Talk:U.S. Route 117

A request has been made, by {{ping|NE2}}, to split the previous designation of US 117 to a new or moved to another article. It is my recommendation to leave as is, but it would be best if the requester would put more information here about this split. This post is to merely start this conversation instead of allowing it to go idle then removed by Admins. --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U.S._Route_158&oldid=616478978#History This was already resolved], but you decided to revert for no reason but bureaucratic process. So I'll say it again: the former US 117 has nothing to do with the current one. It doesn't belong here. --NE2 01:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

::It wasn't resolved and it was reverted by Ohnoitsjamie. --WashuOtaku (talk) 01:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

:::Sigh, so an editor with no knowledge of the topic decided to take sides in a revert war. If my opinion of that editor were not already horrible, it would be now. --NE2 01:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The old US 117 should probably be a separate article since it doesn't seem to fit in US 58, US 158, or the current US 117. However, I wouldn't bother splitting it out unless a C-Class article can be made out of it. –Fredddie™ 01:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

:I agree that a split is necessary since the former US 117 designation does not fit in the current US 117 article and that the former designation was replaced with multiple designations making one redirect target impossible, and that the new article should a halfway decent article when created. Dough4872 01:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

::It fits [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U.S._Route_158&oldid=616478978#History reasonably in US 158]: it was first truncated to Franklin, and then separately renumbered 158. Thinking about it, it's really just an old number for 158 (which was later rerouted away from Franklin). 158 was created at exactly the same time as 117 disappeared, and 158's first alignment included all of 117's last alignment (plus an extension west from Norlina to Mocksville). These 1932 maps (postdating the change) may make it easier to visualize: [http://www.flickr.com/photos/uconnlibrariesmagic/8020428481/sizes/o/ Virginia] [http://www.flickr.com/photos/uconnlibrariesmagic/8020427713/sizes/o/ North Carolina] --NE2 01:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

:::If the final routing of US 117 was entirely replaced by US 158, then the former US 117 should be covered in the US 158 article. Dough4872 01:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

::::Yep. Confirmed by [http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/us117.htm 1932 and 1933 Virginia officials]. It's possible that NC renumbered their part in 1932 and VA did in 1933, but what's clear is that VA truncated it to Franklin before renumbering it. --NE2 01:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

So where do you all think we stand, I tally three for the split, one oppose. Should the motion pass and process taken to affix the previous US 117 routing onto US 158 as a progression of the history of the routes? Also, what is the official way to close a request? --WashuOtaku (talk) 22:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'm agnostic, leaning oppose, on splitting as yet. Can we create, from reliable sources, enough text to justify creating a separate article on the former routing of 117, if so, then a split may be useful. If we can't say anything more substantial than the one sentence we already have, Wikipedia gains nothing from having a new article. The current text on the former route does NOT overwhelm this article, and so, if all we have is the current amount of text, I would oppose the split. If someone can show where we could have an article with enough text to make this one unwieldy or imbalanced, I would only then support a split. --Jayron32 00:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
• The idea is to split it out from here and put it instead in the US 158 history. --NE2 01:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oh, I'd be fine with moving the single sentence of text to the US 158 article, so long as a hatnote is used to redirect someone so they don't get confused. I'm not in support of it in the sense "Hells yeah, we should absolutely do that" but I'm neither opposed to it so long as it is done right. What I would be opposed to doing in any case is to create a new article merely to house a single sentence of text. --Jayron32 01:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Done: U.S. Route 158#History --NE2 09:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :U.S. Route 117's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "1935 map":

• From North Carolina Highway 133: {{cite map |publisher=North Carolina State Highway Commission |year=1935|title=State Highway System of North Carolina|cartography=C.M. Sawyer & W.W. Hampton.|url=https://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/ncmaps/id/747|edition=1935}}
• From U.S. Route 76 in North Carolina: {{cite map |publisher = North Carolina State Highway Commission |year = 1935 |title = State highway system of North Carolina |first = C.M. |last = Sawyer |url = https://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/ncmaps/id/747/rec/10 |location = Raleigh }}

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

{{Talk:U.S. Route 117/GA1}}