Knowledge talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 6

4337:, but can be implemented site-wide if desired. Notable changes include the ditching of the table/cell alignment and cell formatting as well as the removal of boldface for road links (making the junction list more ELG-friendly). Also note that the legend has been removed and replaced with an HTML title parameter in the applicable rows. For example, hovering over I-490 in my sandbox should, depending on your browser, display a tooltip stating "Crossing, no access". Another fix present in the revamped version is the elimination of "false hovering", where the tooltip would also display in the town if the shading began in that row. Comments welcome. -- 31: 3498:...and so on. WikiProject, importance, and class could probably be parsed easily from the talk page. Also, this would make it easier to pick out high-importance articles needing cleanup or those of a higher class that just need some polishing. You could also see all the cleanup reasons at once, so you can pick out things you're interesting in working on. Would this help anyone, or would it just be a lot of effort spent for no real gain? — 638:

months, and little work on the articles occurring; sometimes these others had fatal problems as well (Utah didn't even have all of its articles in the right category, and some pages didn't get moved after SRNC for many months). At present, there are no plans for further demotions, and I can definitively say that as long as PASH continues its current course, it should never need to be demoted.

593:

do so. Don't waste time demoting, merging or otherwise combining it, work it within its own framework would be my suggestion. Saves time and increases productivity. There is already a framework, no need to spend time working on guidelines etc..., work within what is there and make the project productive again since you already have an interest enough in it to merge, demote, combine it.

1372:, the common name is appropriate within the body of the article, the article name is to be used when there is need for clarification, from the way I read it and understand it, and keep in mind, I'm reading it as if this was the first piece of information I've received on proper use of highway names. If one is to use specifically the common name format listed in 2786: 1238:: you use ]. This was teh SRNC compromise enacted during SRNC; you will upset a lot of people if you try to change it. Furthermore, there is no "official" common name for every road; thus, USRD decided in 2006 to use the official name for each road, unless it is used in a routebox or in an ambiguous sentence as defined earlier in my comment.-- 1913:, and I'm going through the article, I will understand if I see "highway 1", "route 1", "state route 1", or any variation thereof. As long as it's consistent and falls within the norms of what a road is usually called, I don't see a big deal. If there's another state's route in the article, I name it its full name (i.e. " 2006:(edit conflict) Let me get this straight. The issue here is if a line should read "intersects State Highway X at Long Lake" or if it should read "intersects the Suchandsuch Parkway at Long Lake," right? I don't see an inherent problem with either one. Now, in some cases the title given to a highway isn't used very often. 4384:

removed the legend very recently. I have no personal preference over its presence, but I think we're probably at the point now where if we removed the colors and went with a ELG-type system, where oddities (concurrencies and such) are explained in the notes, no one would really complain. Now, if this

3511:

I'm not sure if we need this or not for cleanup. However, it might be justified simply as a way to compare the various articles in different ways. That's not something you can easily do with categories. So with a list, you could look at all stubs that are high importance and pick a few to work on.

3363:

On second thought, I do have a problem with the wording of number four. Please stop speaking like all this fighting is inevitable. If you welcomed conversation instead of shutting people down by telling them that they have to read the insanely long SRNC, you probably could have reached a conclusion

2476:

For 2), If you say "The Tri-State Tollway intersects the Eisenhower Expressway (I-290) before reaching O'hare International Airport", that's fine too. Conversely, the Tri-State Tollway is made up of three routes (I-80, I-294, and I-94), so which would you use? I think it depends on context and what

2278:

If they can be sourced, the common names can, should, and will be what the sources say. Government sources are not absolute authority on common names, as... like the term suggests, the names are common amungst the local population. If sources show the local population call it by Jim Bob Parkway, then

965:

While I agree with you (Rschen) here, it's a perfect example of poor language choice by the "leaders." You can't discourage people from coming here. To paraphrase what JohnnyBGood said above, phrases like "you will upset many people for bringing this up" and "you're opening a can of worms here" are

592:

2. I've seen people complain about is the "demotion" issue. That should also be moot. If a project has become stagnant, it shouldn't be abandoned, but rather reactivated within it's own operating scope. No need to fold it in like this. There are obviously people who want to work states like PA. I say

368:

I think B is a good option. It's a solid compromise and still makes the point that cleanup is necessary. I still prefer A or C, but B is perfectly acceptable. It's more important to say WHY the page needs cleanup as opposed to saying "It needs cleanup, look over at the Wikiproject's standards and try

328:

I concur. (A) is definitely out, as it defeats the purpose and that the people checking articles outnumber people checking talk pages. (B) can be compromised, at least the links can still be linking to the respective project pages and the MOS, but the wording that comes out of it would be something

3198:

I don't see any need whatsoever to treat California separately. Even if Caltrans itself is guilty of colloquial usage, it's still clear to me that the official name is State Route X – although I don't remember why we came to that conclusion, nor do I have a source to prove it. That being said, I'm

311:

How about yes. He makes a quite valid point about advertising the WikiProject in article space. They will see the standards if the person tagging the article actually provides a valid rationale, rather than just repeating "doesn't comply with standards". As it is, they click a link to the project

5307:

I'm not too good at programming, so I would not be able to do this, but someone else might. It would be useful to have a bot that creates the redirects in the completion lists, and maintains an on-wiki list of which ones are not redirects (and thus need disambiguation). It might also be possible to

4030:

For states with their own US Route shields, is it possible to fix up the state highway infobox so that if the next route is a US Route, then it will show the state-specific shield? I suppose it could also be useful in a "U.S. Route X in Y" article as well. I have noticed Wisconsin, Minnesota, and

3297:

Ah, well in that case I think we can go with Route over Highway. Route is the more common usage among official documentation from what I've seen. Granted in some cases like Highway 1 or Highway 17 the term Highway is more prevailant in common usage, it's not the official name of the route. And it's

2472:

For 1) as long as it's consistent within the article, I don't care and I don't think it should matter. If southern Californians want to call State Route 94 "Highway 94", then fine. If northern Californians want to call State Route 89 "Route 89", that's fine too. As long as it's consistent in the

2305:

I agree with what you're saying, but it makes more sense (and is less confusing) to refer to the route as the same name in the article every time. Plus it's hard to properly source common names. In some of the Illinois Route X articles, I would say that it's called "Main Street" in city X, Y and Z,

1721:

Regarding using highway names: the problem is that names usually don't line up with the highway very nicely. Look into Alaska, where many named highways have multiple numbers and numbers have multiple highways. Same situation in Oregon. And even for simple, commemorative signage: only about half of

290:

How about no. A: Noone would notice the cleanup templates. B: Noone would see the standards that the articles are supposed to comply with. C: That defeats the purpose that we saved the tags for. D: It's a WikiProject for goodness sake. As you seem to be the only one obstinately insisting on this, I

1846:

From the responses I've gotten here, it seems that everyone is so afraid that any discussion about highway names = moving and renaming, that few people other than Vegaswikian have actually fully understood my comments. The standardized article names are 100% fine, correct, and if anyone proposes a

1510:

defines what it believes a common name is, but what I am telling you is that there are deviations from this, an example is damn near every freeway in the Phoenix Metro area, whose common name is not "AZ Loop 101", but instead it's segment name. Or are we going to standardize this so much that when

1107:

to prove this. We will not have any more SPUI-like episodes where articles are moved without consensus. For CA, the naming convention for articles will always be "California State Route x", but in the lead, it should be "State Route x". There should be little mention of this in the history. It

584:

Ok everyone needs to backup and cool down I think. I think we can all agree that WP:USR was in no way intended to take over any of the State, Interstate or U.S. Highway projects, so a merge like this is out of line. It was designed to fill in the gaps where no such projects existed. Now we may not

2271:

First, IRC discussions cannot be used to determine consensus, as there is no accessible record of those discussions. Second, the objections here seem to not grasp the concept of the argument, and assume that this will lead to page moves. Let me reiterate the arguments that I and jasper have made.

2250:

However, the majority of people, here and on IRC, still uphold ]. As consensus remains for USSH, the policy cannot be changed just because two users disagree with it. Furthermore, reliable sources are needed. Caltrans uses State Route x as teh official name of each highway. Therefore, that is the

5013:

featured on DYK and the key is to have a good punchline more than anything else. I don't really see the above getting selected. You have to ask yourself, would the average person reading it be interested enough to read the article based just on that one line? Link to DYK when it was featured:

3550:

with "state=VT" and "type=US Business" passed. Only one infobox should be used, and that infobox should be Infobox U.S. Route. Why the need for a single method, and why should Infobox U.S. Route be used? Note that different links appear at the bottom of the infobox depending on which is used. On

596:

3. the issue of IRC seems to be a sore point. It should also be moot. Wiki policy states that IRC is to be used as a suppliment but is not a replacement for on Wiki consensus etc... So no issue should exist there. If a group wants to use IRC, go for it, but they have to bring any discussion here

644:

3. The only circumstances where we would interfere in a project would be if it is blatantly violating standards and has serious problems: eg. no "route description", no headings, or something totally odd like that. INNA, ELG, MTF, and Shields may want separate requirements, but that needs to be

1982:

and against those names is not acceptable. The main reason this debate started was because the latter was exactly what Jasper was trying to do. The ONLY exceptions are with routeboxes, junction lists, ELG, and repeated mentions of the same road. Then, use an official abbreviation (for example,

648:

4. Agreed, IRC should be a tool for collaboration, not necesarily for final discussion. What has been grossly misunderstood is taht we want people to participate not necessarily for consensus discusisons, but to a) get to know the other road editors better, b) to confront any problems (such as

637:

1. The usurpation of projects by USRD has occurred only in extreme cases. KY was demoted because it needed help badly- Three infoboxes attempting to do the same thing should be an indicator of that :| The rest were extremely inactive, with no edits to the WikiProject page being made in several

969:

As for the actual issue, common names really only goes so far. "Highway 99" is a colloquial usage, and however common it might be, doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, except for perhaps once in the lead. As an encyclopedia, Knowledge should reflect official usage, which is State Route 99. --

3725:

After seeing some state WikiProjects heading to the trash bin (aka get "demoted"), I wonder if it is possible to create a multistate project (e.g. California and Nevada State Highways WikiProject). Sorry if this is a perennial proposal. For people who don't recognize me, I used to be called

4872:

Just use your judgement. If their is not enough info to create anything but a stub, redirect it to what the highway is currently designated and add that information under the history section. If there is plenty of info to create a separate article, than by all means keep it separate.

2888:

Unfortunately I had an extremely busy weekend off-wiki, so I've missed the entire discussion since I gave my first response. Hopefully you'll forgive me, so I'll give my $ 0.02 here. I've read the above discussion, but it's impossible for me to respond to any specific point directly.

3531:, I attempted to gain consensus on whether or not to use a dedicated infobox on articles regarding bannered U.S. routes. From the comments that were left, I sense that there was some misunderstanding regarding what I was trying to say. For clarity, here's exactly what I'm proposing: 1717:

Can we avoid hitting beehives with a stick here? Naming conventions have always been a sensitive issue and I'd really rather not have to waste the summer with the project beating a dead horse than getting some things done. We have five thousand stubs; they need to be taken care of.

4327:

There's no easy way to make it purely optional, as forcing a blank cell to appear on rows where neither "location" or "location_special" are specified will mess up the formatting of rows that are part of a spanned location. The only real workaround is what Polaron described above,

3611:

I am not talking about state-detail pages - I am talking about bannered U.S. routes, hence my two links in my original post. It doesn't matter what template is used on state detail pages, as a workaround has been developed that will display both sets of links for "type=US" (see

2714:

Rschen7754: USSH states State Route 99 Rschen7754: non-highway articles, i could care less Rschen7754: there i do agree with NE2 Rschen7754: however, Highway 99 should absolutely not be used vishwin60: reason? Rschen7754: i'd sure like to see a document that he cites

2985:

Agreed. Those were never meant to be prohibited, IMHO, provided that they are valid names, i.e., not something made up in school one day. (For example, citations can be found for I-295 in New Jersey being the Camden Freeway, but not the South Jersey Expressway.) --

3551:

Infobox U.S. Route, five links pertinent to U.S. routes are displayed. On Infobox road in the example above, one link to the Vermont state highway page is shown. Needless to say, the five U.S. route links are more relevant to the route than the single Vermont link.

2306:

Illinois X in another place, and Route X somewhere else... but that would be in the Route Description section. Looking at the route from a statewide perspective, it's easier to call it Illinois X (for short) or Illinois Route X (long version) as a general statement.

316:

from a major element. New Jersey, a featured subproject, didn't have a cleanup template until quite recently, and still only uses it on one page. And Matt Yeager is not the only one insisting on it, as Woohookitty recently moved the tag to the talk page. --

2896:

is a total misnomer. If you look at the voting in SRNC, SPUI frequently made comments such as "That's not a common name," and was ignored and/or overruled. Which is fine by me, given the context. Rather than the current headings, they should probably read

2048:

Your best judgement applies here. Use Minnesota State Highway 371 here, think about the poor soul from California who sees this article and says "huh?". ;) well, anyway - the fact that there are multiple names attached is reason enough to avoid that. --

5547:. If we had this template for the lower 48 states, I believe that for I-90, we'd have template after template taking way too much space at the bottom of the page. Be that as it may, I think a template like this would be more useful on state WP pages. -- 2745:: "A $ 62 million project is converting Highway 99 from four-lanes to six-lanes between Kingsburg and Selma in southern Fresno County. This project will enhance goods movement and ease traffic congestion for commuters in Fresno, Kings and Tulare counties." 5542:

I actually like it. While I believe that it is redundant, I do think that the template can coexist with the article, much like templates and categories can coexist. However, I believe using it in article space will crowd the page. Take for example,

2477:

you want to emphasize. Do you want to emphasize the Tollway or the Interstate? As long as I know that it's both (using parenthese, like above), then I don't see a big deal. This would be good though for something like "The Expressway intersects the

2010:

is the Purple Heart Memorial Highway over it's entire length, as well as the Paul Bunyan Expressway except for a section where it is the C. Elmer Anderson Memorial Highway. The highway is generally not referred to by those names, it's just called 371.

1543:

However, Phoneix is not all of Arizona, and there are definitely different nomenclatures of common names for different routes and even for teh same route. Because of this, we have decided to use the names taht we have, that were decided in fall 2006.

2691:, including in press releases and planning documents. "State Route 99" is more commonly used by Caltrans, but they certainly use "Highway 99" a good deal. I don't think there's any problem with using "Highway 99", at least in non-highway articles. -- 5418:. It's somewhat less daunting than a major U.S. Highway or Interstate. Possibly our goal could be to improve at least one such article per state to a featured article or at least "A class", where we can all agree that it's worthy of that status. -- 1485:

defines the definition of "common name" for that page and then tells you to use it. That is a far cry from "It doesn't say that in there!" If you read sections 3 and 4, it even says to use teh common names as defined in the table above explicitly.

1764:

I've seen your consensus from months ago, and although the rest of you may not feel the same way, there have been at least two editors here who have an issue with a standardized name being paraded around as the common name. If a deviation from

1810:

is a segment of the Arizona State Route Loop 202, then in the sections pertaining to that segment be referred to as Red Mountain Freeway, for example. To ask that we start renaming articles by their common names would be a boneheaded stunt.

1690:

Just because no one has challenged it until now, does not mean that the consensus from a while ago is set in stone. I'm going to take this to the village pump for some broader input, when I have my recommendation up, I will post a link.

3681:

But we're discussing bannered routes. I'd be in favor of using the U.S. infobox, considering "U.S. Business" is a U.S. route. State infoboxes for "U.S. Route in ", since those are focusing specifically on the route inside the state.

1747:) - there are many common names out there which is why this setup is used. I agree with Scott5114 in that we already solved this issue. We have articles to expand and fix and we don't need to be fixing things that are not broken. -- 5436: 279:. (D) would be a good option, but one we're not quite ready for yet. I don't think there's a true enough consensus yet to justify moving this to Knowledge: space and making them actual guidelines (unlike the exit list guide). -- 1519:

says it should be and not what it actually is in common definition? There is a reason it is called a 'common name', because it is defined locally and by the Department of Transportation. The standardized name is the Article Name.

2636:

It's still unacceptable no matter what. It doesn't matter if you link it to the right name, but what it comes out as must be what the government uses. In the case of California, what the link looks like must come out to be

5446:, to try to tie together all of the US X in Y and Interstate X in Y pages. (Haven't decided one way or the other regarding intrastate 3dis, or pushing scope to beyond US X in Y / Interstate X in Y pages). Feedback welcome! — 4491:

Also, I like the new table contained in TMF's sandbox. Can we agree to that with a compromise between the folks who think every junction and exit list should be ELG-based and the people who would like them to be separate?

4291:

That works, but I think it'd be a lot cleaner to simply leave the cell blank, like we do with freeway exit lists. I have been doing this through the non-breaking space character, which works, but does leave a tiny phantom

2251:

name that we are using. If we did use whatever people called them, then a) there would be no standard and b) how in heck would we determine the common name for every highway? We have more important things on our hands. --

588:

1. That some people have started usurping other projects with this one or that people are perceiving that to be happening. It shouldn't be as that's not the stated scope of this project. And if it is happening, it should

4794:

When I wrote about former primary state highways in Virginia, I redirected to the current designation wherever possible - sometimes a primary route, sometimes a secondary one. Those that I could not redirect are in

3837:

My concern is that it will be too hard to separate them again... but I've been thinking about project adoption... one project being temporarily adopted by another... this, in fact, is happening in Canada de facto.

232: 1769:'s standardized common name list can be cited with a source from something other than a roadgeek site, then there should be no issue with it being used in that article as long as the deviation is properly cited. 1847:

change to that I'd be on your side as well... but my discussion here was merely about use of the common name in the article when sourced. Thanks Vegaswikian for actually reading and understanding my comments.

3654:

is focused on the route within Virginia. Essentially you would want to focus more on that so the VA paramed Infobox Road would be fine in this case. Infobox U.S. Route is meant more for a national scope.

1921:"). When abbreviating (i.e. in the infobox, exit/junction list, etc), I usually use "SR" or the state abbreviation, and if it connects to another state's route, I use the other state's state abbreviation ( 1832:

Maybe a simple answer would be, don't try to move articles, which you are not suggesting. Try to limit references in articles to the approved variants. If you choose to deviate, include a reference to a

4796: 2489:." But those are my 2¢. It really shouldn't matter, as long as it's consistent and clear with the appropriate wikilinks. That's all I really have to say; this is giving me a headache, to be honest. 4333:

On a completely different note, the comments left on the SR 1002 (Lehigh County, PA) talk page inspired me to make some modifications to the junction table template. For now, it's contained in

3708: 498:

I may be jumping the gun, but I'm going to be busy tonight. Move this wherever it's needed. So okay, it can be a "subproject", but it can still have its own project page and pages thereof.

5341:: unlike most collections, it has a number of maps from after route numbers were assigned. I found it by chance when looking for an old Baltimore County map that shows the toll gates on the 4773:

Some brief research into the articles reveals some of them to be decommissioned in favor of current US Highways. Would it be better to just redirect to whatever the current highway is?

3528: 4711:

You can simply add {{USRD}} to the talk page to add a page to the project. One of the editors whose "job" it is to assign importance and quality will then fill in the missing fields. --

4124:

Is that on all shields or just some of them? I don't know if it would be worth it if it's not a state mandated thing like California's or Florida used to have with the colored shields.

3641:

That's how they are used. Is that information really needed at the US route level? If it is, then it would make sense to adjust the template to allow some form of state information.

4608:

and the rest better belongs in the article about the town whose main street it is. This is the kind of "non-notable" county route that I thought we agreed shouldn't have an article. --

641:

2. I would say that there are points that we definitely agree on. We agree that USRD should be very influential on states that do not have a state highway WikiProject yet, for example.

4105:

WI's 3di shields use the 2di width, but with Series C font. IA is the same with WI, but the font is Series B. MN also uses 2di width, but has smaller numbers and the Series D font.

3220:

Southern California may need to be discussed more, however NorCal doesn't use freeway names as more then memorial designators. They're not used in common usage or official paperwork.

4214: 2909:

state highways outside of the northeast is "Highway X", just because it's shorter and easier to say than State Route X, or whatever the official name might be. However, I also feel

1882:

Rschen7754: well you can mention the name Rschen7754: i.e. you can mention I-5 is Golden State Freeway in the article ] Rschen7754: but from SR-60, you shouldn't link to it as the ]

275:(A) is okay, but less than ideal, and might clutter up the top of the talk page too much (i.e. having it and the WikiProject banner). (C) doesn't work for the reasons mentioned at 180: 4927: 4035: 4764:

If they are decommissioned primary highways, then yes, they are just as notable as current state primary highways as we cannot be bias to present day. Knowledge is timeless. --

4655: 4196: 2740:: "Beginning Tuesday, March 6th at 9:00 p.m., traffic traveling on State Route 43 (Highland Avenue) will be able to access northbound Highway 99 using the Floral Avenue on-ramp." 5258:

It looks like it would be pointless to create a "U.S. Route 58 in Tennessee" article as it would be as small as the one above in question. Is there any reason not to link it to

5241:

Yes, obviously if US 58 in Tennessee is created, it should redirect there. Is it really a good idea to make that article though? By the way, would it be a good idea to add the

194: 3262:

I think Rschen's comment about California was meant to refer to Highway vs. State Route, not the freeway names. Freeway names are not banned, nor were they ever meant to be,

127: 3041:

In other words, if you're using the highway's number in an article on itself or another highway, you must follow WP:USSH. But names of highways are also 110% acceptable. --

3562: 3539: 940:

This had nothing to do with overstandardization: that had to do with principles and exit lists and junction lists. Furthermore, I would advise that you read the entirety of

3505: 2408: 1262:, so I'm not finding where it was agreed upon and turned into a matter of rule of style. And second... things on Wiki aren't set in stone. Consensus changes all the time. 1998: 276: 4726:

There is a category and many articles dedicated to decommissioned highways in Missouri. Are any of them notable? None of them strike me as being worthy of being here.

4201: 2732: 2021: 1903: 1733: 1636: 1205:"The common name is to be used when writing about the road in an article; only use the article title in an another article if the sentence would otherwise be ambiguous." 759: 743: 4999:

This time, I hope I have my references down, and I put the shield up, so hopefully, it makes it to the main page. I don't know what other highways I could do offhand.

1338: 5165:

as it won't gain anymore information about itself than what the US route will hold already. besides - I'm sure if you ask a local if it exists, they would say "huh?"

5003: 4053: 4025: 3378: 2335:

If you can provide a government soure for the official name (which, I imagine, exists for Eisenhower Expressway), then you can link to it as that. However, if you put

781: 4680: 3593: 3272: 3245: 3104: 2195: 1081: 627: 285: 105: 5579: 5481: 5322: 4759: 4401: 4358: 4070: 3292: 3215: 2819: 976: 846: 696: 323: 175: 5510: 5297: 5021: 4786: 4777: 4768: 4349: 4100: 4041:

It is definitely possible, as California uses their own US shields in the infobox. I'll make the necessary changes so that WI, MN and IA are set up the same way. --

3674: 3554:

Additionally, as I stated in the original proposal, since the browse row in the infobox is a non-issue, as these articles are not to be included in any browses per

3323: 3149: 2433: 1376:, it really first should say this... but it should also not limit common names to that variation, as some roads do have a common name that deviates from this list. 1004: 351: 306: 4620: 4375: 4168: 4149: 4119: 3815: 3516: 3350: 3087: 3076: 3047: 3017: 2992: 2976: 2569: 2354: 2061: 1794:

and they quelled a massive move war. We'd like to keep this firmly in the past if at all possible. Sometimes you have to take an unusual move to end an argument. —

801: 389: 5532: 5291: 5209: 5119: 5104:

Ya... basically stuff that is super backlogged... such as the unassessed category when it fills up... or if maps task force is backed up... that sort of thing. --

5099: 4821: 4730: 4523: 4474: 3795: 3782: 3689: 2501: 1863: 1841: 1759: 1431: 1322:

in the Article Title, or common names in the actual article itself? For example, using the common name in the body of the article that the common name refers to.

5463: 5132: 5058: 4962: 4303: 4286: 2879: 2544: 2376: 2330: 2300: 2266: 2245: 2102: 2074: 2039: 2015: 1785: 1592: 1559: 1536: 1501: 1476: 1392: 1363: 1298: 1278: 1253: 1223: 1195: 169: 2828: 1960: 1827: 1801: 1707: 1685: 1662: 1456: 1411: 1171: 539: 4877: 4316: 3999: 3979: 3966: 3866: 3853: 3832: 3759: 2631: 2220: 1022: 959: 935: 868: 5569: 4833: 4544:

I am making the appropriate changes to the templates, according to TMF's sandbox. Just be forewarned that when I come back at around 3:30 PM, articles using

3946: 3929: 3906: 3893: 3636: 3130: 2655: 1564:

And I'm saying this needs to change, because if someone can source an common name for a roadway that deviates from the standardized common names presented in

1134: 690:

Well, I think it took a while, and a couple of compromises had to be made along the way, but I think we definitely agree on all the major points. Go team! --

5400: 4665: 3645: 3606: 3388: 2336: 1139:

Eh, I believe he is talking about using the common name within the article... not as the article name (which would require a move). Besides, there are other

5603: 5273: 5176: 4715: 4612: 4599: 2840: 1837:

for the name. The consensus does not need to be changed if an editor uses reliable sources within an article. Those are my opinions for what their worth.

5253: 5218: 4953: 4862: 4506: 4483: 4465: 4446: 4437: 4211: 4058:

That was something I had been thinking about for quite a bit of time - but thought it would be difficult to do - until I remembered about California ;) --

2762: 2695: 2507: 909: 5551: 5515:

I would probably keep it around for completion, and as a handy listm then. Some of the articles (in spite of their blue state) don't actually exist yet. —

2803: 585:

all agree thats been happening 100% of the time but that is the goal, and it's a laudable one. I think where we have the major disconnect is in 3 places.

5558: 5470: 4892: 4807: 4589: 4390: 4338: 4042: 3625: 3572: 3373: 3267: 3210: 3125: 3082: 3042: 2987: 2942: 2937: 2920:

That being said, I'm in agreement with NE2 and the IRC discussion that in other articles, using common names or colloquial usage is A-OK. An article on

2688: 2123:) that alludes to (what is commonly known as) "the Lander Avenue exit from Highway 99". I was about to remove the redirect, so the link would have been 1436:(ec) In the case of the Metro Phoenix Highway names, those are specifically assigned by AZDOT. Not all other common names are unsourced or unsourceable. 971: 820: 738: 691: 553: 318: 280: 5235: 4903: 4669: 3734: 3189: 1925:) etc. Since this has nothing to do with the article titles, I don't see what the big deal is. As long as it's consistent, why does it really matter? 1027: 5349: 5381: 4888: 4596: 4471: 4355: 4241: 4206:

Because there is no portal for roads but only for US roads, I want to ask here: I would be thankful, if the road specialists could have a look here:

3792: 3583: 2861: 2684: 2418:

since this road is, in fact, U.S. Route 95 (this is in most uses, however, as U.S. Route 95 and I-515 are not the same road for the entire route). --

488: 5422: 132: 4578: 3535: 2144: 258: 184: 106: 97: 5155: 4705: 4660: 4207: 2718:

Yes, please bring an official document to the table, please. At this time, Rschen cannot access web pages right now, so I'm filling in for him.

89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 3111: 2956:. Or, more importanly, the Arizona Loop Highways where the Segment Name is used to provide clarification (eg instead of Loop 101, it's Loop 101 1062:

In the junction list in the body of a mature article about another route, where the list has been fleshed out to have sentences and paragraphs?

713: 5329: 5312: 5139: 3030:, the form should always be State Route X instead of some other similar form like California Highway X (or even just Highway X). However, it 2867:

No JA10. This proves there is evidence of Caltrans calling their roads "Highways" as NE2, Jasper, MPD, et al have been saying all along. --

4970: 1975: 5089: 4920: 3715: 2464:

Using actual names of the routes (like "New Jersey Turnpike" in place of "Interstate 295" or "Capital Beltway" instead of "Interstate 495").

151: 4913: 4293: 3589:

As a matter of style, one would think you would want all of the US Routes to use the same infobox. What are the objections to doing this?

3543: 558: 3791:

exists? There's nothing wrong if a WP assimilates a dead state WikiProject; this has essentially already happened in Canada and USRD. --

4262: 3364:

much quicker without the ugly parts of this conversation. The phrase "two users who won't go along with the consensus" not only ignores

852: 671: 471: 3858:

Splits will naturally occur when the subproject gets too big, would it not? However, the "Canada highway solution" seems quite useful. —

3052:

See, your comments not only make sense, but are clear you actually read what was being said. I do agree that if you're going to just do

727: 5281: 4800: 4673: 4568: 510: 5371: 2275:

Standardized Article Names are 100% fully acceptable and are perfect in their present status. No page moves are even being considered.

1790:

We have grown to support these guidelines because the alternative would be painful. Yes, they may be baroque, but the conventions are

825: 5427: 3393:

I just got an idea: why not have a bot (maybe VshBot?) keep a log of all USRD articles that have a cleanup tag? Something like this:

1966:

After further thought, I'll agree to linking by name, but only if you can source it with a government or some official source. i.e.

1461:

However, you only use "State Route x" when writing about AZ routes. Of course, you can mention that the other common names exist. --

4721: 4573: 4417: 2808:

So state departments nickname state routes "highways". That doesn't mean they should be named California Highway 99 for example. --

1806:

I'm not talking about renaming articles here, I'm talking about the use of the common name within the article. As in defining that

602:

These are just my 3 cents, take them for what you will. But enough with the tomfoolery (yes I just used that word in a sentence).

3934:

But in my example above, would it be feasible for the California project to "adopt" the Nevada one? Or should I bring this up at

3824:

I didn't mean by creating new ones (I know it is impractical). I meant combining several states' projects and/or "task forces." —

1671:

has been lying around stable for some time. If you were to ask almost all of the dedicated USRD members, they'd probably agree.

208:

and such) by mentioning a wikiproject in actual article mainspace. Is there any reason why one of these solutions wouldn't work:

2070:

Okay, now I'm even more confused. Aren't we discussing the usage of the highway number versus an alternate "ceremonial" name? --

5387: 4692:

I ran across this article that I think you should add to this WikiProject. It's about the first trail across the northern U.S.

2404:. Locally the road is described on all of the news reports as being an east west road, but that's another local usage issue. 2162:

is the largest newspaper in the area, and owns most of the smaller newspapers in the area (with the notable exceptions of the

5334: 4031:

Iowa have their own shields, but they use the default national shield in infoboxes. Perhaps there are other states as well.

47: 17: 2948:

And the use of forms not expressly listed in the cases where a highway has an actual name outside of State Route X, such as

3332:

in California is the legislative definition, however Caltrans's official name for State Routes is State Route x. In fact,

4354:

I prefer the small typeface; that being said, if the consensus is found to prefer the new table, I'm for that as well. --

5405: 3720: 4829:

No, that's not what I'm saying. I think they should be redirected wherever possible, which is what I did in Virginia. --

4255:

Could someone modify jctint to make location optional? Some highways have a lot of junctions in the middle of nowhere. —

4184:(indent reset) - Iowa goes further to have all of its 2d sheilds be type-C font, but those haven't been created yet. -- 3744:

be, if there is something that small (maybe some of the outlying states and territories like Alaska, Puerto Rico.,..) --

3740:

Not at this point, as we are trying to get the current projects up to par before creating any more :) In the future, it

2279:

it can, should, and will be called Jim Bob Parkway in the text of the article, and in any prevalent locations elsewhere.

578:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

425:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

5144: 4139: 4090: 3453: 3313: 3235: 617: 4511:

It might just make things a wee bit simpler IMHO. I have no bones about it as long as we have a concrete setup. •

5246: 5115: 5085: 4755: 4521: 4373: 4194: 4068: 3995: 3962: 3849: 3811: 3755: 3670: 3480: 3426: 3288: 3185: 3171:

The California issue needs to be dealt with separately, since it is at least adhering to the principle behind USSH.

2877: 2567: 2540: 2429: 2372: 2350: 2262: 2216: 2098: 2059: 2035: 1994: 1757: 1555: 1497: 1472: 1427: 1359: 1294: 1249: 1191: 1018:

prescribes a so-called "common name" that is different from what this highway is usually called by the public. --

955: 931: 842: 797: 777: 667: 467: 449: 302: 167: 123: 3277:

Correct, since this was at least attempting to adhere o tthe USSH principle. Let's get this part settled first. --

2738: 5505: 5214:

It didn't exist on its own. The road was specifically built as a new alignment of US 58 around Cumberland Gap. --

4634: 1618:

before posting here again. The naming conventions that are set now were approved by consensus. Your comment of

401: 205: 2613:), which I believe is entirely appropriate. Whereas, your misquote does not link to the existing article title. 1155:. These names are coined by the State DOT and are used to prevent confusion, or just there for whatever reason. 337:." (C) is out of the question, with clear consensus already. (D) is out of the question until further notice. 268:

the article needs to be cleaned up, not just some vague statement about it not meeting standards. For example,

4219: 3070: 3011: 2970: 2855: 2506:

I agree on #2, as long as you can source it with something official. i.e. U.S. 50 should not be referred to as

2294: 2239: 1948:(I-495)...the Beltway...the Beltway..." or something like that. I'd understand. Most people probably would. 1857: 1821: 1779: 1701: 1656: 1586: 1530: 1450: 1386: 1332: 1272: 1217: 1165: 269: 3174:

We have more urgent things to do than fight over this with two users who won't go along with the consensus. --

2753: 2313:

as the Eisenhower Expressway than as I-290. But that common name is an attribute of the main highway, I-290. —

1667:

You don't need to pull consensus can change on me. Consensus apparently hasn't changed, due to the fact that

312:

page, and there's a good chance they won't be able to figure out exactly what's wrong with it. Also, this is

5490: 5317: 5302: 5189: 5127: 5038: 4933: 4882: 4842: 3486: 3459: 2134: 5410:

I think it would be a good idea to do collaborations on mid-importance primary state highways, for instance

5151:

Can somebody offer a third opinion on whether this should be a separate article or a redirect? Thank you. --

2778:

PDF thing about business partnerships from the Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency (ca.gov website)

199: 5228:

I'd say redirect to the US 58 article, but mention it in a US 58 in Tennessee article if one ever exists. —

5027: 3571:

There is also the issue of Interstate loops and spurs, but we'll tackle that once this issue is settled. --

3432: 4308:

You can probably just use the "location_special" parameter with a blank value if you want a blank cell. --

1437: 1318:(reset indent) I think we may have our topics/meanings/thoughts crossed here. Are you referring to use of 5575: 4908: 4605: 3703: 3522: 2116: 2080: 2007: 1971: 1918: 1416:

Correct, and the fact that one is ONLY supposed to use the names listed there can easily be inferred. --

4470:

I don't think there's true consensus when you really don't know. I'm not in favor of using colors. --

3416: 3336:

in California can be any type of route; Routes can be State Routes, but State Routes cannot be routes.

2284:

Do we fully understand the argument now, or is your statement on your userpage clouding your judgment.

2120: 38: 3157:

From IRC discussions and from discussion here, it appears that most of us have come to the following:

5308:

have it maintain the "list of highways numbered" disambiguation pages by adding any with articles. --

5242: 5145: 4685: 4334: 2610: 2596: 2310: 2201:

However, that does not matter. The official and proper name is State Route 99. You must use that per

2124: 1231: 879: 5095:

What exactly are we to put in there, in theory we could put the entire project in that category. --

4817:

1. Keep the articles. 2. redo the list in such a way as to show what the current routes used to be.

5443: 4639: 4622: 4225: 3651: 3613: 3599: 1723: 5015: 3117:(ec) I was about to post similar here, and have already reverted. "Alabama State Route X" is the 3034:

not gospel in the sense that it must be poorly written if people are interpreting it to mean that

986:

does not belong in Knowledge. It will disrupt the naming conventions already set by consensus on

4488:

When routeboxny was deprecated, this was when the current table was born. In light of that, yes.

3602:

use a Virginia-parametered infobox road. This allows Virginia-specific links to be underneath. --

2953: 2788:

That doesn't say "Highway 99", but rather through that whole CalTrans report, it says "Route 99".

272:

is unacceptable. If a specific explanation is given, the link to the WikiProject is unnecessary.

3871:

This is also happening with states that don't have a project yet—Delaware will be controlled by

5364: 5010: 3470: 2748: 1929: 1914: 1572:

says it should be. If there is no sourcable common name, then it can go by what is outlined in

1235: 1152: 1036:

In what situations does this Project encourage (or tolerate) using the common name of a route?

4539: 4380:

TBH, it wasn't my decision to remove the legend. One editor added the hover a while back, and

1056:

The common name does not seem to be needed in the junction lists in infoboxes of other routes.

5354: 5071: 4132: 4083: 3765: 3547: 3306: 3228: 2776: 2603: 2526: 2361:

Yes, we fully understand what you are saying. We are saying that this ] is not acceptable. --

1397:

But those other common names are unsourced. They are usually deviated from a roadgeek site.

1040:

Obviously not as an article title (unless it happens to match the suggested article title in

610: 382: 251: 4554:

and associated templates will be broken for a short time as I make the appropriate changes.

2743: 2229:

is 1)Incorrect and 2)Your interpretation that the common name is set in stone is incorrect?

545: 5595: 5524: 5455: 5204: 5182: 5111: 5081: 5066: 5053: 5031: 4948: 4857: 4751: 4737: 4519: 4371: 4269: 4192: 4066: 3991: 3958: 3845: 3807: 3751: 3666: 3658: 3284: 3181: 2875: 2565: 2536: 2486: 2425: 2368: 2346: 2322: 2258: 2212: 2094: 2057: 2031: 1990: 1967: 1807: 1755: 1551: 1493: 1468: 1423: 1355: 1290: 1245: 1187: 1144: 951: 927: 838: 793: 773: 663: 463: 445: 298: 165: 119: 1970:

because signs on that freeway actually say "Golden State Freeway". However, anything like

1928:

To Rschen/V60- Sometimes it's better to link by the name, not the route though. Like the

634: 416: 204:

Or at least a problem. Many of the cleanup templates violate the norms on Knowledge (like

8: 5498: 5232: 5197: 5046: 4984: 4976: 4941: 4850: 4741: 4300: 4259: 3800:

It makes it easier to split later if the projects stay separate, even if only in name. --

3686: 3555: 3502: 3200: 2810: 2473:

article. For long routes, like State Route 1, then perhaps "State Route" should be used.

1798: 1730: 1643: 917: 750: 718: 191: 3529:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 5#Infoboxes for U.S. route bannered routes

3199:

not an active editor in California, and if the active editors want to take this over to

484: 4928:

Knowledge:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 13#County Road 702 (Palm Beach County, Florida)

4582: 4246: 2949: 875: 3081:

Don't stroke my ego too much now. :-P (In other words, thanks for the kind words.) --

1348:

says to only use the names listed there, which is why it is a Manual of Style page. --

5294: 5000: 4818: 4783: 4774: 4727: 4686: 4652: 4313: 4032: 3107:

is the proper term; to me disambiguated would refer to the "article title" column. --

2957: 2921: 2478: 2149:

Googling "Lander Avenue exit" gives 6 more such references (not counting duplicates).

1726:

is the Northwest Passage (admittedly not a common name), but the other half is not. —

1642:

Well, if we're going to start suggesting reading to each other, I recommend you read

5392:

A new task force has been created to improve the Florida county road articles. See

1120:

use abbreviations (CA uses SR). The common name should be in an non-article route.

565: 4125: 4076: 3984:

I'd rather that the projects stayed separate, but CA editors could help with NV. --

3642: 3590: 3513: 3443: 3299: 3221: 2405: 1937: 1838: 603: 487:

Ok well, even though it may be POINT, it's still a merge suggestion. And although

370: 239: 222: 5181:

Research on the talk page—there could be evidence that it existed on its own like

4672:

have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at

678: 562: 478: 5587: 5516: 5447: 5263: 5166: 5106: 5076: 4746: 4693: 4548: 4512: 4364: 4248: 4185: 4059: 3986: 3953: 3876: 3840: 3802: 3746: 3662: 3279: 3176: 2868: 2589: 2558: 2554: 2531: 2420: 2363: 2341: 2314: 2253: 2207: 2158: 2146:

Blurb for the Turlock Travelodge at an on-line listing of motels, lead paragraph.

2112: 2089: 2050: 2026: 1985: 1945: 1941: 1933: 1932:, is usually linked as such even though it's Route 7100. I do the same with the 1748: 1546: 1488: 1463: 1418: 1350: 1285: 1240: 1182: 946: 922: 864:

You asked for an example of "overstandardization". Well, here is a good one: --

833: 788: 768: 658: 549: 458: 453: 440: 435: 293: 183:

has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at

158: 114: 4958:

Overturned, I am in the process of cleaning up all the Florida county roads. --

2781: 1909:(ec) I really don't see what the big problem is. If I'm reading the article on 675: 517: 475: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

5493: 5397: 5393: 5342: 5229: 5192: 5096: 5041: 5018: 4992: 4959: 4936: 4874: 4845: 4765: 4677: 4556: 4494: 4453: 4425: 4381: 4297: 4274: 4256: 4229: 4156: 4107: 3935: 3917: 3912: 3881: 3872: 3788: 3770: 3683: 3499: 3475: 3448: 3338: 3165: 3137: 2998: 2893: 2720: 2643: 2514: 2482: 2226: 2202: 2084: 1979: 1891: 1795: 1766: 1744: 1740: 1727: 1673: 1668: 1624: 1615: 1573: 1569: 1565: 1516: 1512: 1507: 1482: 1399: 1373: 1369: 1345: 1259: 1201: 1177: 1148: 1122: 1094: 1047: 1041: 1015: 1011: 992: 987: 941: 883: 527: 375: 339: 334: 244: 188: 5345:(which I still haven't found; if someone knows of any that would be great). -- 1230:

No; that was specifically to address the following situation: you are writing

786:

And it was. Which goes to show, an AFD doesn;t necessarily mean a deletion. --

514: 5583: 5544: 5419: 5378: 5368: 5346: 5326: 5309: 5287: 5259: 5250: 5215: 5152: 5136: 4917: 4830: 4804: 4712: 4644: 4609: 4586: 4480: 4443: 4414: 3712: 3603: 3365: 3108: 3061: 3002: 2961: 2846: 2825: 2794: 2771: 2759: 2692: 2492: 2415: 2285: 2230: 2071: 2012: 1951: 1848: 1812: 1770: 1692: 1647: 1577: 1521: 1441: 1377: 1323: 1263: 1208: 1156: 1104: 920:. Be forewarned, however, you will upset many people for bringing this up. -- 501: 330: 142: 4154:

For these states, it's mandated that the 3di shields look the way they are.

3060:

or whatever the styleguide says. And if someone does it, it can be changed.

1944:. Now if you're talking about something over and over again, you could do " 1344:

Yes, I am referring to what you refer to as the "common names" in the text.

4309: 3951:

Yeah... not sure how to go about this as I just came up with the idea :) --

2933: 2929: 2913:

that while it may be a common name, it's not encyclopedic, and in articles

2773:

California Highway Patrol calls them all "Highways" (look at the addresses)

1834: 708: 5339: 2135:

http://www.viamagazine.com/top_stories/articles/Roadside_attractions04.asp

5360: 4208:

Portal talk:Transport#Headline of the netherlands motorways are all wrong

3973: 3940: 3900: 3860: 3826: 3728: 2925: 2628: 2192: 1078: 1019: 906: 865: 3624:

discussing state-detail pages, we are discussing the bannered routes. --

3372:

for the ugliness of argument, it probably belongs on the other side. --

2755:: "Highway 99 is the transportation backbone of the San Joaquin Valley." 1065:

In a non-route article that mentions a notable highway? Some examples:

231:

D) Moving the Wikiproject subpage to a proper namespace location (e.g.,

4991:

highway with the completion of the Chief Standing Bear bridge over the

3971:

Well, the proposal will essentially make it a two-state subproject... —

3709:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/19th century turnpikes in Massachusetts

3298:

unlikely to cause any confusion in this case to use the official name.

3135:

My bad. Didn't really catch that. Yeah, it should be ambiguous name.

2750:: "Highway 99 Briggsmore Expressway Develop approximately 1.3 miles..." 2446:

I think we're on two different subjects here, and I just want clarify.

2393: 1059:

In the junction list in the body of a stub article about another route?

4782:

Another idea I have would be to just place it all in a list article.

649:

512theking, BAG, etc.) and c) "Do you think this is a good idea? ...."

597:

before they can impliment it unless I'm grossly misreading the policy.

264:

I'm totally okay with (B). The editor placing the tag should explain

5286:

Historically nonexistent highway and article a word-for-word copy of

2525:? Yes. But this is an encyclopedia and needs to be written formally. 2225:

Rschen7754... ever think for a moment some people here may feel that

291:

see no reason why this project has to change such a major element. --

419:

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal.

5548: 4988: 2680: 1739:

All right - time out here! We have already come to a consensus on

1071:

A biography that mentions a highway that the person helped develop.

1046:"erhaps once in the lead" of the article about the route (to quote 5469:

Seems redundant to both browsing and the state list page to me. --

4363:

TMF, How does one know to hover over the row to find a legend? •

4075:

Out of curiosity, how are the shields different in WI, MN and IA?

3915:

in there as well, but that project is so bad it's not even funny.

3616:). What does matter is that we decide which infobox is proper for 3368:, but also puts the blame solely on one side, when if there's any 572:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.

552:, then it's not really a merge suggestion. Discussion closed. -- 2917:, the name used should be either of the two given in that chart. 2141:"Roadside Stops along California's Highway 99", Hilmar paragraph. 1053:

If needed, in the history section of the article about the route?

766:

It was the nomer's first edit. Probably will be speedy closed. --

3558:, the state that the route is in is a non-issue is well, making 2130:

I can cite many references to these common names. For example:

137: 5292:

Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_June_16#U.S._Route_155

4451:

And there's absolutely no consensus to get rid of the colours.

1180:

already has addressed this and is fully backed by consensus. --

5367:, please do so; I can't think of a good interesting tidbit. -- 3161:

Sourced nicknames are okay, such as Golden State Freeway, etc.

1568:, then the actual common name needs to be used, not just what 1068:

An article about a city that mentions a highway that it is on.

1010:

As a clarification, I accept the article title conventions on

5415: 5411: 5162: 2522: 2518: 2401: 2397: 1143:

that don't involve "State Route X", instead, full names like

748:

Agreed, I tried my best to do a makeover of this article. --

4887:

The Kentucky task force is being considered for repromotion

3038:

of roads are banned, as that was surely never its intention.

2396:

in the Las Vegas area? No one uses that name they only use

3266:

were they ever meant to be a part of this conversation. --

2443:(double ec) Depends on the emphasis, IMO Rschen (see below) 5249:(which looks to have general support on the talk page)? -- 5245:

redirect to the state highway category, as recommended by

3726:"Physicq210," from the State Highway Naming War of 2006. — 3650:

All depends on the scope Vegaswikian. An article such as

3203:

to re-debate what the official name is, that's fine by me.

2620:, per local, verifiable usage. Whereas your misquote is 2885:(ec) Heh, I was about to create a section break myself. 1014:; they make a great deal of sense. The problem is that 874:

I am from California. Where I grew up (in the northern

716:

is up for deletion, please vote to keep the article. --

452:) 03:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Are you kidding me? This is a 5133:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Kew Gardens Interchange

4674:

the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page

4581:: looks like it would be better pruned and merged into 2115:, I think you have accidentally misquoted me. I wrote 185:

the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page

5586:

in my world. Those links are already in the article. —

4423:

Colours would be completely messed up if we did that.

2079:

Sort of. But how this got brought up was a user wrote

1438:

Example of highways with Common Names that are Sourced

1093:

change in name from the well-established standards at

733:

The perfect example of a secondary state highway that

402: 5557:

Now that (use on state WP pages) I can agree with. --

3164:

If you use a number designation, you must conform to

2609:

I specifically linked to the existing article title (

4389:

was just phased out, it'd be a different story... --

2824:

Where did anyone mention "California Highway 99"? --

2339:, that is factually incorrect and not acceptable. -- 4202:

Headline of the netherlands motorways are all wrong

3001:is not gospel, and there will be major exceptions. 491:should have started a merge section, this will do. 212:

A) The cleanup templates being placed on talk pages

4979:, has this as a potential Did you know ...? item: 4026:state specific US Route shields in state infoboxes 2783:Thing from UC-Davis, but look at the corridor map. 2485:) just after intersecting the eastern terminus of 1147:which is a loop and the route number is shared by 4799:. If you compare that to the rightmost column of 2997:Okay, then someone needs to tell Rschen7754 that 2905:". I think the most common name for pretty much 2309:On a slightly related note, far more people know 176:TfD nomination of Template:Montana State Highways 4579:County Route 1309 (Westchester County, New York) 3536:U.S. Route 62 Business (Niagara Falls, New York) 2513:On #1- that is factually incorrect. His name is 886:is misleading. By the way, Google searches show: 5437:U.S. Routes and Interstate Highways in Illinois 2173:97 results for site:www.modbee.com "Highway 99" 2020:If it's used by the government, it's okay. But 1515:says it should be, we're going to go with what 1283:What other "ambiguous cases" could there be? -- 233:Knowledge:Manual of Style (interstate highways) 215:B) The links to Wikiproject pages being removed 107:Knowledge:Song/We didn't start the fire (Roads) 966:why editors are "scared" to participate here. 714:State Route 1002 (Lehigh County, Pennsylvania) 407: 5574:I see what you're saying, but it would go on 3389:Bot to keep track of cleanup-tagged articles? 1983:California State Route 17 would be SR 17). -- 897:* 45,000 hits for "State Route 99" California 4914:County Road 702 (Palm Beach County, Florida) 4272:for intersections in the middle of nowhere. 3544:U.S. Route 7 Alternate (Burlington, Vermont) 2595:Are you deliberately misquoting me? I said 2179:2 results for site:www.modbee.com "Route 99" 1368:Then, from what I understand by reading the 4479:Is there consensus to force use of them? -- 3764:Uhh, no...the scope would be too broad per 408:!??!?!?!?!?!-2007-05-01T22:29:00.000Z": --> 403:!??!?!?!?!?!-2007-05-01T22:29:00.000Z": --> 369:to see where this thing doesn't stack up." 4801:List of primary state highways in Virginia 2176:9 results for site:www.modbee.com "Hwy 99" 1258:I don't see that specifically outlined in 891:* 341,000 hits for "Highway 99" California 4797:Category:Historic Virginia state highways 2185:1 result for site:www.modbee.com "Rte 99" 2182:2 results for site:www.modbee.com "SR 99" 1506:First, Rschen7754, I understand that the 4604:I see no need to keep it; much of it is 3465:Exit list not compliant with WP:IH/ELG. 3124:name. "State Route X" is ambiguous. -- 1917:begins in Virginia as a continuation of 944:- you're opening a can of worms here. -- 4803:, you can see how many do redirect. -- 4661:Deletion of a couple obsolete infoboxes 882:", not "State Route 99". In this case, 14: 4736:This should probably be brought up at 1207:That appears to answer this question. 894:* 139,000 hits for "Hwy 99" California 525:per my comments in the above section. 218:C) The template being replaced with a 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4971:Made another attempt at a DYK article 1879:Rschen7754 has replied in IRC below: 18:Knowledge talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads 3787:Uhh, how would it be too broad when 3207:Otherwise, Rschen's summary is A-OK. 1646:, as consensus can and does change. 1511:the common name differers from what 900:* 41,000 hits for "SR 99" California 25: 4413:You could just use table syntax. -- 2461:as opposed to the "common name" and 2449:Using different terms for routes. 2400:even though it is also cosigned as 1114:be mentioned in any junction list; 819:necessarily meant a deletion??? -- 23: 5486:Agreed. Just neglected to reply. 5282:Deletion Discussion U.S. Route 155 5032:T:TDYK#Articles created on June 14 5026:I concur with Holderca1. There's 3911:Already are. I would've also put 3492:Needs more sources and expansion. 2553:point of view (Nothing to do with 2390:<==== outdent with focus change 24: 5615: 5428:Template for state-specific roads 5359:If anyone would like to nominate 2845:Creating a section break, folks. 2791:Like NE2 said, "and many more". 5442:(admittedly verbose), demoed on 5247:Knowledge:Categorizing redirects 4722:Missouri decommissioned highways 4651:Would love to see it on there. 4574:Does this article need to exist? 3542:with "type=Business" passed. On 2156:website returns these results. 1176:We're aware of that... however, 29: 4442:Not if we get rid of colors. -- 1923:East end: SR 9 | West end: WV 9 1622:is not backed up by consensus. 430:The result of the proposal was 206:Knowledge:Avoid self-references 181:Template:Montana State Highways 5388:Florida County Road Task Force 5161:I'm all for redirecting it to 4595:I see no need to delete it. -- 1614:Cascadia, please read through 645:discussed at those talk pages. 13: 1: 5335:Source for some historic maps 4637:was created in 1926, most of 5028:U.S. Route 322 in New Jersey 5009:I was successful at getting 4975:My latest Nebraska article, 2892:The phrase "common name" in 878:), 99 is commonly known as " 7: 5576:Interstate 90 in Washington 5406:Possible collaboration idea 3721:Multistate Highway Projects 3568:suitable for this purpose. 2616:I wrote the common name as 2529:is factually inaccurate. -- 2008:Minnesota State Highway 371 1972:California State Highway 99 1919:West Virginia State Route 9 1885:In this case, you can't do 333:of article quality and the 10: 5620: 4385:was six months ago, after 3898:Will be, or already are? — 3417:Colorado State Highway 121 2121:California State_Route 165 1097:, even in the lead, there 1032:names supposed to be used? 352:19:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC) 324:18:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC) 307:03:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC) 286:06:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC) 259:06:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC) 5423:13:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC) 5401:21:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC) 5382:22:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC) 5377:Never mind; I got one. -- 5372:15:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC) 5350:08:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC) 5330:22:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC) 5313:03:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC) 5298:10:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC) 5274:13:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC) 5254:05:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC) 5243:Tennessee State Route 383 5236:05:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC) 5219:04:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC) 5210:01:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC) 5177:01:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC) 5156:00:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC) 5146:Tennessee State Route 383 5140:23:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC) 5120:01:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC) 5100:01:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC) 5090:01:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC) 5059:01:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC) 5022:20:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC) 5004:19:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC) 4963:16:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC) 4954:16:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC) 4904:06:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC) 4878:15:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC) 4863:15:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC) 4834:14:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC) 4822:10:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC) 4813:So what you're saying is: 4808:05:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC) 4787:22:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC) 4778:22:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC) 4769:22:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC) 4760:21:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC) 4731:20:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC) 3026:gospel in the sense that 2611:California State Route 99 2414:In this case you can use 2311:Interstate 290 (Illinois) 2022:Minnesota State Route 371 1232:California State Route 62 982:100% agreed with NORTH. 335:accepted design standards 5604:19:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC) 5570:07:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC) 5552:00:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC) 5533:20:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 5511:18:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 5482:18:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 5464:17:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 5444:U.S. Route 6 in Illinois 4921:22:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC) 4716:10:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC) 4706:02:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC) 4681:19:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC) 4656:06:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC) 4640:U.S. Route 6 in Nebraska 4623:U.S. Route 6 in Nebraska 4613:01:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC) 4600:01:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC) 4590:01:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC) 4569:17:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC) 4524:20:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 4507:20:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 4484:15:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 4475:13:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC) 4466:14:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 4447:13:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 4438:12:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 4418:06:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 4402:23:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC) 4376:23:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC) 4359:23:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC) 4350:23:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC) 4317:17:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC) 4304:17:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC) 4287:04:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC) 4263:04:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC) 4242:14:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC) 4215:10:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC) 4197:03:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC) 4169:01:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC) 4150:21:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 4120:20:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 4101:20:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 4071:16:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 4054:00:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 4036:00:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 4000:04:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 3980:04:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 3967:04:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 3947:04:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 3930:04:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 3907:04:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 3894:04:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 3867:03:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 3854:03:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 3833:03:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 3816:05:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 3796:04:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 3783:03:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 3760:03:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 3735:03:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 3716:15:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC) 3690:05:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC) 3675:11:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC) 3652:U.S. Route 1 in Virginia 3646:07:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC) 3637:14:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC) 3614:U.S. Route 6 in Colorado 3607:07:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC) 3600:U.S. Route 1 in Virginia 3594:06:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC) 3584:16:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC) 2928:should probably link to 1911:California State Route 1 1724:Oklahoma State Highway 3 1234:and you need to link to 575:Please do not modify it. 422:Please do not modify it. 157:Thanks for the laugh -- 5580:Interstate 90 in Oregon 5323:Florida State Road 5023 4926:Now to deletion review 4629:Specifically, I wrote: 3517:19:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC) 3506:15:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC) 3411:Reason needing cleanup 3379:18:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 3351:00:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC) 3328:This depends, though. 3324:00:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC) 3293:21:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 3273:18:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 3246:18:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 3216:18:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 3190:04:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 3150:02:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 3131:02:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 3112:02:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 3088:01:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 3077:01:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 3048:01:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 3018:01:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 2993:01:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 2977:01:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 2954:Arizona State Route 143 2943:01:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 2880:01:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 2862:01:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 2841:Arbitrary Section Break 2829:01:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 2820:00:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 2804:00:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 2763:23:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC) 2733:22:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC) 2696:22:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC) 2656:22:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC) 2632:20:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC) 2570:20:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC) 2545:19:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC) 2502:19:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC) 2434:19:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC) 2409:19:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC) 2377:19:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC) 2355:19:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC) 2331:18:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC) 2301:17:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC) 2267:17:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC) 2246:17:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC) 2221:17:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC) 2196:16:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC) 2103:04:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC) 2075:04:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC) 2062:04:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC) 2040:04:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC) 2016:04:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC) 1999:03:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC) 1961:21:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1904:21:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1864:21:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1842:21:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1828:21:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1802:20:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1786:20:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1760:20:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1734:20:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1708:20:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1686:20:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1663:20:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1637:20:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1593:19:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1560:19:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1537:19:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1502:19:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1477:19:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1457:19:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1432:19:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1412:19:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1393:19:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1364:19:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1339:19:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1299:19:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1279:18:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1254:18:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1224:18:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1196:18:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1172:18:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1135:18:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1082:15:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1023:15:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1005:14:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 977:05:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 960:05:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 936:04:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 910:04:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 869:05:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 853:Overstandardization of 847:22:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC) 826:22:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC) 802:22:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC) 782:22:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC) 760:21:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC) 744:21:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC) 728:20:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC) 697:20:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC) 673:03:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC) 628:23:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 560:23:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 540:23:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 512:22:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 473:21:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 390:21:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC) 195:06:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC) 170:23:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 152:17:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 128:05:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 5011:Interstate 10 in Texas 4220:A couple of page moves 3620:routes. Again, we are 3471:Indiana State Road 205 2392:How should we discuss 1930:Fairfax County Parkway 1236:Arizona State Route 95 1153:South Mountain Freeway 5432:I've made a template 5303:Idea for a useful bot 5072:Category:Road backlog 5030:that's up for DYK at 4883:Promotion of Kentucky 3766:Knowledge:WikiProject 3661:comment was added by 3028:in U.S. road articles 2622:California Highway 99 2604:California Highway 99 2527:California Highway 99 2521:. Do people call him 2081:California Highway 99 916:Then take it up with 42:of past discussions. 5183:New Jersey Route 165 5074:has been created. -- 4635:U.S. Highway network 4270:Indiana State Road 3 3366:consensus can change 2711:Some more comments: 1968:Golden State Freeway 1808:Red Mountain Freeway 1620:this needs to change 1145:Red Mountain Freeway 1087:If there's gonna be 434:as agreed below per 329:along the lines of " 5318:Deletion nomination 5128:Deletion discussion 4985:Nebraska Highway 14 4977:Nebraska Highway 14 4909:Deletion nomination 4838:I concur with NE2. 4666:Template:TxRouteBox 3704:Deletion discussion 3523:Infoboxes, part two 3022:Well, I think USSH 2337:Illinois Highway 23 2083:, which is against 4740:and referenced at 4583:Yorktown, New York 4516: 4368: 4189: 4063: 3563:Infobox U.S. Route 3540:Infobox U.S. Route 2950:Hohokam Expressway 2903:Disambiguated name 2872: 2562: 2508:The Loneliest Road 2469:I'll say it again: 2054: 2024:would be wrong. -- 1978:that goes against 1752: 876:San Joaquin Valley 679:!??!?!?!?!?!": --> 676:!??!?!?!?!?!": --> 672:!??!?!?!?!?!": --> 635:!??!?!?!?!?!": --> 566:!??!?!?!?!?!": --> 563:!??!?!?!?!?!": --> 559:!??!?!?!?!?!": --> 546:!??!?!?!?!?!": --> 518:!??!?!?!?!?!": --> 515:!??!?!?!?!?!": --> 511:!??!?!?!?!?!": --> 485:!??!?!?!?!?!": --> 479:!??!?!?!?!?!": --> 476:!??!?!?!?!?!": --> 472:!??!?!?!?!?!": --> 417:!??!?!?!?!?!": --> 238:Just my thoughts. 200:Here's the problem 162: 4687:Yellowstone Trail 4633:...that when the 4606:original research 4514: 4366: 4187: 4061: 3678: 3546:, the infobox is 3538:, the infobox is 3496: 3495: 2958:Agua Fria Freeway 2922:Bruce Springsteen 2870: 2758:And many more. -- 2560: 2479:Tri-State Tollway 2052: 1750: 160: 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 5611: 5602: 5598: 5594: 5590: 5565: 5562: 5531: 5527: 5523: 5519: 5509: 5504: 5501: 5496: 5477: 5474: 5462: 5458: 5454: 5450: 5441: 5435: 5270: 5267: 5208: 5203: 5200: 5195: 5173: 5170: 5057: 5052: 5049: 5044: 4952: 4947: 4944: 4939: 4899: 4896: 4861: 4856: 4853: 4848: 4703: 4698: 4670:Template:TxFMBox 4625:as a DYK article 4565: 4562: 4559: 4553: 4547: 4517: 4503: 4500: 4497: 4462: 4459: 4456: 4434: 4431: 4428: 4397: 4394: 4369: 4345: 4342: 4283: 4280: 4277: 4238: 4235: 4232: 4190: 4165: 4162: 4159: 4144: 4137: 4130: 4116: 4113: 4110: 4095: 4088: 4081: 4064: 4049: 4046: 3976: 3943: 3926: 3923: 3920: 3903: 3890: 3887: 3884: 3863: 3829: 3779: 3776: 3773: 3731: 3656: 3632: 3629: 3579: 3576: 3567: 3561: 3444:Everett Turnpike 3396: 3395: 3347: 3344: 3341: 3318: 3311: 3304: 3240: 3233: 3226: 3146: 3143: 3140: 3073: 3066: 3014: 3007: 2973: 2966: 2873: 2858: 2851: 2816: 2813: 2800: 2797: 2729: 2726: 2723: 2652: 2649: 2646: 2563: 2549:Think about the 2498: 2495: 2329: 2325: 2321: 2317: 2297: 2290: 2242: 2235: 2055: 1957: 1954: 1938:Dulles Toll Road 1900: 1897: 1894: 1888: 1860: 1853: 1824: 1817: 1782: 1775: 1753: 1704: 1697: 1682: 1679: 1676: 1659: 1652: 1633: 1630: 1627: 1589: 1582: 1533: 1526: 1453: 1446: 1408: 1405: 1402: 1389: 1382: 1335: 1328: 1275: 1268: 1220: 1213: 1168: 1161: 1131: 1128: 1125: 1001: 998: 995: 756: 753: 724: 721: 680: 677: 636: 622: 615: 608: 577: 567: 564: 547: 536: 533: 530: 519: 516: 507: 504: 486: 480: 477: 424: 418: 409: 404: 388: 385: 348: 345: 342: 257: 254: 227: 221: 163: 148: 145: 112:Check it out. -- 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 5619: 5618: 5614: 5613: 5612: 5610: 5609: 5608: 5600: 5596: 5592: 5588: 5563: 5560: 5529: 5525: 5521: 5517: 5499: 5494: 5489: 5487: 5475: 5472: 5460: 5456: 5452: 5448: 5439: 5433: 5430: 5408: 5390: 5357: 5337: 5320: 5305: 5284: 5268: 5265: 5198: 5193: 5188: 5186: 5171: 5168: 5149: 5130: 5069: 5047: 5042: 5037: 5035: 4987:became a cross- 4973: 4942: 4937: 4932: 4930: 4911: 4897: 4894: 4885: 4851: 4846: 4841: 4839: 4724: 4699: 4694: 4690: 4676:. Thank you. — 4663: 4627: 4576: 4563: 4560: 4557: 4551: 4545: 4542: 4513: 4501: 4498: 4495: 4460: 4457: 4454: 4432: 4429: 4426: 4395: 4392: 4365: 4343: 4340: 4281: 4278: 4275: 4253: 4236: 4233: 4230: 4222: 4204: 4186: 4163: 4160: 4157: 4140: 4133: 4126: 4114: 4111: 4108: 4091: 4084: 4077: 4060: 4047: 4044: 4028: 3974: 3941: 3924: 3921: 3918: 3901: 3888: 3885: 3882: 3861: 3827: 3777: 3774: 3771: 3729: 3723: 3706: 3657:—The preceding 3630: 3627: 3577: 3574: 3565: 3559: 3525: 3391: 3345: 3342: 3339: 3314: 3307: 3300: 3236: 3229: 3222: 3144: 3141: 3138: 3105:"disambiguated" 3075: 3071: 3062: 3016: 3012: 3003: 2975: 2971: 2962: 2869: 2860: 2856: 2847: 2843: 2814: 2811: 2798: 2795: 2727: 2724: 2721: 2716: 2650: 2647: 2644: 2606:. Please note: 2559: 2496: 2493: 2327: 2323: 2319: 2315: 2299: 2295: 2286: 2244: 2240: 2231: 2164:Turlock Journal 2159:The Modesto Bee 2119:in an article ( 2051: 1955: 1952: 1946:Capital Beltway 1942:Dulles Greenway 1934:Capital Beltway 1898: 1895: 1892: 1886: 1883: 1862: 1858: 1849: 1835:reliable source 1826: 1822: 1813: 1784: 1780: 1771: 1749: 1706: 1702: 1693: 1680: 1677: 1674: 1661: 1657: 1648: 1631: 1628: 1625: 1591: 1587: 1578: 1535: 1531: 1522: 1455: 1451: 1442: 1406: 1403: 1400: 1391: 1387: 1378: 1337: 1333: 1324: 1277: 1273: 1264: 1222: 1218: 1209: 1170: 1166: 1157: 1129: 1126: 1123: 1105:reliable source 1034: 999: 996: 993: 859: 754: 751: 722: 719: 711: 618: 611: 604: 582: 573: 534: 531: 528: 505: 502: 489:User:myselfalso 420: 411: 383: 380: 346: 343: 340: 331:higher standard 252: 249: 225: 219: 202: 178: 159: 146: 143: 135: 110: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5617: 5607: 5606: 5572: 5540: 5539: 5538: 5537: 5536: 5535: 5429: 5426: 5407: 5404: 5389: 5386: 5385: 5384: 5356: 5353: 5343:Falls Turnpike 5336: 5333: 5319: 5316: 5304: 5301: 5283: 5280: 5279: 5278: 5277: 5276: 5226: 5225: 5224: 5223: 5222: 5221: 5148: 5143: 5129: 5126: 5125: 5124: 5123: 5122: 5068: 5065: 5064: 5063: 5062: 5061: 4997: 4996: 4993:Missouri River 4972: 4969: 4968: 4967: 4966: 4965: 4910: 4907: 4884: 4881: 4870: 4869: 4868: 4867: 4866: 4865: 4815: 4814: 4792: 4791: 4790: 4789: 4780: 4762: 4723: 4720: 4719: 4718: 4689: 4684: 4662: 4659: 4649: 4648: 4626: 4619: 4618: 4617: 4616: 4615: 4575: 4572: 4541: 4538: 4537: 4536: 4535: 4534: 4533: 4532: 4531: 4530: 4529: 4528: 4527: 4526: 4489: 4477: 4411: 4410: 4409: 4408: 4407: 4406: 4405: 4404: 4330: 4329: 4324: 4323: 4322: 4321: 4320: 4319: 4252: 4245: 4224:Discussion at 4221: 4218: 4203: 4200: 4182: 4181: 4180: 4179: 4178: 4177: 4176: 4175: 4174: 4173: 4172: 4171: 4027: 4024: 4023: 4022: 4021: 4020: 4019: 4018: 4017: 4016: 4015: 4014: 4013: 4012: 4011: 4010: 4009: 4008: 4007: 4006: 4005: 4004: 4003: 4002: 3822: 3821: 3820: 3819: 3818: 3722: 3719: 3705: 3702: 3701: 3700: 3699: 3698: 3697: 3696: 3695: 3694: 3693: 3692: 3639: 3524: 3521: 3520: 3519: 3494: 3493: 3490: 3483: 3478: 3473: 3467: 3466: 3463: 3456: 3451: 3446: 3440: 3439: 3436: 3429: 3424: 3419: 3413: 3412: 3409: 3406: 3403: 3400: 3390: 3387: 3386: 3385: 3384: 3383: 3382: 3381: 3361: 3360: 3359: 3358: 3357: 3356: 3355: 3354: 3353: 3253: 3252: 3251: 3250: 3249: 3248: 3204: 3193: 3192: 3172: 3169: 3162: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3152: 3103:I don't think 3101: 3100: 3099: 3098: 3097: 3096: 3095: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3069: 3058:State Route 99 3039: 3010: 2980: 2979: 2969: 2883: 2882: 2854: 2842: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2789: 2784: 2779: 2774: 2766: 2765: 2756: 2751: 2746: 2741: 2713: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2689:State Route 99 2667: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2639:State Route 99 2625: 2614: 2607: 2593: 2579: 2577: 2576: 2575: 2574: 2573: 2572: 2515:George W. Bush 2511: 2474: 2470: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2462: 2444: 2439: 2437: 2436: 2391: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2307: 2293: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2276: 2238: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2183: 2180: 2177: 2174: 2150: 2147: 2142: 2137:Dean Blaine. 2110: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2065: 2064: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2042: 1964: 1963: 1926: 1881: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1856: 1820: 1778: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1700: 1655: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1585: 1529: 1479: 1449: 1434: 1385: 1331: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1271: 1216: 1164: 1149:Santan Freeway 1075: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1069: 1063: 1060: 1057: 1054: 1051: 1048:User:Vishwin60 1044: 1033: 1026: 1008: 1007: 963: 962: 938: 913: 912: 902: 901: 898: 895: 892: 888: 887: 858: 851: 850: 849: 813: 812: 811: 810: 809: 808: 807: 806: 805: 804: 710: 707: 706: 705: 704: 703: 702: 701: 700: 699: 654: 653: 652: 651: 650: 646: 642: 639: 600: 599: 598: 594: 590: 581: 580: 543: 542: 520: 483: 428: 427: 412: 410: 400: 399: 398: 397: 396: 395: 394: 393: 392: 359: 358: 357: 356: 355: 354: 288: 273: 236: 235: 229: 216: 213: 201: 198: 177: 174: 173: 172: 134: 133:Laugh a little 131: 109: 104: 101: 100: 95: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5616: 5605: 5599: 5591: 5585: 5584:Interstate 90 5581: 5577: 5573: 5571: 5568: 5567: 5556: 5555: 5554: 5553: 5550: 5546: 5545:Interstate 90 5534: 5528: 5520: 5514: 5513: 5512: 5507: 5502: 5497: 5492: 5485: 5484: 5483: 5480: 5479: 5468: 5467: 5466: 5465: 5459: 5451: 5445: 5438: 5425: 5424: 5421: 5417: 5413: 5403: 5402: 5399: 5395: 5383: 5380: 5376: 5375: 5374: 5373: 5370: 5366: 5362: 5355:Did you know? 5352: 5351: 5348: 5344: 5340: 5332: 5331: 5328: 5324: 5315: 5314: 5311: 5300: 5299: 5296: 5293: 5289: 5288:U.S. Route 55 5275: 5272: 5271: 5261: 5260:U.S. Route 58 5257: 5256: 5255: 5252: 5248: 5244: 5240: 5239: 5238: 5237: 5234: 5231: 5220: 5217: 5213: 5212: 5211: 5206: 5205:new age roads 5201: 5196: 5191: 5184: 5180: 5179: 5178: 5175: 5174: 5164: 5160: 5159: 5158: 5157: 5154: 5147: 5142: 5141: 5138: 5134: 5121: 5117: 5113: 5109: 5108: 5103: 5102: 5101: 5098: 5094: 5093: 5092: 5091: 5087: 5083: 5079: 5078: 5073: 5060: 5055: 5054:new age roads 5050: 5045: 5040: 5033: 5029: 5025: 5024: 5023: 5020: 5016: 5012: 5008: 5007: 5006: 5005: 5002: 4994: 4990: 4986: 4982: 4981: 4980: 4978: 4964: 4961: 4957: 4956: 4955: 4950: 4949:new age roads 4945: 4940: 4935: 4929: 4925: 4924: 4923: 4922: 4919: 4915: 4906: 4905: 4902: 4901: 4890: 4880: 4879: 4876: 4864: 4859: 4858:new age roads 4854: 4849: 4844: 4837: 4836: 4835: 4832: 4828: 4827: 4826: 4825: 4824: 4823: 4820: 4812: 4811: 4810: 4809: 4806: 4802: 4798: 4788: 4785: 4781: 4779: 4776: 4772: 4771: 4770: 4767: 4763: 4761: 4757: 4753: 4749: 4748: 4743: 4739: 4735: 4734: 4733: 4732: 4729: 4717: 4714: 4710: 4709: 4708: 4707: 4704: 4702: 4697: 4688: 4683: 4682: 4679: 4675: 4671: 4667: 4658: 4657: 4654: 4646: 4645:U.S. Route 38 4642: 4641: 4636: 4632: 4631: 4630: 4624: 4614: 4611: 4607: 4603: 4602: 4601: 4598: 4594: 4593: 4592: 4591: 4588: 4584: 4580: 4571: 4570: 4567: 4566: 4550: 4525: 4522: 4520: 4518: 4510: 4509: 4508: 4505: 4504: 4490: 4487: 4486: 4485: 4482: 4478: 4476: 4473: 4469: 4468: 4467: 4464: 4463: 4450: 4449: 4448: 4445: 4441: 4440: 4439: 4436: 4435: 4422: 4421: 4420: 4419: 4416: 4403: 4400: 4399: 4388: 4383: 4379: 4378: 4377: 4374: 4372: 4370: 4362: 4361: 4360: 4357: 4353: 4352: 4351: 4348: 4347: 4336: 4332: 4331: 4326: 4325: 4318: 4315: 4311: 4307: 4306: 4305: 4302: 4299: 4295: 4290: 4289: 4288: 4285: 4284: 4271: 4267: 4266: 4265: 4264: 4261: 4258: 4250: 4244: 4243: 4240: 4239: 4227: 4217: 4216: 4213: 4212:84.132.101.93 4210:Thank you -- 4209: 4199: 4198: 4195: 4193: 4191: 4170: 4167: 4166: 4153: 4152: 4151: 4148: 4145: 4143: 4138: 4136: 4131: 4129: 4123: 4122: 4121: 4118: 4117: 4104: 4103: 4102: 4099: 4096: 4094: 4089: 4087: 4082: 4080: 4074: 4073: 4072: 4069: 4067: 4065: 4057: 4056: 4055: 4052: 4051: 4040: 4039: 4038: 4037: 4034: 4001: 3997: 3993: 3989: 3988: 3983: 3982: 3981: 3978: 3977: 3970: 3969: 3968: 3964: 3960: 3956: 3955: 3950: 3949: 3948: 3945: 3944: 3937: 3933: 3932: 3931: 3928: 3927: 3914: 3910: 3909: 3908: 3905: 3904: 3897: 3896: 3895: 3892: 3891: 3878: 3874: 3870: 3869: 3868: 3865: 3864: 3857: 3856: 3855: 3851: 3847: 3843: 3842: 3836: 3835: 3834: 3831: 3830: 3823: 3817: 3813: 3809: 3805: 3804: 3799: 3798: 3797: 3794: 3790: 3786: 3785: 3784: 3781: 3780: 3767: 3763: 3762: 3761: 3757: 3753: 3749: 3748: 3743: 3739: 3738: 3737: 3736: 3733: 3732: 3718: 3717: 3714: 3710: 3691: 3688: 3685: 3680: 3679: 3676: 3672: 3668: 3664: 3660: 3653: 3649: 3648: 3647: 3644: 3640: 3638: 3635: 3634: 3623: 3619: 3615: 3610: 3609: 3608: 3605: 3601: 3597: 3596: 3595: 3592: 3588: 3587: 3586: 3585: 3582: 3581: 3569: 3564: 3557: 3552: 3549: 3545: 3541: 3537: 3532: 3530: 3518: 3515: 3510: 3509: 3508: 3507: 3504: 3501: 3491: 3489: 3488: 3484: 3482: 3479: 3477: 3474: 3472: 3469: 3468: 3464: 3462: 3461: 3457: 3455: 3452: 3450: 3447: 3445: 3442: 3441: 3437: 3435: 3434: 3430: 3428: 3425: 3423: 3420: 3418: 3415: 3414: 3410: 3407: 3404: 3401: 3398: 3397: 3394: 3380: 3377: 3376: 3371: 3367: 3362: 3352: 3349: 3348: 3335: 3331: 3327: 3326: 3325: 3322: 3319: 3317: 3312: 3310: 3305: 3303: 3296: 3295: 3294: 3290: 3286: 3282: 3281: 3276: 3275: 3274: 3271: 3270: 3265: 3261: 3260: 3259: 3258: 3257: 3256: 3255: 3254: 3247: 3244: 3241: 3239: 3234: 3232: 3227: 3225: 3219: 3218: 3217: 3214: 3213: 3208: 3205: 3202: 3197: 3196: 3195: 3194: 3191: 3187: 3183: 3179: 3178: 3173: 3170: 3167: 3163: 3160: 3159: 3158: 3151: 3148: 3147: 3134: 3133: 3132: 3129: 3128: 3123: 3121: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3113: 3110: 3106: 3089: 3086: 3085: 3080: 3079: 3078: 3074: 3067: 3065: 3059: 3056:, you can do 3055: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3046: 3045: 3040: 3037: 3033: 3029: 3025: 3021: 3020: 3019: 3015: 3008: 3006: 3000: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2991: 2990: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2978: 2974: 2967: 2965: 2959: 2955: 2951: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2944: 2941: 2940: 2935: 2931: 2927: 2923: 2918: 2916: 2912: 2908: 2904: 2900: 2899:Official name 2895: 2890: 2886: 2881: 2878: 2876: 2874: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2863: 2859: 2852: 2850: 2830: 2827: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2818: 2817: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2802: 2801: 2790: 2787: 2785: 2782: 2780: 2777: 2775: 2772: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2764: 2761: 2757: 2754: 2752: 2749: 2747: 2744: 2742: 2739: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2731: 2730: 2712: 2697: 2694: 2690: 2686: 2682: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2657: 2654: 2653: 2640: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2630: 2626: 2623: 2619: 2615: 2612: 2608: 2605: 2602: 2598: 2594: 2591: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2571: 2568: 2566: 2564: 2556: 2552: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2542: 2538: 2534: 2533: 2528: 2524: 2520: 2516: 2512: 2509: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2500: 2499: 2488: 2487:Interstate 88 2484: 2480: 2475: 2471: 2468: 2463: 2460: 2456: 2452: 2448: 2447: 2445: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2435: 2431: 2427: 2423: 2422: 2417: 2416:U.S. Route 95 2413: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2407: 2403: 2399: 2395: 2378: 2374: 2370: 2366: 2365: 2360: 2356: 2352: 2348: 2344: 2343: 2338: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2326: 2318: 2312: 2308: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2298: 2291: 2289: 2283: 2277: 2274: 2273: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2264: 2260: 2256: 2255: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2243: 2236: 2234: 2228: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2218: 2214: 2210: 2209: 2204: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2194: 2184: 2181: 2178: 2175: 2172: 2171: 2169: 2168:Delhi Express 2165: 2161: 2160: 2155: 2152:Googling the 2151: 2148: 2145: 2143: 2140: 2139:Via Magazine. 2136: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2128: 2126: 2122: 2118: 2114: 2104: 2100: 2096: 2092: 2091: 2086: 2082: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2073: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2063: 2060: 2058: 2056: 2047: 2041: 2037: 2033: 2029: 2028: 2023: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2014: 2009: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1996: 1992: 1988: 1987: 1981: 1977: 1973: 1969: 1962: 1959: 1958: 1947: 1943: 1939: 1935: 1931: 1927: 1924: 1920: 1916: 1912: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1902: 1901: 1880: 1865: 1861: 1854: 1852: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1840: 1836: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1825: 1818: 1816: 1809: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1800: 1797: 1793: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1783: 1776: 1774: 1768: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1758: 1756: 1754: 1746: 1742: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1732: 1729: 1725: 1719: 1709: 1705: 1698: 1696: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1684: 1683: 1670: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1660: 1653: 1651: 1645: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1635: 1634: 1621: 1617: 1594: 1590: 1583: 1581: 1575: 1571: 1567: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1557: 1553: 1549: 1548: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1534: 1527: 1525: 1518: 1514: 1509: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1499: 1495: 1491: 1490: 1484: 1481:Furthermore, 1480: 1478: 1474: 1470: 1466: 1465: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1454: 1447: 1445: 1439: 1435: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1420: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1410: 1409: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1390: 1383: 1381: 1375: 1371: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1361: 1357: 1353: 1352: 1347: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1336: 1329: 1327: 1321: 1300: 1296: 1292: 1288: 1287: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1276: 1269: 1267: 1261: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1251: 1247: 1243: 1242: 1237: 1233: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1221: 1214: 1212: 1206: 1203: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1193: 1189: 1185: 1184: 1179: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1169: 1162: 1160: 1154: 1150: 1146: 1142: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1133: 1132: 1119: 1118: 1113: 1112: 1106: 1102: 1101: 1096: 1092: 1091: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1080: 1070: 1067: 1066: 1064: 1061: 1058: 1055: 1052: 1049: 1045: 1043: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1031: 1025: 1024: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1006: 1003: 1002: 989: 985: 981: 980: 979: 978: 975: 974: 967: 961: 957: 953: 949: 948: 943: 939: 937: 933: 929: 925: 924: 919: 915: 914: 911: 908: 904: 903: 899: 896: 893: 890: 889: 885: 881: 877: 873: 872: 871: 870: 867: 862: 856: 848: 844: 840: 836: 835: 830: 829: 828: 827: 824: 823: 818: 815:When has AFD 803: 799: 795: 791: 790: 785: 784: 783: 779: 775: 771: 770: 765: 764: 763: 762: 761: 758: 757: 747: 746: 745: 742: 741: 736: 732: 731: 730: 729: 726: 725: 715: 698: 695: 694: 689: 688: 687: 686: 685: 684: 683: 682: 681: 674: 669: 665: 661: 660: 647: 643: 640: 633: 632: 631: 630: 629: 626: 623: 621: 616: 614: 609: 607: 601: 595: 591: 587: 586: 583: 579: 576: 570: 569: 568: 561: 557: 556: 551: 541: 538: 537: 524: 521: 513: 509: 508: 497: 496:Oppose merge. 494: 493: 492: 490: 481: 474: 469: 465: 461: 460: 456:idiocracy. -- 455: 451: 447: 443: 442: 437: 433: 426: 423: 414: 413: 391: 386: 379: 378: 374: 373: 367: 366: 365: 364: 363: 362: 361: 360: 353: 350: 349: 336: 332: 327: 326: 325: 322: 321: 315: 310: 309: 308: 304: 300: 296: 295: 289: 287: 284: 283: 278: 274: 271: 267: 263: 262: 261: 260: 255: 248: 247: 243: 242: 234: 230: 224: 217: 214: 211: 210: 209: 207: 197: 196: 193: 190: 187:. Thank you.— 186: 182: 171: 168: 166: 164: 156: 155: 154: 153: 150: 149: 139: 130: 129: 125: 121: 117: 116: 108: 99: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 5582:... and not 5559: 5541: 5471: 5431: 5409: 5391: 5365:did you know 5358: 5338: 5321: 5306: 5295:DandyDan2007 5285: 5264: 5227: 5167: 5150: 5131: 5105: 5075: 5070: 5067:Road backlog 5001:DandyDan2007 4998: 4974: 4912: 4893: 4886: 4871: 4819:DandyDan2007 4816: 4793: 4784:DandyDan2007 4775:DandyDan2007 4745: 4728:DandyDan2007 4725: 4700: 4695: 4691: 4664: 4653:DandyDan2007 4650: 4638: 4628: 4577: 4555: 4543: 4493: 4452: 4424: 4412: 4391: 4386: 4339: 4273: 4254: 4228: 4226:WT:USRD/INNA 4223: 4205: 4183: 4155: 4146: 4141: 4134: 4127: 4106: 4097: 4092: 4085: 4078: 4043: 4033:DandyDan2007 4029: 3985: 3972: 3952: 3939: 3916: 3899: 3880: 3859: 3839: 3825: 3801: 3769: 3745: 3741: 3727: 3724: 3707: 3626: 3621: 3617: 3573: 3570: 3556:WP:USRD/INNA 3553: 3548:Infobox road 3533: 3526: 3497: 3485: 3458: 3431: 3421: 3402:WikiProject 3392: 3374: 3369: 3337: 3333: 3329: 3320: 3315: 3308: 3301: 3278: 3268: 3263: 3242: 3237: 3230: 3223: 3211: 3206: 3175: 3156: 3136: 3126: 3119: 3118: 3102: 3083: 3063: 3057: 3053: 3043: 3035: 3031: 3027: 3023: 3004: 2988: 2963: 2938: 2934:U.S. Route 9 2919: 2914: 2910: 2906: 2902: 2898: 2891: 2887: 2884: 2848: 2844: 2809: 2792: 2719: 2717: 2710: 2642: 2638: 2621: 2617: 2600: 2578: 2550: 2530: 2490: 2458: 2454: 2450: 2438: 2419: 2389: 2362: 2340: 2287: 2252: 2232: 2206: 2190: 2167: 2163: 2157: 2153: 2138: 2129: 2111: 2088: 2025: 1984: 1965: 1949: 1922: 1910: 1890: 1884: 1878: 1850: 1814: 1791: 1772: 1720: 1716: 1694: 1672: 1649: 1644:WP:CONSENSUS 1623: 1619: 1613: 1579: 1545: 1523: 1487: 1462: 1443: 1417: 1398: 1379: 1349: 1325: 1320:common names 1319: 1317: 1284: 1265: 1239: 1210: 1204: 1200:Acording to 1181: 1158: 1141:common names 1140: 1121: 1116: 1115: 1110: 1109: 1099: 1098: 1089: 1088: 1076: 1035: 1029: 1009: 991: 983: 972: 968: 964: 945: 921: 863: 861:Rschen7754, 860: 854: 832: 831:True. lol -- 821: 816: 814: 787: 767: 749: 739: 737:notable. -- 734: 717: 712: 692: 657: 655: 624: 619: 612: 605: 574: 571: 554: 544: 526: 522: 499: 495: 482: 457: 439: 431: 429: 421: 415: 406:!??!?!?!?!?! 405:Merge!?: --> 376: 371: 338: 319: 313: 292: 281: 265: 245: 240: 237: 203: 179: 140: 136: 113: 111: 78: 43: 37: 5361:Key Highway 4128:JohnnyBGood 4079:JohnnyBGood 3643:Vegaswikian 3598:Pages like 3591:Vegaswikian 3514:Vegaswikian 3405:Importance 3302:JohnnyBGood 3224:JohnnyBGood 2926:Born to Run 2915:on highways 2451:State route 2406:Vegaswikian 2154:Modesto Bee 1976:New York 17 1839:Vegaswikian 606:JohnnyBGood 372:Matt Yeager 266:exactly why 241:Matt Yeager 138:Click here. 36:This is an 5549:myselfalso 5107:Rschen7754 5077:Rschen7754 4747:Rschen7754 4597:myselfalso 4515:master_son 4472:myselfalso 4387:Routeboxny 4367:master_son 4356:myselfalso 4335:my sandbox 4294:, Oklahoma 4188:master_son 4062:master_son 3987:Rschen7754 3954:Rschen7754 3841:Rschen7754 3803:Rschen7754 3793:myselfalso 3747:Rschen7754 3663:Master son 3280:Rschen7754 3177:Rschen7754 3168:standards. 3122:ambiguated 3054:Highway 99 2871:master_son 2685:Highway 99 2683:uses both 2618:Highway 99 2597:Highway 99 2590:Rschen7754 2561:master_son 2532:Rschen7754 2421:Rschen7754 2364:Rschen7754 2342:Rschen7754 2254:Rschen7754 2208:Rschen7754 2125:Highway 99 2117:Highway 99 2113:Rschen7754 2090:Rschen7754 2053:master_son 2027:Rschen7754 1986:Rschen7754 1751:master_son 1547:Rschen7754 1489:Rschen7754 1464:Rschen7754 1419:Rschen7754 1351:Rschen7754 1286:Rschen7754 1241:Rschen7754 1183:Rschen7754 984:Highway 99 947:Rschen7754 923:Rschen7754 880:Highway 99 834:Rschen7754 789:Rschen7754 769:Rschen7754 659:Rschen7754 459:Rschen7754 441:Rschen7754 294:Rschen7754 161:master_son 115:Rschen7754 98:Archive 10 5398:Holderca1 5230:Scott5114 5097:Holderca1 5019:Holderca1 4960:Holderca1 4875:Holderca1 4766:Holderca1 4678:Holderca1 4382:Vishwin60 4298:Scott5114 4257:Scott5114 3684:Scott5114 3500:Scott5114 2930:Highway 9 1796:Scott5114 1728:Scott5114 1028:When are 189:Scott5114 90:Archive 8 85:Archive 7 79:Archive 6 73:Archive 5 68:Archive 4 60:Archive 1 5262:itself? 5116:contribs 5086:contribs 4995:in 1998? 4989:Nebraska 4983:...that 4756:contribs 4738:WT:N/HWY 4540:Progress 3996:contribs 3963:contribs 3850:contribs 3812:contribs 3756:contribs 3671:contribs 3659:unsigned 3618:bannered 3438:No lead 3289:contribs 3186:contribs 3064:CASCADIA 3005:CASCADIA 2964:CASCADIA 2960:, etc.) 2911:strongly 2849:CASCADIA 2681:Caltrans 2555:WP:POINT 2551:National 2541:contribs 2430:contribs 2373:contribs 2351:contribs 2288:CASCADIA 2263:contribs 2233:CASCADIA 2217:contribs 2166:and the 2099:contribs 2072:Sable232 2036:contribs 2013:Sable232 1995:contribs 1889:either. 1851:CASCADIA 1815:CASCADIA 1792:workable 1773:CASCADIA 1695:CASCADIA 1650:CASCADIA 1580:CASCADIA 1556:contribs 1524:CASCADIA 1498:contribs 1473:contribs 1444:CASCADIA 1428:contribs 1380:CASCADIA 1360:contribs 1326:CASCADIA 1295:contribs 1266:CASCADIA 1250:contribs 1211:CASCADIA 1192:contribs 1159:CASCADIA 956:contribs 932:contribs 843:contribs 798:contribs 778:contribs 668:contribs 550:WP:POINT 548:If it's 468:contribs 454:WP:POINT 450:contribs 436:WP:POINT 303:contribs 124:contribs 5394:WP:FLCR 4742:WT:MOSH 4621:Put up 4310:Polaron 4296:link. — 3936:WP:CASH 3789:WP:USRD 3476:WP:INSR 3449:WP:NHSH 3201:WT:CASH 3166:WP:USSH 2999:WP:USSH 2901:" and " 2894:WP:USSH 2455:highway 2227:WP:USSH 2203:WP:USSH 2085:WP:USSH 1980:WP:USSH 1915:Route 9 1767:WP:USSH 1745:WP:SRNC 1741:WP:USSH 1669:WP:USSH 1574:WP:USSH 1570:WP:USSH 1566:WP:USSH 1517:WP:USSH 1513:WP:USSH 1508:WP:USSH 1483:WP:USSH 1374:WP:USSH 1370:WP:USSH 1346:WP:USSH 1260:WP:USSH 1202:WP:USSH 1178:WP:USSH 1108:should 1095:WP:USSH 1042:WP:USSH 1016:WP:USSH 1012:WP:USSH 988:WP:USSH 942:WP:SRNC 918:WT:USRD 884:WP:USSH 277:the TfD 223:cleanup 39:archive 5266:master 5169:master 4549:Jctint 4328:sadly. 4249:jctint 3408:Class 2932:, not 2629:Jasper 2557:;) -- 2517:, not 2457:, and 2193:Jasper 1117:always 1079:Jasper 1030:common 1020:Jasper 907:Jasper 866:Jasper 855:Common 523:Oppose 5416:MD 25 5412:NY 52 5163:US 58 5017:. -- 4701:broil 4696:Royal 4147:VIVA! 4098:VIVA! 3975:Kyриx 3942:Kyриx 3902:Kyриx 3877:NJSCR 3862:Kyриx 3828:Kyриx 3742:might 3730:Kyриx 3487:Start 3460:Start 3399:Name 3375:NORTH 3370:blame 3334:Route 3330:Route 3321:VIVA! 3269:NORTH 3243:VIVA! 3212:NORTH 3127:NORTH 3084:NORTH 3072:Trail 3044:NORTH 3036:names 3013:Trail 2989:NORTH 2972:Trail 2939:NORTH 2936:. -- 2857:Trail 2523:Dubya 2519:Dubya 2483:I-294 2459:route 2402:US 93 2398:US 95 2394:I-515 2296:Trail 2241:Trail 1859:Trail 1823:Trail 1781:Trail 1743:(see 1703:Trail 1658:Trail 1588:Trail 1532:Trail 1452:Trail 1388:Trail 1334:Trail 1274:Trail 1219:Trail 1167:Trail 1111:never 1103:be a 973:NORTH 857:Names 822:NORTH 740:NORTH 693:NORTH 625:VIVA! 589:stop. 555:NORTH 432:Close 384:Talk? 320:NORTH 282:NORTH 253:Talk? 16:< 5597:talk 5526:talk 5506:fish 5500:zany 5457:talk 5363:for 5199:zany 5112:talk 5082:talk 5048:zany 4943:zany 4891:. -- 4889:here 4852:zany 4752:talk 4744:. -- 4668:and 4643:was 4585:. -- 4314:Talk 4268:See 3992:talk 3959:talk 3913:MDRD 3875:and 3873:PASH 3846:talk 3808:talk 3752:talk 3667:talk 3454:High 3433:Stub 3422:none 3285:talk 3182:talk 2952:for 2687:and 2537:talk 2426:talk 2369:talk 2347:talk 2324:talk 2259:talk 2213:talk 2205:. -- 2127:. 2095:talk 2087:. -- 2032:talk 1991:talk 1936:and 1616:SRNC 1552:talk 1494:talk 1469:talk 1424:talk 1356:talk 1291:talk 1246:talk 1188:talk 1151:and 1100:must 952:talk 928:talk 839:talk 817:ever 794:talk 774:talk 709:AFD! 664:talk 464:talk 446:talk 438:. -- 299:talk 270:this 120:talk 5589:Rob 5518:Rob 5495:zel 5449:Rob 5420:NE2 5414:or 5379:NE2 5369:NE2 5347:NE2 5327:NE2 5310:NE2 5269:son 5251:NE2 5216:NE2 5194:zel 5172:son 5153:NE2 5137:NE2 5043:zel 4938:zel 4918:NE2 4847:zel 4831:NE2 4805:NE2 4713:NE2 4610:NE2 4587:NE2 4481:NE2 4444:NE2 4415:NE2 3938:? — 3713:NE2 3622:not 3604:NE2 3534:On 3527:At 3481:Mid 3427:Mid 3264:nor 3209:-- 3120:dis 3109:NE2 2924:or 2907:all 2826:NE2 2760:NE2 2693:NE2 2627:-- 2601:not 2316:Rob 2191:-- 2170:): 1974:or 1090:any 1077:-- 905:-- 314:far 228:tag 5578:, 5440:}} 5434:{{ 5396:-- 5325:-- 5290:. 5185:. 5135:-- 5118:) 5114:- 5088:) 5084:- 5034:. 4916:-- 4873:-- 4758:) 4754:- 4552:}} 4546:{{ 4312:| 4251:}} 4247:{{ 3998:) 3994:- 3965:) 3961:- 3879:. 3852:) 3848:- 3838:-- 3814:) 3810:- 3768:. 3758:) 3754:- 3711:-- 3673:) 3669:• 3566:}} 3560:{{ 3291:) 3287:- 3188:) 3184:- 3032:is 3024:is 2815:10 2812:JA 2799:PD 2793:-- 2641:. 2599:, 2543:) 2539:- 2497:PD 2491:-- 2453:, 2432:) 2428:- 2375:) 2371:- 2353:) 2349:- 2265:) 2261:- 2219:) 2215:- 2101:) 2097:- 2038:) 2034:- 2011:-- 1997:) 1993:- 1956:PD 1950:-- 1576:. 1558:) 1554:- 1544:-- 1500:) 1496:- 1486:-- 1475:) 1471:- 1440:. 1430:) 1426:- 1362:) 1358:- 1297:) 1293:- 1252:) 1248:- 1194:) 1190:- 1050:). 990:. 958:) 954:- 934:) 930:- 845:) 841:- 800:) 796:- 780:) 776:- 755:10 752:JA 735:is 723:10 720:JA 670:) 666:- 656:-- 506:PD 500:-- 470:) 466:- 448:- 305:) 301:- 226:}} 220:{{ 147:PD 141:-- 126:) 122:- 94:→ 64:← 5601:) 5593:( 5566:F 5564:M 5561:T 5530:) 5522:( 5508:) 5503:- 5491:→ 5488:( 5478:F 5476:M 5473:T 5461:) 5453:( 5233:↗ 5207:) 5202:- 5190:→ 5187:( 5110:( 5080:( 5056:) 5051:- 5039:→ 5036:( 4951:) 4946:- 4934:→ 4931:( 4900:F 4898:M 4895:T 4860:) 4855:- 4843:→ 4840:( 4750:( 4647:? 4564:0 4561:6 4558:V 4502:0 4499:6 4496:V 4461:0 4458:6 4455:V 4433:0 4430:6 4427:V 4398:F 4396:M 4393:T 4346:F 4344:M 4341:T 4301:↗ 4282:0 4279:6 4276:V 4260:↗ 4237:0 4234:6 4231:V 4164:0 4161:6 4158:V 4142:c 4135:t 4115:0 4112:6 4109:V 4093:c 4086:t 4050:F 4048:M 4045:T 3990:( 3957:( 3925:0 3922:6 3919:V 3889:0 3886:6 3883:V 3844:( 3806:( 3778:0 3775:6 3772:V 3750:( 3687:↗ 3682:— 3677:. 3665:( 3633:F 3631:M 3628:T 3580:F 3578:M 3575:T 3503:↗ 3346:0 3343:6 3340:V 3316:c 3309:t 3283:( 3238:c 3231:t 3180:( 3145:0 3142:6 3139:V 3068:/ 3009:/ 2968:/ 2897:" 2853:/ 2796:M 2728:0 2725:6 2722:V 2651:0 2648:6 2645:V 2624:. 2592:, 2535:( 2510:. 2494:M 2481:( 2424:( 2367:( 2345:( 2328:) 2320:( 2292:/ 2257:( 2237:/ 2211:( 2093:( 2030:( 1989:( 1953:M 1940:/ 1899:0 1896:6 1893:V 1887:] 1855:/ 1819:/ 1799:↗ 1777:/ 1731:↗ 1699:/ 1681:0 1678:6 1675:V 1654:/ 1632:0 1629:6 1626:V 1584:/ 1550:( 1528:/ 1492:( 1467:( 1448:/ 1422:( 1407:0 1404:6 1401:V 1384:/ 1354:( 1330:/ 1289:( 1270:/ 1244:( 1215:/ 1186:( 1163:/ 1130:0 1127:6 1124:V 1000:0 997:6 994:V 950:( 926:( 837:( 792:( 772:( 662:( 620:c 613:t 535:0 532:6 529:V 503:M 462:( 444:( 387:) 381:( 377:♫ 347:0 344:6 341:V 297:( 256:) 250:( 246:♫ 192:↗ 144:M 118:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 6 - Knowledge

Index