Talk:Industrial Drive (Adrian, Michigan)

	U.S. roads portal This redirect is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport articles
Locations	Michigan

Article[edit]

I do not understand what this article is about.--Anthony.bradbury 22:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That should no longer be a problem! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 04:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent redirect[edit]

This unsigned trunkline has no number. It is internally designated as Connector 34. The list cited also shows that CONN M-13 is internally designated Connector 14 and the Capitol Loop is Connector 81. Those numbers are related to the sequence they were numbered. Imzadi1979 01:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, a minor note: [1] is a better source to link to. Now, it doesn't look to me like the numbers were assigned in order, once you get past 23. 34 connects to M-34, 44 to M-44, 58 to M-58, 96 to I-96, and 104 to M-104. (I don't know why they chose 81.) A merge to M-34 makes perfect sense to me. What more can you say about it? --NE2 06:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... the lists are nearly identical to me. Calling it Connector 34 and CONN M-34 are diferent in MI. All state highway designations in MI use M-# unless they are 1) Interstates, 2) U.S. Highways, 3) Business connections/bannered highways related to #1 or #2 or 4) unsigned/unassigned highways. Industrial Dr. has an internal reference used by MDOT as Connector 34. Did they pick that the line up with M-34, possibly, but it isn't Connector M-34. The wording used previous was at least wrong on that account, and a proper discussion to reach consensus about a redirect/merg, as you now have done is proper. Thank you. Imzadi1979 07:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that it's not Connector M-34. However, it is a connection to M-34, and doesn't need its own article. --NE2 07:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to redirect that again. This is a short connector whose purpose is to connect something to M-34, and doesn't need an article on its own, but fits perfectly with M-34. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott5114 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]