Template talk:U.S. Routes/Archive 1

Archive 1

US 395

I believe that US 395 should also be added to this template... However, I was discouraged by the instructions in the source code, along with the fact that I have a high aptness to screw up tables (that's why I use fireworks, you don't have to worry about it)... The Hemogoblin 04:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagreed. THis list is for PRIMARY routes only. 395 is not a primary route. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

No, really, it is... it is completely independent of US 95... there are some highways on this template that are shorter than my pinky nail, and this one runs half of the west coast... The Hemogoblin 08:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

US 395 actually is a conforming child-route, ridiculous as it seems, because it is a spur of US 195, which itself is a child-route spur of US 95. US 195 connects to US 95 in the Lewiston, ID area, and runs up to the Spokane, WA area where originally US 395 began and was much much shorter. Later, US 395 was "extended" about 1500 miles south to San Diego, so ran the entire West Coast! It's quite likely the longest child-route in the system! JackME 14:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

thank you... that is kind of ironic... i will quit this argument now The Hemogoblin 16:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Route 2

Shouldn't Route 2 be a "pink" square, as it is considered a major route as per AASHTO? Hans404 03:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

US Route 163

Computerguy removed US 163 from this template, I have reverted it. Here's why:

• US 163 is not related to US 63 despite the implication
• Currently the US 63 page does not link to or mention US 163 (and vice-versa) so this template is the ONLY means of getting to US 163 from another US roads article.

I would have no problem with removing US 163 from this template provided the US 63 and 163 pages were allowed to mention the other and cross-link. However attempts to do this so far have been reverted by certain editors. Dave (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

All long routes major

Since when was US 21 "major" and the longer US 19, US 23, and US 27 (before its truncation) "minor" before truncations? All coast-to-coast, border-to-border, and border-to-coast highways, or very close to being either, with the blatant exceptions of US 5, and US 7 in New England would seem major. "Coasts" by this definition include the Great Lakes and the Gulf Coast.

With the arguable exception of US 59 and US 83, all go through at least two major cities. US 66 can be considered one of the BIG ones because it was one of the long-distance routes of travel from its inception.

US 6 obviously was the longest of all US routes, and as the only highway that got into the New York City and Chicago areas, it had to be major.

I have shown as major highways almost every odd-numbered route between 81 and 101 -- which might violate some tastes, but the topography so dictates. 75, 83, 85, 87, 89, 93, 95, and 99 all cross (or crossed) the country north-south or nearly do (did) so. In a way, US 62 is border-to-border (Niagara Falls, El Paso) highway -- and the only largely east-west route that connects borders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul from Michigan (talk • contribs) 13:16, 01 Sept, 2008 (UTC)

Improved version of template

I propose a new version of the template.

My new version shown below accomplishes the following:

• Converts the current template to a Template:Navbox-class template for standardization with other templates on the articles that use this template. Among others this standardization includes
  • autocollapse function, which recognizes the presence of other Navbox-class templates in an article and functions accordingly. The default is to collapse when there are two or more Navbox templates, but this can be overridden on an individual-article basis; for example, to force the template to be expanded on a page you would specify the "state" parameter as "uncollapsed" like this: {{U.S. Routes|state=uncollapsed}}. For more info see Template:Navbox#Setup parameters.
  • width of the template is standard in Navbox-class templates, so multiple Navboxes used in the same article look neatly stacked
• Attempts to clarify what exactly is linked from the template.
  • The old template was titled "Main U.S. Routes" but aside from the specific routes linked most of the articles also applied to auxiliary routes. The new title makes clear that this is a navigation template about the entire system of US Routes. Obviously the articles for specific auxiliary routes cannot be linked from this template so a note is added that those articles are accessible from the parent primary route, while for the articles that are not about specific routes, it is made clear that most of them apply to the entire system.
  • The "Lists" section of the old template was also potentially confusing. The section consists mainly of lists of routes, except that "Portal" is not a list of routes. I have moved the applicable articles into a "Lists of routes" section to clarify what is included in the section. Within that section, "Bannered" intuitively means "List of bannered US routes", "Divided" means "List of divided US routes", etc. The Portal link is given its own section.
• Adds a link to the article about the US route shield.

--l a t i s h r e d o n e (previously User:All in) 03:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit request from Brian1291998, 14 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please add the red color to the U.S. Route 24 title in the U.S. two digit route list. U.S. Route 24 is indeed a quite important route.

Brian1291998 (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

{ Not done: Everything is in order, the red links are used to indicate that the linked page doesn't exist (yet!). jonkerz♠ 00:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not what i meant. the red SHADING should be added, as this majorly serves Detroit.

I agree with Paul from Michigan in saying that U.S. Route 6 must be included in pink as it used to be the longest route in the country. It is an important corridor still because it can be used in California and Nevada as an alternate to the heavilly traveled Interstate 80.

Edit request from Brian1291998, 15 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please plac U.S. Route 52 in the red areas. The route serves Minneapolis, Chicagoland, Indianapolis, and Winston-Salem. It is also a part of the extension of Interstate 74.

Brian1291998 (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Declined. The template says that discussion should take place before changes. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Formatting

A petition to all users:

Please do NOT break the formatting when modifying this template. Also, can we firmly establish what squares should be shaded Pink? I propose ONLY Major N/S and E/W routes, and only those officially established as such. This would include routes ending in "1" and "0", and route 2 (as there is no route 00), and 101 (which is 10-1). Hans404 (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

WT:USRD#Template:U.S. Routes --Rschen7754 21:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I recently added Route 2 back in (as it replaces the non-existent "Route 0" as a northern-most route). I am making a note publicly here that I plan on reverting ANY AND ALL modifications to the pink shading, unless it is mentioned and discussed here FIRST. Hans404 (talk) 03:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you source this at all? --Rschen7754 03:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Route 6

I suggest that U.S. Route 6 should be considered a major route. It's the only highway that goes through California and Massachusetts, so it should be major and highlighted pink on the template, unless the proposed template is then chosen. I am in favor of that template, because it considers all routes equal. They wouldn't be what they are if they were not important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian1291998 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the proposed template, because it takes up too much space. As for the proposal to highlight US 6, I disagree. It's not considered "major" by the objective criteria used, aka AASHTO doesn't consider it so. Imzadi 1979 → 02:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I still disagree. U.S. Route 6 travels many divided portions, including the Kingery Expressway in Chicago. It also traverses one of the first colonies in history, Plymouth. It also serves the cities of Lincoln, Omaha, and Des Moines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian1291998 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You're free to disagree, but proposing the same change every month or so is not a good practice. In fact, it's frankly a bit disruptive. See WP:FORUMSHOP for the specific section that discusses it. "It may similarly be considered disruptive to bring up the same issue at the same forum multiple times, particularly when constantly proposing something that has already been rejected (although it may be acceptable to raise the matter again after a reasonable time has passed, as consensus can change)." That's a direct quote from the Policy on Consensus, which is one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 02:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Template to show all "3dus"?

Is there a template that will show all of the "3dus" (3-digit U.S. Highways)? Allen (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

meaning of highlights, use of italics

In order to better comply with MOS:ACCESS, two distinctions made in this template need to either made clearer or eliminated from the template:

1. Yellow is used to highlight certain "major" highways; what does "major" mean? The definition of "major" for this purpose should be defined in the footer of the template, and WP:COLOR should be followed for that distinction.
2. At default font sizes, it is hard to recognize which numbers are in italics; if this distinction is a priority then I'd suggest some method other than italics be used for this purpose. See WP:NOSYMBOLS

Thanks. 68.165.77.21 (talk) 03:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Highways without mother routes

U.S. Route 199 is not a auxiliary route of a route nor U.S. Route 180 so someone please add them to the template. 96.230.56.98 (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

They're still children from US 99 and US 80, respectively. In the former case, US 99 itself has been decommissioned, and US 180 doesn't meet US 80 anymore, but neither condition alters the basic facts, so neither needs to be added here. Imzadi 1979 → 21:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, you are right but U.S. Route 281 is a route that goes Canada to Mexico? 96.230.56.98 (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2017

Routes 212, 310, and 191 need to be added. 184.166.187.64 (talk) 23:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The other 3dUS examples are clear exceptions to the parent–sibling relationship, unlike the ines you've listed. Imzadi 1979 → 01:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Main routes

This template states, "Highlighted routes are considered main routes of the system". I have long wondered about this, but can find no support for this claim.

United States Numbered Highway System#The 1925 routes makes a similar claim, which seems to be semi-OR based on its cited 1925 document. Even if this *were* true in 1925, what is the basis for continuing this claim in 2018? Is there an AASHTO source that I can't locate?

Thanks. --Chaswmsday (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, this is the case according to the FHWA. "From Names to Numbers: The Origins of the U.S. Numbered Highway System" by Richard Weingroff (cached by Google) notes that this is true, and it's a fact repeated other places, like here and the WorldBook Encyclopedia here ("Major highway routes usually end in 0, 1, or 5."). Do you have a source that the major status was rescinded at all? If not, the claim stands. Imzadi 1979 → 23:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the sources! I "noincluded" your first FHWA cite in this article (cite was also used in United States Numbered Highway System, but had gone dead).--Chaswmsday (talk) 01:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Although I'm still not sure if the historical numbering scheme holds today: List of United States Numbered Highways, sorted by length, shows some 0's and 1's shorter and some non-0's and 1's longer than some other routes. --Chaswmsday (talk) 01:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the URL correction. I could have sworn I tried that...--Chaswmsday (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)