence of that. Can anyone verify the existence of at-grade intersections? Where are they located? Sehome Bay (talk) 08:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been through there and I didn't see any... --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I have also been through there and do not recall any at-grade intersections... --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 19:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ditto (although it depends what's meant by southwest, I've rarely been south of Kelso). It's already tagged with {tl|fact}}, but I'd go ahead and remove it. -- Kéiryn (talk) 04:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems that I-5 has been removed from the list by someone. --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 17:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Reversible express lanes in Seattle, Washington

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reversible express lanes in Seattle, Washington --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 20:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects?

Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 02:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:51, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Updates

I have two things to discuss about:

1. Changing the examples
2. The main infobox template

WASH has gone through many changes since 2005. SR 525 isn't the highest rated article anymore, we have 3 A-Class articles, two of which are state routes: Washington State Route 339 and Washington State Route 531. One of these should become the new example article and we should update the whole Structure section with the newer standards.

The current infobox template, Template:Infobox WA State Route, is out-dated and some articles, including all of the GAs and above, are using Template:Infobox road. Should all articles switch? I would like to see it, as most other WPs are using Infobox road as their only infobox. –CG 19:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

If you look at Template:Infobox WA State Route, it calls Template:Infobox road. If you want to remove the middleman and replace it with {{Infobox road}} that's your call, but it's not super important. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent infobox changes

Recent changes to {{infobox road}} have not only deprecated the |name_notes= and |cities= parameters, but they've hidden the output of those parameters totally. Since this project was using a previously deleted variation of the infobox in the past that used the former parameter along with {{Infobox road/WA/auxroute}} to generate parent route information, some changes will be needed. I've updated the sample infobox code to reflect this change, but WA articles will be showing up in Category:Infobox road transclusions with deprecated parameters until they are updated. Imzadi 1979 → 10:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

A consideration for cross project consolidation of talk page templates

I have started a conversation here about the possibility of combining some of the United States related WikiProject Banners into {{WikiProject United States}}. If you have any comments, questions or suggestions please take a moment and let me know. --Kumioko (talk) 20:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Poll: Mass reassessment

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No need to make changes. --Admrboltz (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC) Per WP:USRD/A the below system should be used for importance:

• Top: Articles of national and international importance.
• High: Articles of national importance.
• Mid: Articles of state or regional importance.
• Low: Articles of local importance.

Currently, I am unaware of the current structure used to assess the state's highways. My theories are below, and if no one objects I would like to propose mass-reassessing the articles per the below structure:

• Top - WSDOT, and the lists related to the lists of WA highways and an article that has yet to be created similar to Michigan Highway System.
• High - Interstate and US Routes (primary only)
• Mid - Highways on the NHS, Statewide Importance list, highways on / with bridges on the NHRP, old PSH (mainly because before decommissioning this is where they would fall)
• Low - all others, old SSH, decommissioned routes (incl decommissioned US routes)

Thoughts? --Admrboltz (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, we do have a top-class article about the system, State highways in Washington. I think that that top class is excellent, but including major (cross-state) state routes must be included. Mid class and low class are both correct as well. –CG^Talk 19:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Popular pages

Good news everybody! Mr.Z-bot (talk · contribs) will be sending us monthly reports with our most viewed pages monthly. This will allow us to work on the articles that people are reading first. The page will be live at Wikipedia:WikiProject Washington State Highways/Popular pages. You can see an example at Wikipedia:WikiProject Utah State Highways/Popular pages right now. This should go live 1/1. --Admrboltz (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Article alerts bug

Resolved

 – Bug was resolved with 12/24 update to Article Alerts. --Admrboltz (talk) 20:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

See WP:AAlerts/BUGS#Pluses instead of underscores --Admrboltz (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Scope discussion

See: Talk:Manette Bridge --Admrboltz (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion notice

commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Obsolete WA maps --Admrboltz (talk) 06:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

US Collaboration reactivated & Portal:United States starting next

Casliber recently posted a suggestion on the talk page for WikiProject United States about getting the US Wikipedians Collaboration page going again in an effort to build up articles for GA through FA class. See Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTM. After several days of work from him the page is up and ready for action. A few candidates have already been added for you to vote on or you can submit one using the directions provided. If you are looking for inspiration here is a link to the most commonly viewed articles currently under the scope of Wikiproject United States. There are tons of good articles in the various US related projects as well so feel free to submit any article relating to US topics (not just those under the scope of WPUS). This noticeboard is intended for ‘’’All’’’ editors working on US subjects, not just those under WPUS.

The next item I intend to start updating is Portal:United States if anyone is interested in helping. Again this is not specific to WPUS and any help would be greatly appreciated to maximize visibility of US topics. The foundation has already been established its just a matter of updating the content with some new images, biographies and articles. Please let leave a comment on the Portals talk page or let me know if you have any questions or ideas. --Kumioko (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Relationship with WikiProject United States

People from a variety of WikiProjects have had concerns about the scope of WikiProject United States and its relationship with other WikiProjects. We have created an RFC and invite all interested editors to discuss it at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject United States#Mission statement for WikiProject United States. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Washington State Highways to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Washington State Highways/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 00:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

RFC on coordinates in highway articles

There is currently a discussion taking place at WT:HWY regarding the potential use of coordinates in highway articles. Your input is welcomed. --Rschen7754 02:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)