Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:22, 21 October 2007

• ]

Attention!

If you are here to post something about... notability, please do so on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Notability. Assessment and Importance, use WT:USRD/A. infoboxes and navigation, post on WT:USRD/INNA. shields, use WT:USRD/S. the exit list guide, use WT:ELG. the newsletter, post at WT:USRD/NEWS. state highways, Interstates, or U.S. Routes specifically, post at the respective WikiProject's talk page.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

A pair of Florida Interstates

I recently merged Interstate 195 (Florida) and Interstate 395 (Florida) into their "hidden" state road designations because (1) the Interstate designation in both cases is a small segment of a larger freeway and (2) it doesn't make much sense to have two articles on the same roadway, especially when one or both articles is a stub. I even cleaned up Florida State Road 112 for the sole purpose of merging I-195 with the article. I was reverted by an editor, who called the designations "separate". Comments requested. --TMF 03:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say keep them all separate. I can't form more to back that up, but for now, that's just my opinion. But I'd like to see more opinions. --MPD 03:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure; I think the way in which the western extensions are tolled might make them different enough. Do you know the history of their construction? --NE2 06:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The articles don't give me the impression that the interstate portions were constructed at different times, though this fact is unclear. I suppose I-395 may be distinct enough to deserve its own article (that is, if someone can expand it enough to be a decent standalone article), but I can't say the same for I-195. The portion of the freeway west of I-195 is SR 112; the at-grade roadway extending east of I-195 is SR 112, with I-195 sandwiched in the middle. That, combined with the sorry state of the article, was enough reasoning for me to merge them.

To me, it comes down to quality. If we can have quality (B-class) articles on both the SRs and the Interstates, then I'm all for it. But as it is right now, the two interstate articles are awful and I don't see any way how merging the two with the state roads is detrimental. --TMF 07:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say keep them separate. Since Florida gives its own state road designation to every interstate and US highway, I have always treated this as if the hidden designation didn't exist at all on deciding where to have articles or where to have a redirect to, etc... {{main}} would probably be the best way to go on the SR articles. --Holderca1 12:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

So you endorse keeping two stubby articles on the same stretch of roadway? --TMF 20:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

By default yes, I don't think an interstate article should ever be merged into a state highway article, only the other way around. And since the state highways exist separately from the interstates, we have no choice but to have them separate. If they happened to have the same name such as Ronald Reagen Expressway, then a single article under that would work, but that is not the case in this situation. If they are stubby, then expand them. Actually, both aren't stubs, the interstate portions are the only stub articles. --Holderca1 21:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, then that just makes the situation more glaring then. I see no benefit to keeping the articles separate, as there is nothing about the Interstates that can't be covered in the SR articles. Keeping them separate will only lead to an unnecessary duplication of information. And do you really believe that the Interstate articles can be turned into B-class articles? Personally, I doubt they can. --TMF 21:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, how would having the same name make any difference? --TMF 06:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Never mind, I see that point, although that type of thing seldom happens. Usually, one name = one designation. --TMF 06:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like I-395 has some urban planning issues to write about. --NE2 22:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I dunno anything about that, so I wouldn't be the one to write it. Keep in mind my comments are based on what I see right now, and what I see right now are lousy articles. If other editors improve them, so be it, but at the present time, it boggles my mind as to how they're allowed to be separate. --TMF 22:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

What about merging into Interstate 95 in Florida? --Holderca1 13:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a bad idea. --NE2 18:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

How would that be appropriate and what I did not? --TMF 05:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Because they are spurs of I-95. Interstate 345 was merged and redirected to Interstate 45, so I thought logically the same would be okay here, if that isn't a good idea, than we should split I-345 back out. --Holderca1 20:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I-345 is an unsigned continuation of I-45 that was built at the same time and is commonly called the "I-45 overhead". --NE2 21:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well that is only half right. It is signed I-45 southbound and US 75 northbound. Officially I-45 ends at the south end of I-345 and US 75 ends at the north end, why they just don't continue the US 75 designation to I-45, I don't know, not that anyone would actually notice. Not sure how common "I-45 overhead" is, google hits came back with mostly Misplaced Pages and its mirrors. Google News came back with no hits. --Holderca1 13:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record, TMF, not every "hidden" Florida State Road is hidden beneath the same Interstate or U.S. Highway, and many of them extend beyond those Interstates & US Highways, which makes merging them all a bad idea. One example of this is Florida State Road 595, which has an exposed extension between US 19 and US 92 in St, Petersburg, and Pasco & Hernando County Roads 595 are considered County extensions of SR 595. Not all of US 19 is Florida State Road 55, not all of Interstate 75 in Florida is Florida State Road 93, not all of US 41 is Florida State Road 45, not all of Florida State Road 112 is Interstate 195 in Florida,... you get the idea, right? ----DanTD 04:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh, where did I say that every single one should be merged? --TMF 04:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You mean you're not proposing these mergers for other Interstate & US Highways in Florida besides I-195 and I-395? Well that's good, although I think Florida State Road 93 & 93A should be merged with Interstate 75 in Florida. ----DanTD 04:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That is correct; my comment far, far above was limited to only I-195 and I-395. As for SR 93...you could try tagging it for a merge. --TMF 05:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Joe A. Gonsalves Memorial Interchange -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 23:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Michigan I-94 business connections

What should we do about templates that pop up like this one? I am concerned that we will have pages half full of templates such as this and would like to see it go personally - but prior to a tfd I'm requesting opinion on it master son 01:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Considering that we might merge these into one article, delete. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The notion of a template that organizes business connections seems useful, but it should be genericised to work for any interstate and any set of towns. ++Lar: t/c 02:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow... that blue link is almost impossible to read. --NE2 05:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lar. I see potential as useful, but a better way to do it is needed. --MPD 05:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

If we merge the individual route articles into one for all bannered routes of that route number as Rschen suggested - that template will be useless - otherwise yeah it is useful - if the template remains - a redesign should be needed. --master son 13:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This template is more likely not useful than useful to most other Interstates, since there are almost no coverage of Interstate Business routes. Even though Michigan editors have created lots of business route articles, we have began to see that merging coverage into one article has a better result than just having permastubs across the board. I am nominating this for deletion. O₂ (息 • 吹) 00:28, 08 October 2007 (GMT)

Speaking of large templates...

Template:3di old Can't we compress this? --NE2 19:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much the only way is to reduce the font size (90-95%?). AFAIK, the hide/show functionality was removed a while ago. O₂ (息 • 吹) 00:23, 08 October 2007 (GMT)

Hide/show would be good. --MPD 00:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

So what makes this fine that wasn't fine about Template:Ontario King's Highways? I think we can abbreviate the state names here and improve the formatting; there's no need for four separate lines to list four spurs on the I-96 template. --NE2 00:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. This was an improvement over the old 3di template. Go ahead and make a mock example template so we can comment on it, work on it, and if it works, then we can change them. --MPD 00:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

State names are not supposed to be abbreviated since it does not conform to MOS:ABB. The Ontario's King's Highways template is different from these because that lists all King's Highways. Here, it only lists auxiliary routes for one Interstate. If the auxiliary template were to be the same aspect as the Ontario template, then it'd list all auxiliary routes in the Interstate System. O₂ (息 • 吹) 00:55, 08 October 2007 (GMT)

Why do we abbreviate the state names in browse boxes at the bottom of articles like Interstate 82? --NE2 01:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Because they are supposed to be boxes contained in infoboxes, which are supposed to be small. This (3di 95) isn't. O₂ (息 • 吹) 01:10, 08 October 2007 (GMT)

v t e Auxiliary routes of Interstate 95
Florida 195 295 395 595 795 Georgia Business North Carolina 295 495 795 Business Virginia 195 295 395 495 595 895 District of Columbia 195 295 395 495 695 Maryland 195 295 395 495 595 695 795 895 Delaware 295 495 895 Pennsylvania 295 395 495 695 895 New Jersey 195 295 495 695 895 New York 295 495 695 895 Connecticut 395 Rhode Island 195 295 895 Massachusetts 195 295 395 495 Business 695 895 Maine 195 295 395 495
Former Future Unbuilt Unsigned

I can split up CT/RI/MA if that's an issue, or add a few line breaks. --NE2 01:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Good start. Maybe arrange by state (horizontally)? O₂ (息 • 吹) 01:26, 08 October 2007 (GMT)

If you mean each state in a separate row, I tried that and for I-95 it's as big as the old one. --NE2 01:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not bad. The presentation seems a little thrown together, but I guess it's a compromise between the old one and no template at all. --TMF 04:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the old one to Template:3di old. The old style will still be used except where ] exists. --NE2 13:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I like this new idea. Very creative. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 21:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

USRD scope

I believe that we should release city street articles from USRD when city wikiprojects (like WikiProject Chicago) exist to maintain them. The reasons for this are:

• Most USRD editors don't know much about the streets in question and so are not in a position to improve those articles
• Most USRD editors are too involved with state highway projects to help city street articles
• USRD is focused on highways
• City streets have a local focus and are a better fit at the city WikiProject
• City projects probably have more time and desire to maintain the articles than USRD

So basically I'm suggesting that we remove the {{USRD}} tag when a city project exists to maintain it. What are everyone else's thoughts on this? —Scott5114↗ 17:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I support this. --MPD 18:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

No problems here. I would like to see a setup of how each type of road and which project gets control over writing style. It would help when we see multiple projects having oversight. --Mihsfbstadium 18:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It would kind of depend. E.g., U.S. Route 12 in Illinois could be formatted according to WP:USRD guidelines. U.S. Route 41 in Illinois is too, but I have hesitated to bring elements of that article into Lake Shore Drive. Interstate Highways are probably best formatted under WP:IH guidelines, regardless of whether or not they're wholly contained in a city. (I'm thinking of I-238, or the like.) —Rob (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well here's what I was thinking: numbered routes can be maintained by (read:follow the guidlines of) USRD, whether in a state or a city, including state-specific articles. "Main Street (Anytown, Some State)" may be part of "State Route 3", and may have its own article. "Main Street" can be maintained by an appropriate town/city/state project, while "State Route 3" can be maintained by USRD, with of course the appropriate links and small mentions to Main Street. Interstates, yes, should be maintained by USRD regardless of whether they are wholly in a city. For state routes that are located entirely within a city that has an project. --MPD 18:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm only talking about city street articles that have nothing to do with any numbered highway, so yes, we'd still maintain State Route 3. :) —Scott5114↗ 00:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

City arterials should be removed from USRD as they are beyond the scope, expertise, and time of USRD and its editors. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Nicely phrased. —Scott5114↗ 00:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Would we be changing the project name to "U.S. roads except those which project members don't care about"? I don't know how you're going to split it. Would Storrow Drive be only under WikiProject Boston? Would West Side Highway (the new arterial, not the old elevated freeway) be only under WikiProject NYC? Would Ridge Route be only under WikiProject California? --NE2 02:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be up to the project wanting it. As for Ridge Route, it is not a city street and would stay with USRD. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Projects aren't monolithic entities that can "want" things; ideally they have clearly defined scopes: WP:NYC covers everything relating to New York City; WP:USRD covers all roads in the U.S. If we're going to change the scope, we need to be clear on what it's being changed to. --NE2 02:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Based on what Scott is saying, I would think that these three examples would still be under USRD as they are or have been state roads. More appropriate examples for discussion might be Boylston Street in Boston and Madison Avenue in NYC, where the city projects would probably be able to add more content. That said, we do need to clarify what USRD's scope is. --Polaron | Talk 02:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw the mention of Lake Shore Drive above and went from there. Assuming the numbered route connection (or do you mean state roads as in state maintenance?), part of Boylston Street was once Route C9 (). What about Wacker Drive? I'm pretty sure that never carried any numbered routes, but is an important predecessor to the freeway concept. --NE2 02:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree the road is important. I don't think the current structure as recommended by USRD right now fits for that article; a great portion of it in the future will be devoted to its construction and how it and what eventually become the El were built. For now, Wacker Drive is just one of a few dozen unassociated Chicago arterial road articles (there's a flippin' list in the article), and for now, that's acceptable. —Rob (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't this conversation be better served for state level road WPs? --Son 16:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Not really; this is a discussion on what USRD's scope is. State highway projects have their own scope, which will not be affected from this discussion - at least from what I understand. --TMF 19:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That's my point - city streets shouldn't even be a USRD discussion. To make a comparison, the hierarchy of USRD should operate like the United States operates. The national government deals primarily with national roads; the national government also "encourages" a national speed limit. State government deals with state wide routes, county routes, or the LRS in Pennsylvania. Municipal governments deals primarily with local routes that are not numbered.

USRD should make sure that all road articles in the United States operate under a uniform concept. WP:IH and WP:USH already (for lack of a better word) "control" national routes; state WPs should (for lack of a better word) "control" state routes and county routes (with the exception of those projects that already exist for county routes), and those projects decide if consensus is to monitor municipal roads. --Son 21:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I just thought of something. If we do release these articles from the project, we'd have to kick the newly-approved WP:USRD/NT guidelines out to projectspace somewhere. Otherwise, people could write articles about any old street. —Scott5114↗ 04:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This could be a big problem, since our last attempts on getting a notability guideline passed failed because of possible instruction creep. O₂ (息 • 吹) 04:41, 12 October 2007 (GMT)

I don't see the relevancy. If we kick city arterials out of the USRD scope (of which I still don't think it is currently, it should be determined by the state WPs), who cares if someone writes about any old street. It wouldn't be of concern to USRD as it would be outside of the project scope. --Son 13:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like, as usual, NE2 is the only dissenting voice. Anybody else against this proposal, or shall we start removing tags? —Scott5114↗ 17:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You have to define the new scope first, and probably rename the project, since it will no longer be about U.S. roads. --NE2 19:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with NE2, the name of the project is U.S. Roads, not U.S. Numbered Highways. I honestly don't understand the point of this discussion. It is acceptable for an article to fall under multiple projects. --Holderca1 13:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I explained the points at the top of the section. Is there one in particular you don't understand? —Scott5114↗ 16:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"Uh", it's possible to understand and disagree. --NE2 17:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand the points above, but I will address them individually I suppose

• Most USRD editors don't know much about the streets in question and so are not in a position to improve those articles - seems like a bad assumption to me, using this logic, if we don't have any editors familiar with New Mexico highways we should drop them from the project
• Most USRD editors are too involved with state highway projects to help city street articles - true, but don't think that is a valid point to remove these, just means we need more editors
• USRD is focused on highways - so then why is it called US Roads? There are a lot of numbered highways that are nothing more than a city street, wouldn't say that they are highways
• City streets have a local focus and are a better fit at the city WikiProject - okay, but there is nothing preventing multiple projects from working on the article
• City projects probably have more time and desire to maintain the articles than USRD - bad assumption, depends on the city (big cities will have a lot of articles) and the number of active editors involved in that particular project

Although, I disagree from removing these, I don't see anything stopping a state road project from including these in their scope. --Holderca1 19:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

How is this for a scope:

All roads in the United States that have been built for, marked for, or used by through traffic.

This removes the truly local roads that are more "streets" than "roads", while keeping those that have been or are used by through traffic, such as Wacker Drive. --NE2 13:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. --TMF 20:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the exit list guide

Please read and comment at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (exit lists)#Proposals for clarifications. --NE2 05:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Interstate 495 (North Carolina) --NE2 12:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Exit list guide issues

Basically, a user has taken it upon himself to a) remove shields from all exit lists and b) convert WP:ELG into an essay. Discussion started at WT:ELG then went all over the place. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The new "multiplex": decommissioned?

Someone brought up on Talk:Decommissioned highway that the term is unsourced. I figured "sure, I'll just find a DOT that uses it", but I couldn't find anything. Can people please comment on possible alternatives, or find a source that I missed? Thank you. --NE2 15:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a neologism. Decommission means "to revoke the the commission of" (Webster's New World), with commission meaning "an official certificate conferring a rank" or "the rank or authority conferred". So basically, when a highway is decommissioned, its rank as part of the highway system is revoked. —Scott5114↗ 17:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Except that the few non-roadgeek sources I see talking about decommissioning of a highway are about closing and tearing it up. --NE2 19:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it's not a neologism since the word decommission has been around for many years. --Son 05:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Not in this usage; see Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Language#Decommissioning. --NE2 08:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

But over there, you only asked people who hadn't seen it before if they could figure out what it meant. People who have seen it and who understood it on first reading, like me, were excluded from the "survey". I agree with Scott above. --Anon, 09:40 UTC, October 17, 2007.

Our articles are written for a general audience. --NE2 09:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

And if people want to know what decommission means, they can open a dictionary. --Son 14:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

And then they'll think that the road was "removed from service" or "shut down", i.e. closed. --NE2 14:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Because the route was removed from service, or shut down. The roadbed usually still exists, but the designation was removed. Decommissioned battleships often exist after their decommissioning, but are not in active service. Decommissioned highways often exist as local roads after their decommissioning, but are not in active service in the state highway system. —Scott5114↗ 21:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"The use of neologisms should be avoided in Misplaced Pages articles because they are not well understood, are not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people." The reference desk showed this; some people did think the road was closed. --NE2 21:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, we can link to decommissioned highway to clear up any confusion. This is clearly definable, as we've done so in the linked article as well as over and over above.—Scott5114↗ 22:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Do you have an alternative term that could be used that isn't clunky or awkward? --TMF 21:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

In categories and lists, "former state highway" works. When talking about the action, "turned back" or "transferred" to the local authorities works, or "became a county road/city street", or "removed from the state highway system", or "stopped being a state highway"... "Turned back" is probably best for infoboxes. --NE2 22:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better if the infobox entry was combined into a single "active" row of something similar. "Turned back" doesn't seem obvious in an infobox without context. I'm also not a big fan of a lot of those alternatives. "Removed from the state highway system" is really the only one that is palatable to me. --TMF 22:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That's probably a good idea; "turned back" doesn't work anyway since it may have been absorbed by another route. --NE2 22:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

TXDOT uses cancelled or removed from State Highway System. --Holderca1 13:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not sure we should remove it. "decommission: to remove (as a ship or nuclear power plant) from service — Merriam-Webster Dictionary". -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 22:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That's been addressed above; that seems to imply that the highway was closed. --NE2 22:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh lol, then I got nothing. 8-P -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 22:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with NE2. Relating to this, this news story demonstrates the differences of autonomy, another ambiguous word that has different interpretations for different people. This is the same principle as the "decommissioned" one we have laid out on the table right now. O₂ (息 • 吹) 22:37, 18 October 2007 (GMT)

At NYSR, it replced it with deleted. This is even worse, as deleted implies that something is no longer in existence. While I personally cannot think of a better word, at least decomissioned better applies to the situation than deleted, even if it is a neologism. And neologisms that do apply are better than non-neologisms which don't. Smartyllama 20:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I frankly don't understand why the term was removed. This discussion wasn't concluded and consensus was not reached to remove the term. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 20:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't need "consensus" to improve articles. If you don't think the removal of a misleading neologism improves the article, you're wrong. --NE2 21:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted means the the designation is no longer in existence. Guess what... it isn't. --NE2 21:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Brockway Mountain Drive --NE2 13:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"Interstate 92"

You may want to look at Interstate 92 and East-West Highway (New England) and possibly comment at Talk:East-West Highway (New England). --NE2 00:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiWork by project

I've calculated the WikiWork statistics for each state based on the article counts on the Subprojects status table. You can find these at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/Subprojects. Some of the notable points:

• Pennsylvania has the most work that needs to be done. (ω = 2230)
• Nevada gets the title of "worst project". 210 stub, 4 start, 0 B. (Ω = 4.891). Nevada has no editors at the moment.
• New York gets the title of "best project". 281 stub, 61 start, 166 B. (Ω = 4.226). New York also has a lot of room to improve, with second-highest ω after PA.
  • Close seconds are North Carolina, and, surprisingly, Kansas, which is because most of KS has yet to be written.
• South Carolina only has 20 articles.
• New York has the most B class articles, followed by PA and New Jersey. Thirteen states have no B class articles at all.

The table is sortable, so you can see where your favorite project falls in. Congratulations to WP:NYSR's editors for their hard work! —Scott5114↗ 11:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The ω value might be misleading at the moment since many projects don't even have close to half their articles created. It might be useful to add the percentage of primary state routes that have articles in the table and/or to count uncreated articles as stubs. --Polaron | Talk 12:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)