U.S. Route 117 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: June 18, 2021. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

U.S. Roads: U.S. Highways / North Carolina / South Carolina Mid‑importance This article 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Topics  U.S. Highways   Locations  North Carolina   South Carolina   This article has a map. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it. This article has a junction list compliant with the Manual of Style on road junction lists. This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.

A request has been made, by @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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It fits 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: Virginia North Carolina --NE2 01:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yep. Confirmed by 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

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

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: State Highway System of North Carolina (Map) (1935 ed.). Cartography by C.M. Sawyer & W.W. Hampton. North Carolina State Highway Commission. 1935.
• From U.S. Route 76 in North Carolina: Sawyer, C.M. (1935). State highway system of North Carolina (Map). Raleigh: North Carolina State Highway Commission.

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)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:U.S. Route 117/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs) 14:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Starting this review, looks quite thorough. A bit of space for a couple more images I suppose, but nothing obvious on commons so that isn't a hindrance to this review. CMD (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• "north-south United States Highway and spur route of US 17", unless there is an intrinsic link, it feels like there should be an "a" to make "and a spur route". Alternatively, a shuffling of the two sentences to join the "spur" note to the route info, eg. "U.S. Route 117 (US 117) is a north-south United States Highway located completely within the state of North Carolina. A spur route of US 17, the highway runs..."

I like breaking it up like that, so I reflected that in the lead.--Ncchild (talk) 04:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Port of Wilmington in Wilmington", seems redundant to mention Wilmington here.

I agree it is redundant but I wanted to generally include the city name for reference (to be fair, it could always been in some small town or community). I changed it to "south of downtown Wilmington" just to place it some. Added two commas too and they make sense to me at the moment but I'm not sure if that's grammatically correct.--Ncchild (talk) 04:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "at its eastern terminus", the "its" here is ambiguous.

Clarified this to show it was the eastern termius of I-40.--Ncchild (talk) 04:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "between I-40 and Goldsboro", should it be "between the I-40"?

I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here. I know California particularly says "the" before their highways. "The 405" for example. However, that doesn't seem to be the standard writing style for the US Roads Wikiproject.--Ncchild (talk) 04:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The Goldsboro part of the lead seems to simple appear without much flow. Where is Goldsboro in relation to the overall geography?

Goldsboro is more or less just a fairly major city (the largest outside of Wilmington) along US 117. It also is where US 117 connects to both I-795 (which travelers then generally use to I-95), US 70, US 13 etc. I did make some changes to the sentence to help it flow better.--Ncchild (talk) 04:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's lacking I think is an explanation for the rest of the route, between Goldsboro and Wilson, to partner with the Wilsboro-Goldsboro sentence. It's possible that the following "US 117 serves as a connection between I-40, Goldsboro, and I-795 from where it continues to its northern terminus" may be intended to convey this, but I must admit coming back to this article I don't really understand what that sentence means right now (Is "I-40, Goldsboro" one subject or two?). CMD (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to reword it to hopefully fix what you were concerned about. Let me know what you think about it. It took me several tries but I was happy with the newly revised version when I finished.--Ncchild (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• What does it mean to be "an original North Carolina State Highway"?

An original state highway would be the highways that existed in 1921 when NC first created its system.--Ncchild (talk) 04:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would it work if "an original North Carolina State Highway" is changed to "one of the original North Carolina State Highways" or similar? CMD (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changed this in the lead.--Ncchild (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead lacks coverage of the Future and the Special routes sections.

I'm currently thinking about how I might integrate the special routes. It'll probably be something like U.S. Route 223. I added a sentence about the I-795 expansion (probably the most significant of the projects), also somewhat in line with the U.S. Route 223 lead.--Ncchild (talk) 04:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A mention of the Special routes section could perhaps be as little as a sentence or sentence fragment, eg. "Some of these previous paths have been designated as alternative routs of the 117". CMD (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added something in that is very general but I wasn't sure how specific I should go because the routes were created over a span of 30 years or so, and some were generated and then deleted as late as 2009.--Ncchild (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Route description

• The source of just the State Transportation Map index page seems insufficient, as that link doesn't contain the relevant information. It might be better to link to the actual maps. If the map loading size is a concern, adding the insets where applicable would suffice, such as the Wilmington inset.

This was my mistake, I fixed the link.--Ncchild (talk) 04:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Please add wikilinks to the image captions as well!

Done--Ncchild (talk) 04:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources [1] and [2] should be duplicated alongside [3].

Could you explain what you mean by duplicated?--Ncchild (talk) 04:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "before intersecting NC 133. The US 117/NC 133 overlap ends at the intersection", doesn't seem right to say the highway intersects with another route given it's the same route to this point. Perhaps a rework of this bit, such as "before reaching an intersection which marks the point where the US 117/NC 133 overlap ends, as..."

I took your suggestion and this is what I came up with, "North of the bridge, the highway briefly runs adjacent to the river, before reaching an intersection which marks the point where the US 117/NC 133 overlap ends." Let me know if this is too much.--Ncchild (talk) 04:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The intersection with NC 210 should be its own sentence.

The NC 210 intersection is its own sentence so I'm slightly confused, but I did reword the beginning of the sentence.--Ncchild (talk) 04:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "South of Burgaw, US 117 intersects US 117 Business at Walker Street". Again, intersection feels the wrong word for a split. It would be good to reword in a way that it sounds like the route splits and then rejoins later, which seems to be what is happening, rather than describing an "intersection" which implies unrelated routes.

Let me think about this.--Ncchild (talk) 04:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decided to reword it similar to how you mentioned it.--Ncchild (talk) 03:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "bypassing the downtown area of Burgaw to the east" reads ambiguously, unclear whether the highway or the downtown is eastwards.

Reworded this sentence.--Ncchild (talk) 04:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Near Old Savannah Road", could be more explicit Old Savannah Road intersects/terminates on 117.

Not sure if I did this part well, but I defined it as the terminus and reworded the sentence a bit.--Ncchild (talk) 04:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "The highway briefly becomes a four-lane undivided road at the interchange but narrows to two-lanes on either side." Just realized that the lane numbers have not appeared prior to this point, they should probably be established near the beginning.

This will be a relatively large undertaking (not something I can do tonight and do it well). I can start researching and integrating that.--Ncchild (talk) 04:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can now say that this is completed unless you find areas where I should improve it.--Ncchild (talk) 03:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping for now, will come back later. The State of North Carolina seriously needs to generate some static pdfs. CMD (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "The subdivision is a former part of the historic Wilmington and Weldon Railroad." What subdivision is this referring to?

Made the correction here as well.--Ncchild (talk) 03:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Greenevers and I-40", should it be "and the I-40"?

Looked around and I-40 should be able to stand on its own. This is a featured article from Michigan and it doesn't have a "the" to qualify "I-69". See: Interstate 69 in Michigan--Ncchild (talk) 03:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History

• "Upon the creation of the North Carolina State Highway System in 1921, the route between Wilmington and Virginia was assigned as NC 40." Where does it have the route name on the map?

So with early NC road maps, it is a bit complicated. NC created the highway system and that highway system did include numbers. But the maps don't indicate those until later. So I've had to pull sources together, primarily the 1924 map, and then can match up the roadways. I know it isn't the most absolutely sound system, but its the best I can do.--Ncchild (talk) 03:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Only a section" might be better as "Only the section".

Agreed, changed.--Ncchild (talk) 03:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Upon the creation of the United States Numbered Highway System, US 17-1 was assigned along the entirety of NC 40 between Wilmington and Virginia. By 1929, NC 40 was extended south from Wilmington to Carolina Beach. US 17-1 was not extended south alongside NC 40." How is this supported by the source given?

I added a reference to the 1926 U.S. highway map, which is the best I can do for the first sentence regarding the establishment of US 17-1. With that, I believe the NC 40 extension to Carolina Beach is supported by the second source. The map shows NC 40 now extended to Carolina Beach while no US 17-1 shields are present along that section. --Ncchild (talk) 03:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "US 117 was established in 1933 beginning at US 701/South Carolina Highway 38 (SC 38) to US 301 southwest of Wilson." How is this shown by the two sources? Same question for the next part on the replacement of 17-1 with 117. For example, how do you know SC 38 overlaps with 117?

This is another problematic case, primarily because South Carolina does not have a lot of available maps. I agree that the 1933 map does seem to indicate US 117 began in Myrtle Beach. However, snippets from SCRoads of their 1933 map (I haven't been able to find it but cudos to them maybe) show the highway extending to Conway. Could I cite that map? I doubt I could use the website. The NC and SC maps seem to be in conflict over whether or not SC 38 continued to extend to Myrtle Beach but I assume SC takes authority in that case. The link to the page is http://www.vahighways.com/scannex/route-log/us117.htm --Ncchild (talk) 03:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that map would be a useful citation, per your note that it shows overlap not present in the other maps. Looking again now, I duplicated one source. Perhaps seems a bit awkward to have a source after just the name of the highway, but I think it helps checking that sentence about the reassignment to 117. CMD (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I eventually found the actual source of the 1933 map and I cited it. I don't think we need a South Carolina 1932 because the North Carolina one covers it. Additionally, I removed the one source. I'm not sure why it was there and that probably was my mistake when I was adding it.--Ncchild (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Slightly beyond GA requirements, but you could add page numbers to the US Route Changes sources.

Done.--Ncchild (talk) 03:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Future

• Please spell out "STIP".

Done, apologies.--Ncchild (talk) 03:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Special routes

• Similar comments to the one on the main route for reference to more specific NC maps if possible.

I have looked back at nearly all the sources I can and have not found any more specific NC maps for the historical routes.--Ncchild (talk) 03:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• What is the need to state "The entire route was/is in Burgaw, Pender County"? This seems to come through in the section above.

That is actually automatic with the junction list tables. The system puts it there if the entire route was either completely in a county and/or completely within a city or municipality.--Ncchild (talk) 03:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Having two subsections for what is essentially the same piece of road is leading to quite a bit of redundancy. Why aren't 117A and 117B(usiness) combined into a single section?

North Carolina did this to about all of their U.S. routes in 1960, they converted a bunch of Alternate routes into business routes. The way I have the alternate routes now was how it was laid out prior to my upgrade of the article. It is also how other articles, even those likely not edited exclusively by N.C. roads editors are, such as this one. Certainly I agree that it is a little redundant and if you would like me to ask about it I can. I don't want to change it without any discussion because it might accidentally set off a precedent.--Ncchild (talk) 03:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "secondary highway running from NC 403 to US 117...The new designation replaced the secondary road". Best to use either secondary highway or secondary road in both instances, so it is clear it is referring to the same stretch of road.

Changed to secondary road, that would be the proper classification. Thanks for catching that.--Ncchild (talk) 03:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The wording around three US 117 Businesses is odd. All are discussed within their sections solely as "US 117 Business", which means no section acknowledges the others exists. It sounds like all were part of the same modification to the road, made in 1960. It's understandable to separate discrete geographic areas as done, but it shouldn't be written as if these sections were created in complete isolation.

This is fair, I had Burgaw and Goldsboro acknowledge each other as being renamed with each other. The Mount Olive route was actually in isolation, the route physically changed there in 1960 vs. a simple renaming.

• US 117 Business the 2nd and Calypso-Brogen have similar issues with redundancy to the earlier pair. Perhaps the note column could also explain how an intersection either disappeared or was altered.

Actually, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. The last sentence of the 2nd Business does say "US 117 Business was decommissioned and US 117 Alternate was signed along the entirety of former US 117 between Calypso and Brogden." While the alternate route says "US 117 Alternate was a renumbering of US 117 Business through Calypso and Mount Olive, and a partial renumbering of US 117 between Mount Olive and Brogden.". So I feel like those sentences acknowledge each other.--Ncchild (talk) 03:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Reference(s) missing at the end of the first paragraph of Calypso–Brogden alternate route.

Cited the 1959 and 1960 maps as well as the 1988 route change to fill this gap in references.--Ncchild (talk) 03:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Did the transition from Goldsboro A to Goldsboro B really drop 0.01 miles? (Also something funky with those conversions, no way 4.21 miles equals 6.78 km if 4.2 miles equals 6.8 km.) This feels like an issue arising from the duplication. Also unusual the junctions have changed. Presumably the old junction lists are a snapshot in time? If so best to specify the year.

It was an issue from the duplication and I dropped the 0.01 miles on the route. Google Maps showed 4.2 so I think that is what I will go by per my reference. The junctions did change because other roads have obviously moved as well. I put notes on each of the "major junctions" mini-headers to detail what year the junctions are from. I've never used notes before, so if it is out-of-place let me know. I just thought it was the cleanest way to achieve the goal.--Ncchild (talk) 03:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Goldsboro–Wilson alternate route is missing sources.

I'm assuming this for the end of the first paragraph and I fixed this.--Ncchild (talk) 03:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Broadness

Given this is an article about a highway, there's a lot of potential information out there that doesn't seem to be in this article (including information which may feel generic but is helpful for a general audience). Who is in charge of designating the route? I assume it is the federal government, but it might also be the state government. Who is in charge of maintaining the route? This is noted in the infobox, but should also be somewhere in the article body. What is the general condition of the road, if that information is available? Similarly wonder if there might be information on usage. Why is this route US if routes 116 and 118 are NC?

Last thing (I think). I inserted information on who maintains the route, the traffic counts along the route, and its status as part of the National Highway system. As per who is in charge of designating the route, today it is AASHTO but the government may have done it back in 1932, I cannot be sure. I'm not sure if it matters who is in charge of designating at the moment since the route isn't currently being designated. As for the condition of the road, some states keep information on that but NCDOT does not. Certainly, I could drive down US 117 and report it, but that wouldn't be a reliable source. All U.S. routes are kept to a certain standard, which I do feel like could be read about on the United States Highway System article that is linked.--Ncchild (talk) 03:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like some of the above may be large changes, but they may be able to be tackled in a reasonable enough time frame given the clear familiarity with the subject that comes through the text, so I am putting this on hold. CMD (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I am going to go through these tomorrow. I'm sorry for the delay, I'm a student and its just been a busy week for me. I just wanted to let you know that I haven't abandoned the article.--Ncchild (talk) 03:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, you seem too busy on Wikipedia alone let alone real life. CMD (talk) 03:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I finished my exams for the semester, so I made some small changes tonight and I should be able to complete the remainder of these issues ASAP.--Ncchild (talk) 03:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I finally made it! With that, I think I have addressed everything. Let me know if something is lacking or needs to change.--Ncchild (talk) 03:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you're back. I think I've managed to regain familiarity with the article now. Most of my comments have been addressed and/or explained (or related to template code which I'm not going to worry a GAN about). A few responses above (probably easiest to see through a diff). My largest remaining concern (bringing up here instead of above) remains the structure of the Special routes section. On the topic of the repetitive names (eg. the three U.S. Route 117 Business), I see the links and note that the section headers do provide differentiation, so while it's perhaps not the most optimal phrasing, I don't have an elegant solution in mind and it works within the context of the article.

The other concern, on overall redundancy, still feels pertinent. It's odd to have the same stretch of road described twice, and this is added to by each of those descriptions being slightly different. In addition to the text, there are essentially identical junction tables. If there is a need to raise this somewhere more central, I think that would be a good idea. Alternatively, if there's a previous discussion on the matter, being pointed to that would help me. Overall, article is in good shape, and the improvements have been helpful. CMD (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I asked about the duplicated routes and the answer I got was to consolidate them but keep the additional small infobox. So that is what I did, as you can see. I moved the alternate route infobox underneath the business route one. I also bolded the first time that US 117A was mentioned, since there is an infobox for it. I also reworded the Burgaw business route section but I felt the Goldsboro one was written in a manner where it did not need to change. While I feel like the two infoboxes is slightly redundant, I do feel like it it takes some of the redundancy out of the article.--Ncchild (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry my reply took a couple of days. I don't mind too much the double infobox, it was describing the same route two times that was problematic. Your latest comments and adjustments have addressed my concerns, thanks for humoring me over these months. Passing. CMD (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]