Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Michigan/Archive 1

Interstates 127 and 131 are actually U.S. Highways. Could someone please fix these articles so that their titles are "United States Highway 127" and "United States Highway 131", and put links to them in the list of U.S. highways? -- Gregory Pietsch

I'm not really happy with this article as currently stands. I mean, does there really need to be separate pages for "Highways in Michigan" and a "List of State Highways in Michigan". I think I want to combine them somehow, but I need to think about it a bit. Any suggestions would be welcome. Bkonrad 16:58, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There seems to be a push to list various decommissioned route designations, although only a few are being included and the inclusions seem to be sporadic. I have mixed feelings about including ALL decommissioned routes here, as that would make the list of highway designations unbearably long, in my opinion. Should this be broken into a separate listing? Should someone make a more concerted effort to include EVERY decommissioned route designation from 1918 to the present instead of just a few? (I welcome those interested in a complete listing of every route ever used in Michigan to wander over to my website's Master List: 1918-Present.) CBessert 02:55, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think having a separate list for decommissioned highways is a good idea. Honestly, I think most of the stubby little entries on decommissioned highways are pretty sorry excuses for articles. In many of those cases, the content could probably be merged into and redirected to the list. I had been hoping to have some time and motivation to refer to your site to try and clean them up a bit, but the software project I'm working on has just begun functional testing and my brain has been too tapped out for the past several weeks to do much substantive work on Wikipedia. older≠wiser 01:40, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

There are numerous state highways that have numbers inspired by US highway numbers. It ranges in sever reasons from using a state highway number that is the same as a US highway that formerly used it's alignment (e.g. Michigan State Highway 27) to Having 2 opposite termini of a US and state highway with the same number almost touching termini (e.g. US-24 and M-24, US-25 [now decommissioned] and M-25). Should we set up a denotation on the state highway list for that trivia? Also, there are some state highways identical to US highways in route number but aren't inspired by one another (e.g. US-33 [now decommissioned] and M-33); we should denote those ones too. There are also M highways identical to US highways in number that shared alignment with the US highway before it became a US highway (e.g. M-16 and US-16); those ones should be denoted too. --SuperDude 05:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, I think that kind of trivia is best left to specific pages about those highways rather than clouding up what is intended to be a simple listing of various routes in Michigan. The title is "LIST of highways in Michigan" after all. In my opinion, this information, while interesting to those of us with a fascination in highway designations, is very minor and would deserve inclusion only after individual pages have been created for those routes and all other more important and pertinent information has been assembled.

In addition, the situation where route numbers are simply "duplicated" (e.g. US-8 vs. M-8) don't even deserve any explanatory text at all, since there is no association between them and none is implied otherwise. (Of course, situations like US-10 and M-10 or US-27 and M-27 are related and do not fall under this discussion.) As for the M-16 (1918-1926) and US-16 (1926-1963) "relationship," that was purely coincidental, albeit an interesting coincidence, and may not warrant special attention outside of a minor notation on any specific route pages dedicated to US-16. CBessert 05:19, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

The text below was added under the County-Designated highways section, but it is not of the same type as the other highways that have unique county DESIGNATATIONS. Personally, I do not think this segment of road merits a separate article. older≠wiser 22:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• Old US-27 (between Grayling, MI and Indian River, MI), a relic of the old US-27 along I-75 that is now county-maintained.

Please see Category talk:Michigan state highways for a question I raise about the use of that category. older≠wiser 13:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Talk:List of highways in Michigan/completion list — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPUI (talk • contribs) 18:16, May 1, 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "Michigan State Highway X". All sources - state laws, MDOT, and michiganhighways.org - use the "M-X" naming. (This is the assumption I'm working from, so if there is in fact an expanded version in somewhat common use, please let me know.)

Thus, in accordance with naming conventions, the articles should be at "M-X (disambiguation term)". I recommend using either "M-X (Michigan)" or "M-X (Michigan highway)", with redirects from forms such as "M-X (MI)" for ease of linking (with the pipe trick). ("M-X (highway)" doesn't work because of motorways named MX or M-X.)

Any comments? --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 15:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that there is no such thing as "Michigan State Highway X" or "Michigan State Road X" or "Michigan Route X" or any similar variation. In the early 1910s, before the highways were signed in the field, the Department of State Highways referred to these designations as "Trunk Line X" or "T.L. X", but ever since they were posted in the field in 1918-1919, they have been referred to in print, speech and all other forms as "M-X". The only time you hear ANYTHING else is from out-of-state visitors who are unaware of the almost-ninety year old convention. CBessert 01:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

So the question remains of how to disambiguate when "M-XX" might mean something else. For example, see M-80. Since we all agree that the road is not called Michigan State Highway 80, it should be moved to something else, such as:

• M-80 (Michigan) — doesn't say what it is.
• M-80 (highway) — doesn't say where it is.
• M-80 (Michigan highway) — cumbersome.
• Michigan-80 — probably not even common usage.
• Highway M-80 (Michigan) — probably both awkward and wrong.
• etc.

I'd say M-80 (Michigan) is probably the best bet, because "(highway)" would still be ambiguous, as there's a similarly named route in Scotland. — Apr. 27, '06 [11:30] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Naming the articles either "M-X (Michigan)" or "M-X (Michigan highway)" appear to be the most appropriate options. I would opt for (Michigan highway) as the parenthetical identifier, just because there may be occasions when "M-X" could related to Michigan in another sense also. Freakofnurture does have a good point that it is cumbersome, but in this case it might be better to be cumbersom than ambiguous. But either way, the "Michigan" part is important. -- Natalya 11:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirects will deal with cumbersomeness. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 13:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I just thought more about this. We can state without a doubt that these reads are located in Michigan. We can't prove that they are in fact "highways", as the state of Michigan never refers to them as such. Let's go with "M-X (Michigan)". — Apr. 27, '06 [14:05] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

State laws use the text "state trunk line highway system" - see [1] for instance. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 14:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm really serious, but "M-X (Michigan road)" is SLIGHTLY less cumbersome, and covers highways and byways. I don't expect everybody to love this. Otherwise, "M-X (Michigan highway)" seems best. Chris the speller 15:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Getting really technical, M-185 isn't necessarily a "road", as it is banned to motor vehicles, but it is a "highway" by legislative fiat. Same for any ferries on state trunk lines (assuming they exist). Either way, redirects from one to the other, except in the very rare (if at all) case of something else in Michigan named M-X, will make it less cumbersome. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 16:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I think my first choice would be M-X (Michigan highway). M-X (Michigan road) is OK, but it does seem odd as the article are about the state trunkline highway system. older ≠ wiser 02:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I just moved M-1 (Michigan highway). I'm probably going to do others soon if there are no objections. The completion list is for coordinating redirects. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 22:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Leave the articles where they are. Good grief. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone taken anytime to implement an infobox template at all for the Michigan highway pages? I'd like to see something along the lines of the inbox on the CA SR-1 page. The only nitpick I'd have is that the Northern terminus should be listed first, not the Southern terminus. Most people read top to bottom, left to right. When it comes to standard maps, that's North to South, West to East. Any reason why people list South first? I'd also add a section in the infobox for the counties traversed by a route. Any thoughts, comments, suggestions? Imzadi1979 19:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason why most highways/routes are listed south-to-north and west-to-east has nothing to do with how most folks read textual words on a page. Rather, with only few exceptions, highways are generally milemarked (either in the field with actual milemarkers or in internal inventories) in that manner. Thus, the "beginning" of a route is considered to be at its western/southern end or its western/southern crossing of a state line and its end is at the eastern/northern end or where it crosses a eastern/northern state line. Again, there ARE some exceptions to this rule, but the vast majority of routes follow this convention and the entire Interstate system follows this standard as well. So as to not ignore decades of documenting routes from west-to-east or south-to-north, I would suggest not changing in midstream. CBessert 05:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

M-1 Michigan state trunk line highway
Length:	21.48 mi (34.57 km)
Commissioned:	1970
Decommissioned:	2009
South terminus:	Adams Street, Detroit
Major junctions:	I-75 in Detroit   I-94 in Detroit   I-696 by Pleasant Ridge
North terminus:	BL 75/BUS US-24 near Pontiac
Michigan state trunk line highways <   M-554 M-2   >
Bannered - Decommissioned - Freeway

I've worked out a base, gently hacked from the California routebox. It's far from done, as I haven't as of yet figured out quite how to work the CONN/BUS highways in there, but it's definitely a start. —  IW4^U_T^C 08:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware there is no need for a connector or Business M-xx shield. There is one Connector, M-13, but it is unsigned (and for that matter it is not officially referred to as Connector M-13). And there is also one Business route Business M-28. I've never been to Marquette, but isn't it signed with the word BUSINESS over the top of the normal shield. -- KelleyCook 15:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There are several Business routes in the state for US Numbered Highways, as well as the 3 three M-routes, BUS M-28, BUS M-32 and BUS M-60.Imzadi1979 00:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been on CONN M-13 quite a few times, and it is in fact signed, as is CONN M-44. CONN M-125 is odd, as it's actually signed CONN I-75/M-125, so I don't think that counts. There are quite a few BUS US routes, but this infobox, as it currently stands, is only for the various M-routes, and honestly, I think adding BL/BS and BUS US routes would be redundant. —  IW4^U_T^C 01:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at at the page for BUS US 90 in New Orleans. The business plate exists as a graphic that was stacked in that infobox for the BUS US 90 "assembly". Imzadi1979 02:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I did my own take on IW4's work. see BUS M-28 demo for an idea. Also look at M-1 demo. Imzadi1979 05:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks pretty good, but I've created a single SVG image for that (Image:M-28Bus.svg) as well as the other BUS and CONN routes, so that should probably be used instead. Also, I think that creating a new article in the mainspace for these demos probably isn't the best idea, as then they are searchable; I'd create them in your userspace, like I did with my demos. —  IW4^U_T^C 21:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

There are new infoboxes, complete with maps on several of the pages now. I like the look, but shouldn't the "next" and "previous" highways at the bottom only link to M-trunklines, not Interstate and US Numbered Highways? That way if I click the link on M-1, I'm directed to M-3, and then M-5 and M-6 in order. As of right now, if I click the links, I get either US 2 or I-696 with no further connection to any other Michigan highways. (I-696 doesn't have any kind of infobox yet, but if it did, it more appropriately will link to other Interstates even though I-96 is completely in the State of Michigan.)Imzadi1979 08:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ignore that... I found the browse box at the bottom of the US 2 page. That makes my thoughts irrelevant once they are completely done.

They're being worked on, slowly. I've been on vacation since the 8/2/06 so I haven't done any editing since then. And, I'll fix those maps you posted to my talk page soon now that I'm back home ;) Stratosphere (talk - Contrib) 02:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I was bored a few days ago, so I took the list of current and decommissioned Ms and made SVG shields for them, as well as blanks and templates (including business and connector highways). That should help the articles quite a bit, and whenever a state project takes off, there you go. I know that a lot of decommissioned routes never used this type of shield, and if need be, I can figure out the cutout version. Oh well...hope it helps! —  IW4^T 11:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the shields - and thanks to Stratosphere for all the maps! Personally I think it's best to use the current shield for even old routes - otherwise it's a rather arbitrary decision, unless there was a major renumbering at the same time as a shield change. --SPUI (T - C) 06:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure of the relevancy of the newly-added "History" section. However, as it contained quite a few errors of fact, featured very poor grammar and had several stylistic errors, I rewrote the paragraph in its entirety, correcting those issues, but leaving the section largely intact. Any thoughts are welcomed. CBessert 04:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

(info from Michigan Highways)

• M-1: didn't exist in 1939?
• M-2: didn't exist in 1939?
• M-3: M-39
• M-4: M-134
• M-5: M-129
• M-6: M-111
• M-7: M-186 86
• M-8: didn't exist in 1939?
• M-9: M-99

--SPUI (T - C) 06:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

No, M-7 became M-86. (Don't forget about my Master List.) -- CBessert 14:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that the Road infobox has support for counties (see here). Perhaps we should consider adding that to the list? I don't think it'd be very ungainly for all but the longest Ms (M-66, for example). —IW4^U_T^C 23:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

While I feel it useful to list the counties, I think that type of information is too specific for the infobox. The counties that the route goes through makes more sense to me discussed in the body of the article. That said, we haven't set a standard regarding this yet, and I suppose that is your intention, so I'd encourage some discussion. Stratosphere (talk - Contrib) 01:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't find it too specific. Listing individual municipalities...yeah, that's way too specific. —IW4^U_T^C 02:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to listing the counties in the infobox, my only concern is that on some articles the infobox already is longer than the body of the article...I suppose if counties are listed in the infobox (west -> east; south -> north) then expanded on in the body in the route description, perhaps that will flesh out the articles nicely. Stratosphere (talk - Contrib) 04:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

As a side note, there are times when listing municipalities (by this, I mean cities) is an advantage over counties: take NY 5, which goes through 20 or so counties.

That said, since I was actually the one who convinced SPUI to incorporate a county entry into Infobox road (as part of the "compromise" that led to the switch from "Routeboxny" to "Infobox road"), I see no problems with listing counties in the infobox (as is done on WP:NYSR). Simply put, if an infobox is longer than the article, the article is either a stub or of stub length or the route has a lot of major intersections. =) --TMF ^{T - C} 06:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

In most cases, cities have major intersections in them. I could see that covering the city portion in eight cases out of ten. —IW4^U_T^C 11:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I've taken to listing counties in the pages I've updated. With the exception of M-28 at nine counties, most of the UP trunklines have only a couple if not just one. It is working nicely so far.Imzadi1979 10:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

 

 

I'd like to come up with a reasonable way to indicate concurrencies in the infobox. Case in point the M-35 article. M-35 has an 8 mile conccrency with US 2/41 that begins at Escanaba and ends at Gladstone. For an example of how the Interstate project handles this, the I-94 article shows the concurrency between Tomah and Madison, WI by including I-94's shield in the junction. I'd prefer some kind of merge and split sign. I was unable to find any suitable ones on the Commons that have a road sign-like appearance. The closest thing I found were the images to the right. The theory is these could be used to the left of the junction shields in the junction list (sized to 20px), but I think something without a sign shape would be best; i.e. just a merge and split symbol with a transparent background. Comments? Ideas? Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 06:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• I've never seen that particular sign, but I like it. Looks like it could work. —IW4^U_T^C 09:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

 

 

• • ...but, I always feel there's room for improvement, deobfuscation, and universalization. —IW4^U_T^C 10:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I like what you've designed, I put them in action at M-35 but I think they are too thin, and they need to be nearly square so they fit in with the 20x20px route signs. I didn't use the ones I posted originally because I didn't want to use a yellow sign, I think they are too intrusive. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 14:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't think that the icon is very intuitive at all. I think the yellow signs would be more intuitive. Drivers have seen them before and have some idea what it means.Imzadi1979 04:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
        • No offense intended, but I don't think either image style is obvious or intuitive. Especially at iconic size, I think they will likely cause more confusion than clarification. older ≠ wiser 12:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Yeah, I'm beginning to agree, but I'd like to come up with ideas to address concurrencies, maybe a seperate section in the infobox, or maybe I'm going overboard...wouldn't be the first time...:P Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 14:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
            • What we do at WP:NYSR is list the route then the town/city/area where the concurrency begins and then the area where the concurrency ends. New York State Route 55 is one example of this. Of course, we also have the detailed junction list, so that makes it easier to do the "double-mention" procedure in the infobox. I dunno, I definitely see the point of the signage to indicate concurrency starts/ends, but is the signage too much for an infobox? --TMF ^{T - C} 14:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
              • I think the signs are too much after looking at them in action. I think I might try out what has been done on the I-94 page. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 16:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

(too many bullets =), back left) The I-94 layout looks pretty good to me. In fact, I may have to bring that up over at WP:NYSR as, for some reason, the I-94 concurrency design appears to me to be much better than what we're using now. --TMF ^{T - C} 16:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• How about this: Test M-64 Article with concurrency section in infobox Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 03:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Eh, ya know, I think that looks bad...I think I'm trying to put too much into the infobox. While I liked the I-94 page's handling of concurrencies I realized it didn't have a clickable text for I-90 next to the shield and putting it in looks clumsy. I think we should just put both shields in and just list the concurrent highway. See M-33 (Michigan highway) for an example. I also think we should limit ourselves to listing concurrencies and show them only if it's longer than 20 miles, otherwise just list it as a junction near the closest city/town. Anything less just seems trivial. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 04:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Putting the shield in there doesn't seem very obvious. I see it more as just junctioning with the route, not actually merging and forming a concurrency. On M-40, I just put the shield of the concurrent route, Concurrency in italics with small text (just like that) linked to Concurrency (road), then the other route's shield and Concurrency ends (with no extra text identifier) for the end of it. Sometimes, things just need to be spelled out. —IW4^U_T^C 02:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Since we never decided, wholly, on how to handle concurrencies in the infobox, I think we might just leave them out and do them as junctions as we did before. Looking at M-69, I think listing it like that detracts from the infobox...I think line wraps should be avoided as much as possible. What are other's input on this? Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 22:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Unless I missed one, all of the UP trunkline articles have been updated or created. There are some really small spur routes (M-98, M-162, M-170, M-178, M-180, M-200 & M-206) that have either been long decommissioned or subsumed in other trunklines that don't have pages. Also, I've used the counties= attribute in all of the UP pages. Any thoughts or comments on that?Imzadi1979 05:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Think we should have articles on these-they are spread around the state? How would you feel if we added these to the project?Mitchazenia 19:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, first off, let me say that I have recently created shields for these. They're known as county-designated highways, and are actually named, maintained, and controlled by the counties they traverse. As such, they are not state highways, but perhaps we could incorporate CDHs as a subproject of MSHP. I wouldn't be averse to this; after all, even though MDOT has nothing to do with them, they're still part of Michigan's road system. —IW4^U_T^C 19:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link: http://www.michiganhighways.org/listings/county_highways.html. Mitchazenia 19:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

See List of Michigan County-Designated Highways. There aren't many of these articles existing yet, but the list is there with red-links ready to go. I think we could use a better overview/introduction to them though. But I didn't want to rip-off Bessert's site and I don't know much more about these highways except for what Bessert has already done such a good job of putting together. older ≠ wiser

You missed H-16.Mitchazenia 19:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't put that together, I was only pointing out its existence. older ≠ wiser 19:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"H-16" was omitted because it's not a CDH; it's a recurring typo on the Official Transportation Map of Federal Forest Highway (FFH-)16. It's not even in the H zone; the entirety of Iron, Houghton, and Ontonagon Counties are in the G zone. —IW4^U_T^C 21:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

A reply to IW4's first comment, MDOT doesn't directly maintain them, but they coordinate the grid system for numbering, and they will sign CDH's on trunklines with shields. Other county roads don't get the county road's shield signed on the trunkline for junctions (although I live by an exception). They, unlike other CRs keep their numbering across county lines. For instance, Alba Road connects US 131 at Alba to M-32 near Gaylord. It is C-42 in Antrim and Otsego counties, not something most county roads do. As such, the CDH system is almost akin to a "secondary" highway system in the state. I'd be all for a subproject on these routes. What would we need to do at some point to created a variation of the infobox for them, etc? Since I have the UP trunklines done (except those really old decommissioned ones that little info exists) I'd be willing to start writing some articles after my extended Labor Day/birthday vacation. Imzadi1979 00:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I have listed the Michigan State Highway WikiProject as opting to be exempted from the process and maintain our current article naming structure as it makes the most sense for our named highways, M-X. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 06:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Reminder

• Voting commences at 23:59, Monday, September 4, 2006 (UTC).
• Voting ends 23:59, Tuesday, September 12, 2006 (UTC).
• The current time is 02:29, Friday, November 15, 2024 (UTC).

Per the guideline above and offered exception for Michigan (and Kansas), If your state has already discussed this issue and it agrees with the passed principle, you can link to the discussion and be exempted from the process (unless a few people object). However, you MUST be able to point to a specific discussion with a clear consensus, the Michigan State Highway WikiProject, and the pages it oversees -- namely all Michigan state trunk line related articles -- wishes to be exempted from the process as the current naming scheme has been agreed upon[2], previously, barring any objections that appear here.

The naming format to be used in the title of the state highways of Michigan shall be M-XX (Michigan highway).

• I'm wondering if we should attempt to exempt ourselves from the process (compromise offered here) since the current naming format has already been discussed here, with consensus. I think leaving the articles where they are (even though it is technically Principle II) makes the most sense for our M-X format. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 03:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I concur. Leave 'em lie; all the other ways are just too unwieldy for us (and Kansas' K-routes). —IW4^U_T^C 04:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• As noted above, I've issued a request for exemption for all Michigan state trunk line articles, which would in effect leave them where they are. If anyone has an objection to this, please say so and I'll reinstate the four principles for voting which I had listed earlier. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 06:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

While you list your exemption, please also list your naming format (i.e. M-XX (Michigan Highway), etc.). Thanks! --physicq210 06:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

good call. Done and done. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 06:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of the current format, to be honest. I would prefer either Michigan M-XX or, if "M" is an abbreviation, "Michigan XX". Powers ^T 20:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

M isn't an abbreviation, though we all know where it came from. That's the thing. The problem I see with "Michigan M-XX" is that you don't know what it is. At least with other states, "California Route 52" or "Wisconsin State Highway 76" gives you an idea of what exactly the article you're about to click on is. If anyone looks at ours, they'd probably think, what the heck is an M-25, and why is Michigan's so special? This still plenty disambigs Michigan's highway designated M-25 from the other Ms in the universe, like the British motorway, the sniper rifle, the and the star cluster. —IW4^U_T^C 21:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly right. older ≠ wiser 22:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

per the above comments, since there is support here to maintain the existing naming scheme as well as in previous discussions which I referenced before, I'll be leaving the Michigan request for exemption unchanged in the poll. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 02:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

True enough. How about "Michigan highway M-XX"? Note the lowercase. Powers ^T 16:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

We notice it now, but hardly anyone else will. I can also see undue confusion stemming from the CDHs with that, too. —IW4^U_T^C 05:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's something else. I mean, wow. Powers ^T 17:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What? You see "highway M-1," and you think there should be other letters for the routes. Where's highways A-1 through L-1? That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about. It's not like Britain with the M/A/B road naming system; the name is M-1, and it's a highway in Michigan, plain and simple. (You may think me crazy (and you're probably right), but being a lifelong resident of this state, that's just how I see it.) —IW4^U_T^C 19:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it does make sense given the precedent, but there are so many things named letter-number in this world it's patently confusing to an outsider. =) Powers ^T 12:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Your state is invited to participate in discussions for its highway naming convention. Please feel free to participate in this discussion. If you already have a convention that follows the State Name Type xx designation, it is possible to request an exemption as well. Thanks! --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've adapted the road Infobox to support BUS and CONN Ms. Examples can be seen on BUS M-60) and CONN M-13. To go along with that, do BUS Ms really need to have the city listed in the title? There are only three of them, and they're all in very different cities, so I think we should be able to change them to, for example, M-32 Business (Michigan highway), as no further disambiguation is needed than that. That said, for other BUS and CONN Ms, use the BusM and ConnM type in the Infobox. —IW4^U_T^C 05:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The disambiguation stems from the format used for the Interstate highway pages, Interstate business loops and spurs are demarcated by the city within which they run. For example: Interstate 96 Business (Farmington, Michigan) since there is other BL-96's in Muskegon, Portland, Lansing, Howell, and Detroit. While I agree this might be overkill for M-routes, it might be best to leave them at their current format in case in the future it comes up that there are two M-60 Business loops. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 05:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do understand that. What if we put in as a redirect to the current article, and then, in the (very unlikely) instance another BUS M-60 pops up somewhere, it can be turned into a disambig page. —IW4^U_T^C 10:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds fair to me. I just wouldn't be surprised to see SPUI jump all over that ;) Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 13:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Noted; I'll take my chances. It'll make further Infobox integration easier. —IW4^U_T^C 14:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me... I'm thinking tht BUS M-28 is ready for an update :-) Will the changes work with the BUS US nn and BL I-nn pages yet? Imzadi1979 23:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I only applied it to the BUS Ms because there's only one of each. There's a lot more BUS USes and BL/S Is each, and they're in multiple states (save BL/S I-96), so I don't see that one happening. As far as the infobox, I don't know if there are already adaptations for those Business routes, but if there aren't, they're pretty easy to create. —IW4^U_T^C 18:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

As one of the two states to continue using parenthetical disambiguation, you may be interested to know about an expansion of the pipe trick. An example is probably best: go to M-15 (Michigan highway) and preview an addition of the text [[|M-20]]. The pipe trick now expands this to M-20. --NE2 21:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing new about this at all. This was one of the primary reasons for using parenthetical disambiguation. The new feature in the pipe trick is that it will now work with titles that use comma disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 00:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope, this is brand new. Formerly you had to type [[M-20 (Michigan highway)|]]; now, on a page with (Michigan highway) in the title, you can type [[|M-20]] to get the same link. You may also be interested in the "debate" (more like clusterfuck) at WT:USSH. --NE2 00:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your reply. OK, I think I see now what is different, but you have to be on a state page for that to work -- that's pretty confusing for the same piped link to produces one result on some pages and a different result on other pages. I don't think that is such a good thing. older ≠ wiser 16:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

After looking at a few articles where the infobox has had concurrency information in it (ala M-69) I think that info should be laid out in the route description rather than the infobox since it tends to make a mess of things. Also, we might consider developing a new section for major concurrencies to be listed in the articles route description. I'd appreciate others input on this matter. Cheers. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 22:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if everyone is aware, but I'll throw this out there since it'll save a lot of typing for those who don't. Recently the pipe trick has been modified to handle comma separated pages like those of cities. Typing [[Detroit, Michigan|]] will now produce: Detroit. Also, I don't know how long this has been around, but if a page has a parenthetical disambiguation within the title you can utilize the pipe trick to insert that same dab into a link. I used to type [[M-50 (Michigan Highway)|]] to link to M-50, but if you're on a M-XX (Michigan highway) page you can use the pipe trick on the left and type [[|M-50]] and it'll create a link to M-50 (Michigan highway) like so: M-50.

Anyway, if everyone knew all this already, then good. If not, hopefully this will help some people's hairs from staying not grey for a while longer. Cheers. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 22:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

No, that is a new feature that I understand came in with the comma expansion. I'm not all that crazy about it from a usability perspective, since it means that typing the same link in different contexts will produce different results. But it seems obscure enough that only power-users will come across it. older ≠ wiser 22:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I meant for it to be useful to those of us editing Michigan highway articles wrt linking to other Michigan highway articles. Anyway, I see this was posted a few days ago two sections above, silly me ;) Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 23:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Whilst sifting through the completion list, M-87 tripped me up and I was unable to find any decent information on it. The Michigan highway system page says M-87 was a link between US 10 and US 23 through Holly and Fenton. Holly and Fenton are both very close in proximity to US 23, while US 10 lies a good 60 miles northwest. $gajillion to whoever can dig up some information on this route and write an article. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 09:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Eh, it finally dawned on me that US 10 extended down that direction many moons ago. Problem solved. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 21:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Should we place them in both Category:Michigan state highways and Category:Decommissioned Michigan state highways or just the latter? Imzadi1979 08:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Another related question. The infobox template allows for listing a decommissioning date in addition to a commissioning date. For the highway designations that have only been used once, say M-554, would it be appropriate to infobox them, but include both dates. We could even use the altname= attribute to name them "Decommissioned State Highway". Do we dare set up a different route attribute instead of "M" for former highways that instead of just listing "M-554" in the top of the infobox would say "FORMER M-554", etc? Imzadi1979 22:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favor of using the alternate name to indicate it's decom. I don't think we want decom to be in the actual name since the article title doesn't have it, it might be confusing. If the highway is currently decom I think it should be in the Decom MSH category only, but that category should be within MSH category. Yes, I think it's also approriate to list the decom date as well. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 23:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I've gone and done a few... M-98, M-205, M-209 and M-554 are infoboxed. Any comments/suggestions/ideas? Imzadi1979 05:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there anyone interested in forming a subproject on the County-Designated Highways? I know I'm interested in working to create some articles, but I don't have a full and complete knowledge to set up the parameters with an infobox, etc. I know the shields are already all uploaded, waiting to be used. Do I hear any volunteers for maps? Imzadi1979 03:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

As I count it, we have 16 M-nn routes to write articles about. That just leaves the various business routes (Interstate/US) left to go. Imzadi1979 03:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, make that 15. I couldn't resist one last one for the night... Imzadi1979 03:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

All of the decommmissed routings are done! just 7 more current routings to write! Imzadi1979 00:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Done! Happy Thanksgiving! Imzadi1979 03:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, fantastic! Great job to everyone who worked on getting that list completed! Cheers! Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 06:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

While creating the US 12 (WI) page, I went through the parent article (US 12) and found quite a bit of detail pertaining to Michigan's section which IMHO could be best served being transferred into its own article U.S. Route 12 in Michigan. But I probed further to find that essentially you have one already in US 112. Perhaps there could be some options to place to move any US 12 specific detail into a subarticle for Michigan to alleviate a bit of space for the main US 12 article? I know that the amount of detail might be borderline, but instead of diving in and creating it with these circumstances, I felt I should ask the members of your project for opinions first. So... What's your opinions? 8) • master_son^{Lets talk} 20:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking to start a discussion on the intersection and exit lists layouts for Michigan highways. To see an example of the exit list in action, see the M-14 article. It follows the current conventions established by WP:USRD and I think we should stick with it. As far as the lists for non limited access highways and non mile-post based freeways I setup a template to use at Template:MIint. It's based on Template:PAint and has been modified slightly for use with MSHP.

I've setup a sandbox at User:Stratosphere/Sandbox to look at a few layouts I've created. I'd like to start discussion on which one is preferred among the community. Of course, as always, you're welcome to suggest a new layout. The basic idea here is to use the intersection template that is being adopted across the U.S. Roads project, but add control city designators for Interstate and U.S. Route junctions. These already exist in the exit template, and I'd like to bring them to the intersection list, at least for this project.

So, let the discussion begin. Just hit up the Sandbox and let us know which one strikes your fancy and why, and perhaps provide some pros/cons on the one you picked, or the one's you specifically didn't pick. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 23:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• My current selection is Style 2 on the Sandbox page. For several reasons, it's pretty close to the standard used for the exit lists. Instead of relying on the east/west/north/south auxiliary plates (which at 20px can be difficult to read) it uses the {{scaps}}> template to achieve the basic idea using simple text. It also looks very clean and compact preventing the cluttered appearance that can occur with tables like these. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 23:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I added style 6 which I also approve of since it has the text and the auxiliary plates that some of us are attached to ;) Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 00:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
    • So, unless there's dissent, I think we should use style 6 since that's what most other projects use for both intersection and exit lists. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 00:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
      • 6 looks pretty good to me. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 00:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have every Interstate checked for the Infobox. If anybody would like to double check me and make sure every Michigan Interstate page has one feel free to do so. I believe my next task will be to start working on the Exit Lists for each Highway wiki page. Once that is completed I will agian look at what needs to be done. If somebody wants to double check my work when I complete a page feel free to do so. Half the time when I do this I am one blink from crashing and sleeping.--Mihsfbstadium 14:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I was being good and decided to get michigan a clean up tag. I dont know why we good road people in michigan would need one but I just copied the California one and subed out the images and words of cal for Michigan. --Mihsfbstadium 11:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I nominated M-35 today for Good Article status. Imzadi1979 20:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Where is an example of a Communities list in place on a Michigan page? I cannot find one, and the example article given, M-26, doesn't have one at all. Imzadi1979 02:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's used at some of the other projects like WP:IH. Interstate 95 might have one... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I created a template (basically lifted from the List of bannered highways in Michigan table) which could be used as a basis for templates for the other routes. (I have one for I-69 in my userspace, which could easily be placed into the template space.) I figure its best use is within individual business route articles to provide a quick link to the others. Any improvements to the design would be welcome. Spicy 15:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

All of the USRD Clean-up Templates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. master son^{T - C} 16:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I added all of Michigan's 3DIs to the WP:MSHP. Most of them need significant amount of work. Except I-196, they are all missing maps. -- KelleyCook 18:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:FEUS has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. master son^{T - C} 23:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody want details on how to find mileage to three decimal places from the PR Finder? --NE2 06:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 05:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if anyone even reads this anymore, but I was thinking, we as a group should come up with an article to improve in March. I've been working on M-12 as it was in 1926 before US-2 supplanted it. So, I'm proposing we all work together to make the article awesome. It would be nice to have an in depth historical article join M-28 and M-35 in the FA class for MSHP! Stratosphere|Talk 23:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan to me! Let's get the rest on board and get 'er done! --Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well if anyone else wants to join in, finding reference and other material will be nice. Also I've setup a working copy at User:Stratosphere/Sandbox. If you're going to be editing in there for a bit tag it with that in use template or whatever so there aren't any edit conflicts, woo! Stratosphere|Talk 04:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

There's an issue that popped up at the ACR for M-35 regarding MI's practice of listing concurrencies in the infobox. It's being discussed at WT:USRD to form a consensus over how to handle this. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 20:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we change junction list from {{MIint}} to normal exist list format. WP:ELG likes us not to use color; especially concurs; they like us not to color in cyan, is just unneccessairly. Normal ELG format is neater to ELG compliance. No access in peach-orange highlight should not belong on tables at all. I've gone through alot of work just to fix junction lists, to impress ELG.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 00:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

M-1 and M-89 are not limited access freeways and use a standard junction list. I agree that no-access should be abolished. I am indifferent about the concurrency colors. MISH has used MIint since we started using junction lists and as it is not an exit list should not be changed. You'll find we do use ELG on freeway state trunklines like M-6. I would also suggest that you recheck your changes to the M-1 and M-89 articles as you've left several typos as well as red links, as there is a proper way to link to I-75 Business in Pontiac, Michigan. Strato|sphere 01:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There is the {{MIexit}} template for exit lists that I developed based on {{MIint}} to do the list on U.S. Route 127 in Michigan. Otherwise, ELG does not apply to surface routes without interchanges. As such, many of the changes you're suggesting don't apply. ELG is only for exit lists, not junction lists. Also, I don't see the problem with the colors at all. I'm in support of leaving them as is and restoring the legend. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been gone for a while so I'll defer to the community at large. I am rather indifferent about the colors, Freewayguy just linked me to a convo over at USRD about eliminating the colors, there wasn't a conclusive discussion there just a slight lean towards removing the colors/legend. Either way, I'm fine with how it was, feel free to revert my changes. And, Hi Imzadi! :P Strato|sphere 12:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Actually noaccess should not be mention on and list because no access is no crossing, no interchange, no onramps, no offramps. Concur should not have colors anyways because concur is not a big deal to travelers because travelers don't even pay attention to concurs. Those colors have exist for a long time, so they should possibly stay, although they shouldn't been exist.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 21:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

MDOT actually signs no-access junctions on the overpasses/underpasses along the freeways. For that reason, I think they should remain since the notes column can be used to denote how someone does access the other highway. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Presumably you mean that MDOT posts a sign on the bridge telling you what the road is. That's very different from normal signage. --NE2 23:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

In California we don't assign noaccesses, so no of the junctions lists, we have noaccess, and they shouldn't be. Concur color seems unneccessairly to me, because it is not a major importance for traveelrs to know, and most people don't care, and don't even know. The color we don't need to my opinion is concur.--Freewayguy ^{What's up?} 22:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Some states probably have markers on noaccess interchanges, new york, Pennsylvanian probably does too. I don't mind having orange no-access colours. But concur colors should not exist, becuase concur is still an existing interchange, and normal people don't care about concurs, and most people don'teven know for example I-405/SR 22 concurs in Westminster, California.--Freewayguy ^{What's up?} 23:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

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

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:24, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Hi I just joined. Does this project only work on state highways (M-##) or does it include Interstates (I-##), U.S. Highways (US ##) and County Roads too? What about historical routes like Saginaw Trail and the big 5 avenues in Detroit (Michigan, Gratiot, Grand River, Woodward and Jefferson)? TomCat4680 (talk) 07:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This project works on all state-maintained highways with a number assigned by MDOT. That means the Interstates, US Highways and the other state trunklines. There is a sub-project/task force working on the County-Designated Highways (signed with blue pentagons and numbered in a zone system A-##, B-##, C-##, D-##, E-##, F-##, G-## and H-##) as well as other notable county roads. In general, county roads are not considered notable just for carrying a number, so they don't get separate articles. State trunklines are considered notable, but some of the more minor designations are merged into a list until they can be researched well enough to expand out into quality articles. Historical routes like the Auto Trails have their own task force under the larger WP:USRD umbrella. Imzadi1979 (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I've boldy make some edits to the project page. There was a lot of stuff on there that was redundant both to itself and the USRD project standards page. If something I removed needs to be place back, let me know. Imzadi1979 (talk) 08:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I've subscribed the project for popular pages like the US one at WP:USRD/PP - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Michigan State Highways/Popular pages next month. Imzadi 1979 → 04:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Earlier tonight, U.S. Route 2 in Michigan became the last of the project's articles to be expanded beyond Start-Class. With that expansion, all of MSHP's articles are FA-, A-, GA-, B- or C-Class on the project scale. Michigan is the first state in WP:USRD, or the first subdivision of WP:HWY to have all articles assessed and expanded to this level. That means that every article should now have "The Big Three": Route description, History, and a junction list. If they are in basic form, the article is C-Class, and if they are substantially complete, they are B-Class. Of course articles that have been sent through either FAC, ACR or GAN review processes will be rated higher. Now that the basics are in place for all of the project's articles, the goal will be to refine and expand as needed to get the rest to GA or higher. Imzadi 1979 → 07:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 00:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Interstate 375 (Michigan) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments here . If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. --Admrboltz (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion taking place at WT:HWY regarding the potential use of coordinates in highway articles. Your input is welcomed. --Rschen7754 01:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a proposal to demote all state highway WikiProjects to task forces; see WT:USRD. --Rschen7754 05:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)