Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/North Carolina/Archive 1

• SPUI has requested that all the NC route article be named "NC x" where x is the route number instead of "North Carolina State Highway x". What do you all think? This would be the first time a state has shortened its route articles this much. Since we are in the beginning stages of this project, it would be easy to change, but we need a concensus. The proposal orignated at: Talk:North Carolina State Highway 24.

Honestly, I think the current system of naming the article "North Carolina State Highway x" and linking "NC x" to it is working fine. The NC acronym just seems too vague and unclear; plus, it wouldn't work too well for people searching for things like NC-4 or NC-17. --TinMan 04:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Kansas uses K-X (Kansas highway) and Michigan uses M-X (Michigan highway). This seems to be a similar case, in that NC X seems to be the only term used. If that causes ambiguity, NC X (North Carolina highway) can be used to disambiguate. --SPUI (T - C) 09:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and agree with SPUI here. A lot of the articles were originally titled "NC x", and were moved by Rschen claiming they didn't match a national standard, even though this national standard never really succeeded--any attempts to reach one failed to gain consensus. If NC x is the most common usage, go ahead and title the articles that.

On a totally unrelated note, I'll be working on SVG images today. -- NORTH ^talk 16:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

See my revised opinion below. -- NORTH ^talk 02:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

What is "NC"? A naming convention? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 17:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:North Carolina State Highway 24. --SPUI (T - C) 17:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

A naming convention was held last month to try to find a standard for all the state route articles using "Route x (Q)" where x is the route number and Q is the state name. Too many people didn't like it, so it was never agreed upon. So now, all the states have their own style; yet, all of the article titles have the word "highway" or "route" in them. --TinMan 17:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Kansas and Michigan still have "(Michigan highway)" and "(Kansas highway)" after them. Therefore, if we go through with the "NC x" format, should we add "(North Carolina highway)" after all the articles or just the ones that need a disambig? / I know at the naming convention there was no concensus on the "Route 4 (North Carolina)" format. / Well, the common language for US Highways is "US x". Everybody near my residence always says "get on US 52", but the article is named "U.S. Highway 52", which is the term printed on the green road signs. The NC road signs around here use the format "N.C. Hwy 150" for route 150. / I went looking for what popular websites and maps are using for our benefit. The NC Scenic Byway map uses the format: "N.C. Route x". Southeastroads.com uses "North Carolina x", http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nc/ uses "NC x", this article (Carolina journal) uses "N.C. Route x", the infamous ncroads.com site uses "N.C. x", the NCDOT sponsored Outer Banks Task Force uses "NC x", NC Ferry system uses "N.C. x", state-ends.com uses "NC x" (of course, that site references ncroads), http://www.teresco.org/pics/signs/ uses "North Carolina x". Conclusion: "NC x" or "N.C. x" is probably the most common format used on the web; however, if we use that we would have to specify between "NC x" congressional districts, "NC x" with nautical craft and aircraft, NC 17 movie rating, etc. Some of those articles are probably more popular than some NC road. The disambig pages may interfere with the infobox, so tweaking might be needed. I just feel "highway" or "route" needs to be somewhere in the title, so I can have a vague understanding of what the article is about before I have to read it. --TinMan 17:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Obviously somebody can't read the line directly above on the NC 24 article:

• Oppose move to less descriptive, non-standard name. Thumbelina 17:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • This is the standard that is used in North Carolina. --SPUI (T - C) 18:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    • sorry, didn't clarify. That comment was on the NC 24 page. I copied it here.
• Oppose - Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of North Carolina or an arm of the North Carolina authorities. - AjaxSmack 03:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Your comment makes no sense. Remember that this is not a vote. --SPUI (T - C) 08:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want to know more about that naming convention, here's a discussion on the poll: Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll and here is where that big debate took place: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways. Use these to help formulate your argument.

(Refering to SPUI's comment about AjaxSmack's comment) It wasn't worded in the best fashion, but I think I know what he means. NC doesn't always mean North Carolina, nor should. To be honest, I don't know why this is such a big deal. Do you just hate the style that we have? We're not talking about whether people can find an article, becuase a person can type in either format and still get to the same page; no, instead we're debating what the big black letters at the top of the article should say. No other state uses a format that is abbreviated that much for the title, even Michigan. Wikipedia has a long history of leaving the abbreviated versions of terms for the redirects and disambiguation pages. Just take Camp Lejuene for instance; it redirects to a longer, more official-sounding Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune. Also look at every city and CDP in the US: they are all in "City, Full State Name" format instead of the abbreviated "City, SN"; yet if you search for "City, SN", it will redirect to the main article. I could give you many more examples in Wikipedia and in book encyclopedias where the abbereviated and "common language" versions redirect ("See such and such" in book) or disambiguate to the longer, more official-sounding name. These route articles should be no different. If we go through with the change, North Carolina routes would be some of the hardest to find. Someone would have to know our little abbreviation "NC x" to access a route article without going through a bunch of seaching. So, with all that said, I have a proposal: We keep the article titles in the "North Carolina State Highway x" format (or just take out the "state" to prevent the so-called "neologism" because it just says "North Carolina Highway x" on the road signs) and the first bold letters of the article can be in the "NC x" format (which SPUI seems to already have changed. The "NC x" format can be used throughout the rest of the article if you want and the "NC x" pages should redirect to the main article. This way everyone knows what the article is about before opening it and it should show up on Google if you type "North Carolina Highway x" or "NC x" (may have to add the word wiki in the search until it gets popular). We're creating a better encyclopedia, not a slang dictionary. I think this is a reasonable compromise. What do y'all think? --TinMan 18:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I see a lot more usage of "NC Highway X" than "North Carolina Highway X". Would that be acceptable? --SPUI (T - C) 05:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That goes back to the abbreviation thing again. NC could mean anything. --TinMan 22:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

U.S. Route 1 has the same "problem". --SPUI (T - C) 23:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Way back when we were having debates at the Washington state highway WikiProject, someone pointed out that the abbreviation SR is much more widely used than "State Route". Nevertheless, while there are two different naming conventions in use, both have "State Route" spelled out. Why? Well, to quote SPUI himself, "We don't put pages at abbreviations." It may be true that "North Carolina State Highway X" is a neologism; I agree with TinMan's "North Carolina Highway X" proposal. It's consistent with Maryland's compromise, which uses "Maryland Route X", even though the most common usage is "MD X". -- NORTH ^talk 02:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The U.S. Route naming disagrees with that. --SPUI (T - C) 17:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but that's not exactly the same animal, for a couple of reasons.

• I'd reckon that virtually no one has ever called US 1 "United States Route 1", whereas these routes are frequently called "North Carolina [something] X", just not as frequently as the short form "NC X".
• U.S. is an abbreviation that is frequently heard in spoken English, postal abbreviations for states are considerably less so.
• U.S. is a world-recognized abbreviation for the United States, and pretty much only the United States, whereas NC is much more vague.

-- NORTH ^talk 20:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been around to reply recently. SPUI, I see your point with U.S. Highways, but I have to disagree, referring back to my argument about other states and counties. Like NORTH said, NC is very vague; it could be North Cumberland to someone in England or something (bad example). Also, no other state abbreviates its state name for highway articles as common practice... so, I think it should be "North Carolina" for organization and universality purposes, recognizing that this is an international encyclopedia where postal/state code abbreviations should not dictate article titles. To do just use "NC x", I think, is a neologism in itself. --TinMan 05:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, do we have a supermajority on this "North Carolina Highway x" format compromise, just taking out the word "state"? It should be common enough and official enough. I just want to have something to start with before we go nuts with the Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll. From NORTH's comment, I assume he's on board. I say the proposal's a GO for now. Let me know with any objections before I go redirecting. --TinMan 04:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is now in its final stages at WP:SRNC. I personally have fallen back slightly in favor of the word "state". I'll explain later. Right now we have two choices: North Carolina State Highway XX and North Carolina Highway XX. --TinMan 19:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I couldn't think of a good headline.

Now that all the PNGs are done, I went through the articles and added them in where they need to be. Every article now has either an infobox or a shield image at the top and a succession box at the bottom.

If you create an infobox for a route that doesn't have one yet, please remove the duplicate shield image and succession box. -- NORTH ^talk 05:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the only reason I left the duplicate shield there and an unfinished infobox on one article was because my internet went out before I could finish.--TinMan 17:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. Just trying to keep the articles as clean as possible. ;-) -- NORTH ^talk 19:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I promised SVGs above, but unfortunately I can't get them to work. (See NC 2, NC 3, and NC 903.) Oh well, so sad. I may work on creating the missing PNGs by the end of the week, however. -- NORTH ^talk 21:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, all I see is a two on NC 2.svg. Oh well, thanks for trying. I don't know much about .svg's except that for me, they are hard to make. Corel Draw is the only program I've found that will actually open them in the correct way so they are editable, but saving it the correct size is a pain. I have to resize the page over and over again. So, what I guess I'm saying is... that's better than what I can do. --TinMan 22:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I had no problem creating some county route shields for WP:NJSCR, but with these whenever I move them out of the folder I have them in (or upload them), I lose the background. -- NORTH ^talk 23:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

PNGs are done! -- NORTH ^talk 02:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Three cheers for Northenglish! Thanks! --TinMan 04:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I was just passing through when I noticed this section here. From the way it appears, the NC shield (2di-s anyway) is just a black square with a white rhombus in the center, so it wouldn't be too difficult to make. If anyone still wants SVGs for North Carolina, I'd be more than happy to make them. --TMF ^{T - C} 19:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, if you could help that would be great. On the shields, all the sides on the black box are the same length and all the sides on the white box are the same length (tiltted at 45 degrees). It's just that simple. Keep in mind that for larger route numbers, the boxes do not stretch, they remain square, unlike U.S. route shields. To compensate, the numbers shrink or squish. The best comparison for this is to look at File:NC 6 Shield.PNG, File:NC 100 Shield.PNG and File:NC 226A Shield.PNG. Notice the numbers get smaller and the box does not alter. You probably already knew this, but just in case. --TinMan 04:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a look at what's to come:       If the design looks good, I'll make the rest. --TMF ^{T - C} 20:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks great to me. The four is a little off center though it seems. --TinMan 22:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I fixed the position of the four. Also, shields for all of the present state highways have been uploaded to the Commons (in the format NC x.svg. I'll work on the decommissioned routes sometime in the near future. --TMF ^{T - C} 01:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Decommissioned routes are now done as well. --TMF ^{T - C} 14:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow that was fast. I switched Template:Infobox road/NC NC shield and the rest of the infobox to use the NC x.svg images. Just curious, what are the main advantages of svg's? I know they save space. --TinMan 15:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Other than saving space, SVGs can be resized to any resolution while maintaining their clarity. This makes the use of SVGs ideal when compared to PNGs (for example), which can become "cluttered" or blurry if resized too small or pixelated if resized too big. SVGs, though, are crystal clear regardless of how big or small the image is resized. --TMF ^{T - C} 15:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Jayron brought up an issue that I've been debating with myself for some time. How should we handle the "Major Junctions" part of the NC highways infobox. As a basic guideline, I've been including every junction with a freeway, whether it's I-40, US 421 (west of Winston-Salem), or NC 147 for all the routes. For short routes (less than 50 miles or so) or routes that don't have many junctions with other routes, I've included some of the minor junctions. If the state highway is is about 10 miles long, many times I just leave out the major junctions section altogether. For the really long state highways, I've tried to merge the major junctions and the major cities sections by listing the biggest junctions in the major cities. I really try not to leave out any cities if I can because these state highways may be the most important roads in these areas. Sometimes, if I can incorporate those cities in the article, I can leave them out of the infobox. The infoboxes shouldn't be lengthy, but I've been having trouble weighing principles, as in the case of NC 211. So I guess we need to come up with a guideline for which junctions should go in the major junctions section, which cities go in the major cities section and what should we do with route concurrencies (should that have its own box)? I think we should try to have no more than eight junctions in the major junctions section. What do y'all think? I would appreciate comment from members on this WikiProject as well as from experienced Wikipedians in routeboxes (like SPUI). --TinMan 19:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's an idea on how to do this. 1) All U.S. and Interstate Highways are "major" and 2) State Highways are "major" if they, at the point of the junction, are maintained comparable to U.S. and Interstate Routes. (major throughfares in cities and/or multilane divided roads and/or freeways) Thus, NC 147 is "major" as it is a freeway. NC 97, probably not so, since it is a 2 lane shoulderless road for much of its route.

Another idea, more subjective, should be "Would any person in their right mind take this routing." For example, NC 50 parallels I-40 as it crosses several NC routes. It would make no sense to list NC 50 in the infobox of say, NC 210, which less than 1 mile away crosses I-40, since anyone traveling NC 50 would do better to take I-40. Thus, the NC 210/NC 50 junction is not "major".

OTOH, NC 49 provides a reasonably shorter route between Asheboro and Charlotte than the interstates or U.S. Highways, and is a fairly heavily traveled road. Likewise NC 24 between Charlotte and Fayetteville. Any road that crosses these between these cities SHOULD list them in their info boxes.

Some roads depend on which section is being considered. For example, NC 87 is an important highway between Sanford & Fayetteville, but much less so around, say, Reidsville.

Perhaps what we should do is devise a sort of canonical list of "major" highways first, and only put those in the info boxes of other routes.

Jayron32 19:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with all that as long as the the number of junctions in the box doesn't go over 8. If there are more than 8, start removing the least important ones. The infobox shouldn't be longer than the article itself if it can be helped. Plus, concurrencies should only be added as junctions if they are shared for a short distance. --TinMan 19:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, on second thought, I guess we just have to limit them as much as we can for the longer routes. I just looked at NC 55 and all those junctions are important, so we can't really remove any. --TinMan 19:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I'd just like to point out the standard that we've been using for with "near", "at", and "in". If a junction is more than five miles outside the limits of a city, then use the term "near" (i.e.   I-40 near Winston-Salem;). If the junction is on the city limits border or less than five miles from the city limits, generally use "at" (i.e.   US 74 at Bolton;). If the junction is within the city limits, use the term "in" (i.e.   NC 11 in Wilson). This is the general guideline for those terms in the Major Junctions and Termini sections on the Infobox. --TinMan 20:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you can help it, don't add a "Cities" section unless there are many cities/towns/villages that are not listed in your Major junctions box that the route goes THROUGH (meaning, enters the city limits); if it goes through a rural area of Durham outside the city, don't add Durham. Plus, termini cities are not included in the Cities section. --TinMan 20:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

So, what you are saying is only include a city once in the infobox. If it occurs in a junction, don't put it in the cities section? -- Jayron32 18:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that we shouldn't have cities repeated over and over and over. If the highway goes through Atown, Btown, Ctown, Dtown, and Etown and towns A, B, D, and E are in the major junction box, you shouldn't have to create a "cities" section just to make Dtown known; if you want, talk about that town in the article. If you had only towns A and C in the major junctions box, then you could make a Major Cities box including towns A-E. Short routes are different though. The article body should be more in-depth than the infobox obviously. --TinMan 21:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. So what to do about concurrencies? I would agree that short concurrencies, like say the NC 42/US 70 concurrency in Clayton, or other places where two routes share a short stretch of pavement when passing through a downtown area would qualify more as "junctions", but what about LONG concurrencies, like say NC 24/27 or even NC 50/US 70? List it twice in the junction section? Create a new section in the info box? Or handle it in the route description writeup? Create a new header in the write-up maybe? -- Jayron32 18:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't really like the Concurrency box idea because again, that makes the infobox longer and I don't see that as "need to know" information. If the routes split at a major junction, I would list it as such. If not, I would just mention the concurrency in the article body. Does that work for you? --TinMan 21:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

All sounds great. So we will a) List major concurrencies in article, not info-box b) Only treat state highways as "major" when maintained to a level equivalent to U.S. or Interstate Highways c) Only use the Cities section when major cities are NOT occuring in the junction list, which itself should be rare and d) Try to keep "major" junctions lists small, like 4-5 and definately no more than 8 for the longest routes. Does that summarize the style guide for these articles? -- Jayron32 00:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Basically, yeah. Sounds good to me too. Yet, like I said earlier, NC 55 has a lot of important interchanges and I don't think I can determine which ones to remove; I'd rather not delete any without having some mention in the article about them. But besides that issue, that seems like a good sytle guide. --TinMan 04:12, 13 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) 00:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm trying to find abbreviations that we can use for the infobox (mainly the main junctions box and termini). If there are concurrencies, I usually only state the type of highway once. (for example: US 15/501). The goal is to keep the junctions on one line if possible. The problem I come to is with Business Routes. Should I use BUS US 15 or US 15 BUS or US 15 Bus or Bus US 15 or US 15 BR or BR US 15? If I just use the whole word "Business", it gets really unasthetically pleasing. Personally, I like US 15 Bus. --TinMan 03:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

"US 15 Bus" or "US 15 Bus." works for me. I agree with everything else as well. --TMF ^{T - C} 04:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Please let me know what you think of this method. I will be digging through all the redlinked NC Roadways and cross referencing them to the NCDOT GIS site to determine the shorter roads and start by pulling county maps for those 1-county roads to get basic information. Do you prefer inclusion of an infobox & stub or a full article? Id like to get the infoboxes put up and hopefuly that will foster development of the stub pages... Rob110178 15:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The infoboxes would be great... I've noticed what you've been doing and it's great. I've just been correcting some minor errors in the boxes, so if you don't mind, I'll be trolling the NC highways articles fixing some of that stuff. If you start a new article, I only ask that you include one sentence in the article. If you can, say "NC x is a North Carolina state highway. " or something like that for an introduction. That way we just don't have boxes with no text at all. Other than that, all sounds good. Stubs would be great too.

Hi, I'm the curator of All Things NC! and NC State Highway Ends. I just wanted to wish you all luck in completing this project, and if you need any additional information or have any questions, please feel free to contact me. I'll refrain from any edits as that could be considered a conflict of interest. Again, Good Luck! --CanesFan27 03:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

As with many changes, there are consequences. Since we've all agreed at WP:SRNC to change to the "North Carolina Highway x" format, the word "state" will be removed from all the article titles in the near future when we get approval. This may cause a few minor problems that we need to think about. The category right now for our state highways is Category:North Carolina State Highways. Changing this category to "Category:North Carolina Highways" may create confusion, since US highways, Interstates, and other routes and freeways are also considered North Carolina Highways. How would we name the category so that we just have NC routes and not US 158 or Bryan Boulevard? Should we keep the cat name the same? Should we change it to "North Carolina Routes"? What do y'all think? --TinMan 04:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd say keep the cat name the same. From my personal experience, it's no easy task to get a category relating to state roads renamed over at WP:CfD. --TMF ^{T - C} 05:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Just as a heads up, NC Highway 55 is linked from wikinews regarding the big fire in Apex... Good chance for some visibility! Rob110178 22:02, 7 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 22:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I decided to take a quick stroll through the page and make a list of pages that need to be generated. Maybe this will make it a little easier to find something specific to do! I will continue to work on this, let me know what you think as a start! Rob110178 14:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

As a heads-up, I fixed the NCSH cleanup template a while ago to accept the second parameter for rationale. I'd add rationale for the five or so lacking such, but I'm not as familiar with the nuances of this project as other editors. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 03:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems that it has been a bit quiet lately. I was looking at the structure section and all it does is reference articles that are preferred. If someone changes these reference articles, than new editors may not format correctly. For the sake of consistency, I would like to suggest the following structure for NCSH:

Infobox

Intro

Current Route

West/North Terminus

East/South Terminus

Historical Routing (If any)

Future Expansion (If any)

References

See Also

External Links

If anyone has any thoughts on this suggested structure, please sound off! Lets get a consensus on this and work on improving on the Project!! Rob110178 00:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. To comply with WP:MOS and WP:GTL, I'd suggest the following headings for the sections following the intro:

Route description

History

Future

See also

References

External links

Other than that, I have no problems with this proposal. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 01:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what would be the best term for it, but I've been adding sections for "Nearby attractions" or "Nearby landmarks" (since not all are "attractions") and listing local icons... not statues or water tanks, but maybe a university or a mall or air force base or theme park... stuff that travelers may visit or notice or be near to. What do you all think? As for those sections listed above by TMF, I agree. Just put some kind of intro section (untitled of course) at the top and don't just go straight into Route description. The intro tells what NC xx is, the Route description tells where it goes etc. And yes, infobox goes at the top. As for termini, I would put them under Route description. They don't really deserve their own sections. --TinMan 03:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree. For the attractions/landmarks section, I'd support something like that. As for the heading, I think "Nearby landmarks" would work fine. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 04:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Lets try this:

Infobox

Intro

Route description

Nearby Places of Interest (Instead of landmarks/attractions)

History

Future

See also

References

External links

Thoughts on this? Rob110178 10:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That's fine with me, although, per the Manual of Style, the subheading for the places of interest would have to be "Nearby places of interest". Whether or not the attractions/landmarks get their own second-level section or become a subsection of Route description, I'm personally indifferent to. I think either one could work. Also, should we include a section for junction lists/exit lists? --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

"Nearby places of interest"! Why couldn't I think of that? Now, that as a subsection or a primary section? Well, after a full one minute of thought, I think the subsection would probably be best, since that would solve the problem of highways that don't have POI nearby. If it's a subsection, people won't feel obligated to add meaningless POI's when the article is undeserving of it, just to maintain uniformity. Of course, the same could be said for the "Future" section, since not all roads have future plans, but that needs to be seperate anyway. Plus, POI are part of the route's description anyway in my opinion. In simple terms, I give the whole thing a thumbs up. --TinMan 21:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I know Jayron was speaking earlier of a route concurrency listing/write-up. That could also be a subsection under Route description where applicable. Lots of possibilities. {My 4000th Wikipedia Edit!} --TinMan 20:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

What about a section for junction/exit lists? --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Should that be a seperate section or a subsection of Route description? Those are usually big boxes right? If that's the case, they probably need a seperate section at the bottom of the page, but I could go either way. I'll leave that one up to you all. --TinMan 20:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it'd be best if they were given a separate section located between Route description and History. This is the format I've seen used by most state WPs, and is also the one I think works best. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I was just looking at the NCSH talk template and compared to other talk templates, it seems like ours is woefully lacking. I will attempt to create a reference on the talk page for the template, we can add alot of features, is there anything that the community would like to see to facilitate better visibility on our project? Rob110178 02:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Which template is this? --MPD01605 (T / C) 03:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This one: {{NC Highways WikiProject}} —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rob110178 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

I don't see anything wrong with it. It's similar to other route templates like {{U.S. Interstate Highway WikiProject}}. But what do you suggest? --MPD01605 (T / C) 04:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, ditto what you said, MPD01605. Suggestions for improvement? --TinMan 04:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There is currently only an ability for map tagging and assessments. (Bear with me here, my mind is rambling its only 0500 Local) There are a significant number of things that can be programmed into this template but for me to start touching it I wanted to get the community feel for a good direction. If I go much further with adding capability I would like to do some substantial revamping of the WP page itself. For examples of the level of capability, see {{TrainsWikiProject}}. I know we are not big enought to justify that level of detail, but it may help to add some detail. Perhaps a regional task force tagging capability (i.e. Coastal, Piedmont, Mountain). Let me know!! Rob110178 10:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if anything extra like that present on the Trains WP template is needed for this WP. The reason that the trains template has to be so complicated is that the trains WP covers railroading worldwide, while this WP covers only roads in North Carolina. That said, I can't think of anything that would be worth adding to the template, as assessment and maps are pretty much all that is necessary. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:25, 18 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 16:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Have all of the images in this project been updated? I can check this using AWB if everyone wants. We need to look at getting new members... It seems to be getting a bit quiet around here, I know I have been guilty as well, but is anyone else alive? :-) Rob110178 10:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Woah, I missed this comment. I've been alive for a while. My most recent creation was: NC 33. I've updated the to-do list somewhat. It seems though, that every time I finish an article, a new route is created somewhere... will we ever catch up? Lol. --Triadian 18:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming for the NC highway infoboxes that we should be trying to have all Interstate links redirect to the appropriate "Interstate XX in North Carolina" article, i.e. [[Interstate 40 in North Carolina|I-40]]. Well, apparently this has been in use for a while but I found instead of typing all that out over and over you can just pipe trick it with [[I-40 (NC)|]]. That's just so much easier and I thought that I'd share. :) --Triadian 18:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, a while back, we as a Wikiproject agreed to start the articles for NC state highways with the abbreviated and most commonly used "NC XX" form and use that form throughout the article. This is different from a lot of other states, with exceptions like Michigan: M-4 (Michigan highway). This, seems to have worked out well as a compromise. My issue is with links to other NC state highways within a NC state highway article. At WP:USRD, I was told that links for NC should be North Carolina Highway x within the main text of the article, which makes sense for all articles except for NC highways. Let's say I'm typing an article on NC 8 and I'm describing its route, which crosses North Carolina Highway 150 and North Carolina Highway 67. Can't I just use NC 150 and NC 67 when I'm describing? It seems silly to have just NC 8 as the only abbreviated form and the rest in expanded form. Any thoughts? --Triadian 18:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. --NE2 04:28, 16 September 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} 16:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Should anything be changed or added before I nominate this as a good article? --NE2 04:29, 16 September 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) 05:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Found on MTR: you can now find maps for 1922, 1930, 1940, 1951, 1960, 1970, 1980, and 1990 at [1]. More will added in the future. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. --NE2 20:55, 9 January 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) 21:10, 4 July 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 06:10, 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} 09:29, 15 March, 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) 03:43, 22 January 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 01:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)