Talk:Wisconsin Highway 57
 | A fact from Wisconsin Highway 57 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 November 2008, and was viewed approximately 459 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Wisconsin Highway 57. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080603044006/http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov:80/projects/sturgeon/ to http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/sturgeon/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Park and Ride lot w/ interpretive panels edit
I am of the opinion this text should be added to the article following "intersects with CTH-C":
, where a park and ride lot provides spaces for 25 vehicles and a set of interpretive panels discusses the reconstruction of the route and the culture of the area.< ref >511wi.gov Map, Wisconsin DOT and County C Park and Ride lot panel draft, STH 57 Reconstruction Project Brown, Kewaunee and Door Counties, Wisconsin WisDOT Project ID: 1480-04-00, Archaeological Research Laboratory Center, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee< /ref ·>
--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- This is too much detail. The number of parking spaces is irrelevant, and the presence of that signage really isn't either. Imzadi 1979 → 00:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Would you prefer ", where a park and ride lot features a set of interpretive panels concerning the reconstruction of the route and the culture of the area?" (There are actually two sets of panels, and they are intended to complement each other to present the full research done prior to the road construction. The other set is at Wequiock Falls. They are not just signage; if you look at the copies of the panels on the link, you will see that the culture-oriented ones are reproductions of research posters. In particular, the Paleo-Indian research broke new ground; the tools were made out of a different (& local) kind of rock than at the Cardy and Salisbury steak sites, which is suggestive of a population that was less mobile than others on the Peninsula. And a microanalysis of the adze/scraper type tools showed wear not just from game, but also wood. This is suggestive of watercraft construction, given that one of the sites (I'm not sure if it was both) were on the shore at the time due to higher lake levels. This may be (my background knowledge is limited) the most physical evidence yet for a theory proposed in 1994 that Paleo-Indians built watercraft. This work was possible because the highway was reconstructed to four lanes and archeologists brought in for the cultural surveys.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- This is not Wikivoyage and we are not a travel guide. Too much detail. --Rschen7754 04:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Additionally, not every piece of information needs to be included in a Wikipedia article just because it exists. We are not a travel guide, so we have to tread a fine line in route descriptions, so stuff like this doesn't get included. Imzadi 1979 → 05:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- It should be included because it is directly pertinent to the route itself. It is not travel guide material when the archeological sites in questions lie within the right of way, under the pavement itself, or affected the route's placement.
- Additionally, not every piece of information needs to be included in a Wikipedia article just because it exists. We are not a travel guide, so we have to tread a fine line in route descriptions, so stuff like this doesn't get included. Imzadi 1979 → 05:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- This is not Wikivoyage and we are not a travel guide. Too much detail. --Rschen7754 04:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Would you prefer ", where a park and ride lot features a set of interpretive panels concerning the reconstruction of the route and the culture of the area?" (There are actually two sets of panels, and they are intended to complement each other to present the full research done prior to the road construction. The other set is at Wequiock Falls. They are not just signage; if you look at the copies of the panels on the link, you will see that the culture-oriented ones are reproductions of research posters. In particular, the Paleo-Indian research broke new ground; the tools were made out of a different (& local) kind of rock than at the Cardy and Salisbury steak sites, which is suggestive of a population that was less mobile than others on the Peninsula. And a microanalysis of the adze/scraper type tools showed wear not just from game, but also wood. This is suggestive of watercraft construction, given that one of the sites (I'm not sure if it was both) were on the shore at the time due to higher lake levels. This may be (my background knowledge is limited) the most physical evidence yet for a theory proposed in 1994 that Paleo-Indians built watercraft. This work was possible because the highway was reconstructed to four lanes and archeologists brought in for the cultural surveys.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- One interesting fact about a new theory following the discoveries: it is proposed that there were two different travel routes used by separate groups of Paleo-Indians in the county--one ran along the west shore, and the other ran along the east shore; in other words, they were prehistoric routes 57 & 42.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- This borders on WP:OR. I am sure that the rest area has a certain number of parking spaces, as well as toilets and sinks in each restroom; should we include details about those too? --Rschen7754 18:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- I previously said I am fine with omitting the mention of the 25 parking spaces; moreover, it is a parking lot with interpretive panels; there are no shelters or restrooms. It can't be original research because there is a reliable source for this travel hypothesis and this concept been published by two different archeologists.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- This borders on WP:OR. I am sure that the rest area has a certain number of parking spaces, as well as toilets and sinks in each restroom; should we include details about those too? --Rschen7754 18:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- One interesting fact about a new theory following the discoveries: it is proposed that there were two different travel routes used by separate groups of Paleo-Indians in the county--one ran along the west shore, and the other ran along the east shore; in other words, they were prehistoric routes 57 & 42.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)