This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Let it take out US 17, you have it going to Charleston.
Cleanup notes, Sept 2005. This has to be the worst Interstate article I've seen. Surely we can do better than this, folks. Mark in Virginia. 00:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Approved July 25, 1996 by AASHTO, I-81/I-581 to Charleston
Much information is from here.
Road | Status |
---|---|
US 220, I-581 to near NC 150 | future corridor signs (in NC at least); not freeway |
US 220-NC 68 connector | not built |
NC 68, near NC 150 to I-40 or I-840 | not built |
US 220, I-40/I-85 Business to near Ulah | FUTURE I-73; non-standard freeway |
US 220, near Ulah to near Candor | I-73 |
US 220, near Candor to Rockingham | future corridor signs; not built |
US 74, Rockingham to NC 38 | unclear; freeway but not connected |
NC 38-SC 38, US 74 to ? | not built |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by SPUI ( talk • contribs) 21:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
H.R.2950 (Public Law No: 102-240) SEC. 1105. HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS ON NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM.
(5) I-73/74 North-South Corridor from Charleston, South Carolina, through Winston-Salem, North Carolina, to Portsmouth, Ohio, to Cincinnati, Ohio, and Detroit, Michigan.
S.440 (Public Law No: 104-59) SEC. 332. HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS.
`(5)(A) I-73/74 North-South Corridor from Charleston, South Carolina, through Winston-Salem, North Carolina, to Portsmouth, Ohio, to Cincinnati, Ohio, to termini at Detroit, Michigan and Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. The Sault Ste. Marie terminus shall be reached via a corridor connecting Adrian, Jackson, Lansing, Mount Pleasant, and Grayling, Michigan.
`(B)(i) In the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Corridor shall generally follow--
`(I) United States Route 220 from the Virginia-North Carolina border to I-581 south of Roanoke;
`(II) I-581 to I-81 in the vicinity of Roanoke;
`(III) I-81 to the proposed highway to demonstrate intelligent transportation systems authorized by item 29 of the table in section 1107(b) in the vicinity of Christiansburg to United States Route 460 in the vicinity of Blacksburg; and
`(IV) United States Route 460 to the West Virginia State line.
`(ii) In the States of West Virginia, Kentucky, and Ohio, the Corridor shall generally follow--
`(I) United States Route 460 from the West Virginia State line to United States Route 52 at Bluefield, West Virginia; and
`(II) United States Route 52 to United States Route 23 at Portsmouth, Ohio.
`(iii) In the States of North Carolina and South Carolina, the Corridor shall generally follow--
`(I) in the case of I-73--
`(aa) United States Route 220 from the Virginia State line to State Route 68 in the vicinity of Greensboro;
`(bb) State Route 68 to I-40;
`(cc) I-40 to United States Route 220 in Greensboro;
`(dd) United States Route 220 to United States Route 1 near Rockingham;
`(ee) United States Route 1 to the South Carolina State line; and
`(ff) South Carolina State line to Charleston, South Carolina; and
`(II) in the case of I-74--
`(aa) I-77 from Bluefield, West Virginia, to the junction of I-77 and the United States Route 52 connector in Surry County, North Carolina;
`(bb) the I-77/United States Route 52 connector to United States Route 52 south of Mount Airy, North Carolina;
`(cc) United States Route 52 to United States Route 311 in Winston-Salem, North Carolina;
`(dd) United States Route 311 to United States Route 220 in the vicinity of Randleman, North Carolina;
`(ee) United States Route 220 to United States Route 74 near Rockingham;
`(ff) United States Route 74 to United States Route 76 near Whiteville;
`(gg) United States Route 74/76 to the South Carolina State line in Brunswick County; and
`(hh) South Carolina State line to Charleston, South Carolina.';
H.R.2400 (Public Law No: 105-178) SEC. 1211. AMENDMENTS TO PRIOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION LAWS.
(A) by striking paragraph (5)(B)(iii)(I)(ff) and inserting the following:
`(ff) South Carolina State line to the Myrtle Beach Conway region to Georgetown, South Carolina, including a connection to Andrews following the route 41 corridor and to Camden following the U.S. Route 521 corridor; and';
(B) by striking paragraph (5)(B)(iii)(II)(hh) and inserting the following:
`(hh) South Carolina State line to the Myrtle Beach Conway region to Georgetown, South Carolina.';
— Preceding unsigned comment added by SPUI ( talk • contribs) 23:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
[1] and [2] shows it as a current Interstate all the way to present I-40 in Greensboro. That's not even part of the ultimate plan north of new I-40/I-85. And it shows future I-26 as a non-Interstate. -- SPUI ( T - C) 01:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't trust that map. US 52 doesn't go along that stretch of road near Mount Airy. That's reserved for I-74. The first map looks like one of those "close enough" map jobs. -- TinMan 01:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
[3] -- SPUI ( T - C) 02:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
The statement "I-73 is also not likely to be built in Michigan." may not be correct. There have been route studies done as to where to put the road between Toledo and Jackson. US-127 from Jackson to Lansing to Clare will be re-numbered to I-73. The current governor does not want to build new roads, just to spend the money on fixing current roads. A new governor may want to build the new I-73. 147.240.236.9 21:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually the issue regarding the new roads is that our interstate system is one of the oldest in the nation. And as such they needed repair and done better. A majority of the rebuilt freeways are being done with Cement pavement instead of asfault pavement. As such they should last much longer and require less work. The main issue is they want to keep up a good amount of repair work done every 5 years. Something around 10% of the roads or something. So work building new freeways will be limited to ones that are necessary to use the majority of the funding to fix the present ones. Some freeways I would like to see in the next 20 years or so in Michigan is I 65 extend to Mackinaw City using the freeways of US 31 and a modified route north of Ludington. I 67 using US 131 north to meet up with I 65. That would use a cosigned I 80-90 route to get it from South Bend to Elkhart. The interstate is this I 73 which as you said not that far off from being completed. Only a freeway section from North of Gary to Jackson will be required. Mihsfbstadium
What we really need is sources to either back up the statement "I-73 is also not likely to be built in Michigan" or back up a possible statement like "While the governor of Michigan does not foresee I-73 being built in the near future, a new governor could change that". It's all speculation, so if we're going to include it, we need the sources to back it up per WP:OR. -- Triadian ( talk) 19:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
This comes from the I-74 list, since it's pointless to have a long overlap in both articles. Remove this section once the I-73 exit list is cleaned up. -- NE2 12:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
|- |[[Asheboro, NC|Asheboro]] | |Pineview Street | |- | | |Spero Road | |- |rowspan=5|[[Asheboro, NC|Asheboro]] | |{{jct|state=NC|to1=to|US-Bus|220|dab1=Asheboro|name1=Vision Drive, North Fayetteville Street}} | |- | |Presnell Street | |- | |{{jct|state=NC|NC|42|city1=Asheboro}} | |- | |{{jct|state=NC|US|64|NC|49|city1=Lexington|city2=Charlotte|city3=Raleigh}} | |- | |McDowell Road | |- | |51 |{{jct|state=NC|US-Bus|220|dab1=Asheboro|dir1=north|NC|134|dir2=south|city1=Ulah|city2=Troy|name1=[[U.S. Route 220 Alternate (Seagrove, North Carolina)|US 220 Alt.]] south}} | |- !colspan=5|Temporary west end of I-74 |- | |49 |New Hope Church Road | |- |[[Seagrove, NC|Seagrove]] |45 |{{jct|state=NC|NC|705|city1=Robbins|city2=Seagrove}} | |- |rowspan=9|[[Montgomery County, North Carolina|Montgomery]] | |41 |Black Ankle Road | |- | |39 |[[Ether, North Carolina|Ether]], [[Steeds, North Carolina|Steeds]] ([[U.S. Route 220 Alternate (Seagrove, North Carolina)|US 220 Alt.]]) | |- |[[Star, NC|Star]] |36 |[[Star, North Carolina|Star]], [[Robbins, North Carolina|Robbins]] | |- |[[Biscoe, North Carolina|Biscoe]] |<!--33?--> |{{jct|state=NC|NC|24|NC|27|city1=Biscoe|city2=Carthage|city3=Troy}} | |- |[[Candor, North Carolina|Candor]] |<!--28?--> |{{jct|state=NC|NC|211|city1=Pinehurst|city2=Candor}} | |- !colspan=4|Temporary east end of I-74 |- | |24 |{{jct|state=NC|US-Alt|220|dab1=Seagrove|dir1=north|city1=Candor}} | |- | |22 |Tabernacle Church Road | |- |rowspan=2| |rowspan=2|18 |rowspan=2|[[Norman, NC|]] |rowspan=2| |- |rowspan=11|[[Richmond County, NC|Richmond]] |- | |16 |{{jct|state=NC|NC|73}} | |- | |13 |John Barwell Road<!--?--> | |- |[[Ellerbe, NC|Ellerbe]] |11 |{{jct|state=NC|NC|73|dir1=west|road=Millstone Road}} |Under construction |- | |8 |{{jct|state=NC|US-Bus|220|dab1=Ellerbe|dir1=north}} |
What do the asterisks mean in the exit number list as currently existing? Tckma ( talk) 14:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I've gone through and reformatted and cleaned up the citations.
|deadurl= no
to the templates. This way when the links go dead (and they will because the media doesn't leave their sources up for archival purposes indefinitely) we can strip that parameter from the template. That will flip the links around, linking the article title to the archive.I hope that this helps, but there's a lot of the article that's not properly sourced that needs attention before a less-generous editor removes content. Imzadi 1979 → 21:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
When we can find something to replace them with. And if I can't, I don't. Others may get lucky.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
{{
citation needed|date=July 2012}}
tags, and eventually, that could mean that the information itself is removed.
Imzadi 1979
→ 13:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
<removed information irrelevant to this particular discussion> Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
If Wikipedia was really like that I would have gotten so frustrated I would have left and you wouldn't have all my hard work. Furthermore, you would have a LOT of stuff missing. I think Hyacinth Bucket needs to let Onslow edit from time to time.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I've used NewsBank too many times to go back and link. Since I'm one of the few fortunate ones, I was told it was pointless. As for this SPS, somewhere I got the idea that these were official pages for the projects concerned and that he was an expert. But if I start being skeptical, I will find information online that I feel needs to be here because I was looking for it and it wasn't here. And Wikipedia won't benefit if I'm scared to do anything. I do know about vanity presses. My grandfather used one. He ran out of books but his needed updating. I had the time and the education. But I always told people not to consider the book reliable, but look at the sources if they're shown. I made a lot of mistakes, though I corrected many of my grandfather's previous mistakes. But not all. And I used his reference formatting, which wasn't all that helpful.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I stopped by the office of the man I talked to last week. He said he passed the information along to the person he thought could help me, but he did wonder why I seemed to expect him to drop everything and spend time on this. I explained the idea was people would be able to find all this information and know it was right, though I never used the word Wikipedia. I was afraid he might think that made it less important. Anyway, that's our major obstacle. I had seen links to the NCDOT web site used as sources, but I don't know how one finds information there. He didn't succeed in finding anything while I was there. But I'm back at the library and working on another set of newspaper articles where I'm sure information can be found. And a week from Thursday it is my plan to go to a state university because parking is free that week.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I didn't find one of the facts that source is supposed to confirm. But I found someone who may be able to help.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Can someone with some "on-the-ground knowledge" with I-73 go through and start updating these tables with an eye toward merging them and cleaning them up? I'll help with formatting details where needed, but we need more information and context for me to really help.
|type=unbuilt
, and then making a comment in the notes column. The orange color helps make them stand out as unopened/under construction/proposed/etc.I will work with anyone to do the necessary formatting changes if people can provide me missing information or context. Imzadi 1979 → 19:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
However, if/when they're added, they need to be in a dedicated column for that purpose. I've converted the table over to the templates, so someone will need to locate the correct counties and locations.
|county_special=
to |county=name
.|cspan=#
after the |county=name
line. Then remove the county definition from the next several rows of the table.|location=none
to include that location name. If it's in an unincorporated section of a county that lacks a place name, leave it as is.|lspan=#
and remove the addition location definitions as needed.|length_ref=
parameter. Then add the mileages to the appropriate rows of the table.|type=unbuilt
, |type=concur
, or |
to any rows of the table for unbuilt interchanges (or those not yet a part of a signed/approved segment of I-73, concurrency termini or interchanges missing movements as appropriate.
That's the instructions for what to do next to complete the SC table. Imzadi 1979 → 21:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
|cspan=11
into the first row of the template so that it would set the county to span those first 11 rows of the table. Notice how in the NC table, Richmond County's label spans the first five rows? That's because |cspan=5
in that first row of the template. If a row above in the table is defining the county, |
|
etc, then the next 10 rows or whatever shouldn't have |county=
or |county_special=
at all.
Imzadi 1979
→ 19:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to create a map similar to what I have for I-86 East for the current and future path of I-73. I need some help in making sure I have the current theoretical alignment correct, as well as some help with the alignment in South Carolina. I've bolded the stuff I need clarification on.
Any help is appreciated! Cheers! Stratosphere ( T/ C) 03:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I've created a map and thumbed it above. It looks like it should suffice, since at that scale it's hard to tell the minor changes that are indicated in TinMan's and my original post. I'll see if anyone has any comments about the alignment in the map before I put it up. Thanks, TinMan for your quick and thorough response to my question yesterday. Cheers. Stratosphere ( T/ C) 00:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Let it take out US 17, you have it going to Charleston.
Cleanup notes, Sept 2005. This has to be the worst Interstate article I've seen. Surely we can do better than this, folks. Mark in Virginia. 00:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Approved July 25, 1996 by AASHTO, I-81/I-581 to Charleston
Much information is from here.
Road | Status |
---|---|
US 220, I-581 to near NC 150 | future corridor signs (in NC at least); not freeway |
US 220-NC 68 connector | not built |
NC 68, near NC 150 to I-40 or I-840 | not built |
US 220, I-40/I-85 Business to near Ulah | FUTURE I-73; non-standard freeway |
US 220, near Ulah to near Candor | I-73 |
US 220, near Candor to Rockingham | future corridor signs; not built |
US 74, Rockingham to NC 38 | unclear; freeway but not connected |
NC 38-SC 38, US 74 to ? | not built |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by SPUI ( talk • contribs) 21:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
H.R.2950 (Public Law No: 102-240) SEC. 1105. HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS ON NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM.
(5) I-73/74 North-South Corridor from Charleston, South Carolina, through Winston-Salem, North Carolina, to Portsmouth, Ohio, to Cincinnati, Ohio, and Detroit, Michigan.
S.440 (Public Law No: 104-59) SEC. 332. HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS.
`(5)(A) I-73/74 North-South Corridor from Charleston, South Carolina, through Winston-Salem, North Carolina, to Portsmouth, Ohio, to Cincinnati, Ohio, to termini at Detroit, Michigan and Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. The Sault Ste. Marie terminus shall be reached via a corridor connecting Adrian, Jackson, Lansing, Mount Pleasant, and Grayling, Michigan.
`(B)(i) In the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Corridor shall generally follow--
`(I) United States Route 220 from the Virginia-North Carolina border to I-581 south of Roanoke;
`(II) I-581 to I-81 in the vicinity of Roanoke;
`(III) I-81 to the proposed highway to demonstrate intelligent transportation systems authorized by item 29 of the table in section 1107(b) in the vicinity of Christiansburg to United States Route 460 in the vicinity of Blacksburg; and
`(IV) United States Route 460 to the West Virginia State line.
`(ii) In the States of West Virginia, Kentucky, and Ohio, the Corridor shall generally follow--
`(I) United States Route 460 from the West Virginia State line to United States Route 52 at Bluefield, West Virginia; and
`(II) United States Route 52 to United States Route 23 at Portsmouth, Ohio.
`(iii) In the States of North Carolina and South Carolina, the Corridor shall generally follow--
`(I) in the case of I-73--
`(aa) United States Route 220 from the Virginia State line to State Route 68 in the vicinity of Greensboro;
`(bb) State Route 68 to I-40;
`(cc) I-40 to United States Route 220 in Greensboro;
`(dd) United States Route 220 to United States Route 1 near Rockingham;
`(ee) United States Route 1 to the South Carolina State line; and
`(ff) South Carolina State line to Charleston, South Carolina; and
`(II) in the case of I-74--
`(aa) I-77 from Bluefield, West Virginia, to the junction of I-77 and the United States Route 52 connector in Surry County, North Carolina;
`(bb) the I-77/United States Route 52 connector to United States Route 52 south of Mount Airy, North Carolina;
`(cc) United States Route 52 to United States Route 311 in Winston-Salem, North Carolina;
`(dd) United States Route 311 to United States Route 220 in the vicinity of Randleman, North Carolina;
`(ee) United States Route 220 to United States Route 74 near Rockingham;
`(ff) United States Route 74 to United States Route 76 near Whiteville;
`(gg) United States Route 74/76 to the South Carolina State line in Brunswick County; and
`(hh) South Carolina State line to Charleston, South Carolina.';
H.R.2400 (Public Law No: 105-178) SEC. 1211. AMENDMENTS TO PRIOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION LAWS.
(A) by striking paragraph (5)(B)(iii)(I)(ff) and inserting the following:
`(ff) South Carolina State line to the Myrtle Beach Conway region to Georgetown, South Carolina, including a connection to Andrews following the route 41 corridor and to Camden following the U.S. Route 521 corridor; and';
(B) by striking paragraph (5)(B)(iii)(II)(hh) and inserting the following:
`(hh) South Carolina State line to the Myrtle Beach Conway region to Georgetown, South Carolina.';
— Preceding unsigned comment added by SPUI ( talk • contribs) 23:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
[1] and [2] shows it as a current Interstate all the way to present I-40 in Greensboro. That's not even part of the ultimate plan north of new I-40/I-85. And it shows future I-26 as a non-Interstate. -- SPUI ( T - C) 01:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't trust that map. US 52 doesn't go along that stretch of road near Mount Airy. That's reserved for I-74. The first map looks like one of those "close enough" map jobs. -- TinMan 01:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
[3] -- SPUI ( T - C) 02:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
The statement "I-73 is also not likely to be built in Michigan." may not be correct. There have been route studies done as to where to put the road between Toledo and Jackson. US-127 from Jackson to Lansing to Clare will be re-numbered to I-73. The current governor does not want to build new roads, just to spend the money on fixing current roads. A new governor may want to build the new I-73. 147.240.236.9 21:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually the issue regarding the new roads is that our interstate system is one of the oldest in the nation. And as such they needed repair and done better. A majority of the rebuilt freeways are being done with Cement pavement instead of asfault pavement. As such they should last much longer and require less work. The main issue is they want to keep up a good amount of repair work done every 5 years. Something around 10% of the roads or something. So work building new freeways will be limited to ones that are necessary to use the majority of the funding to fix the present ones. Some freeways I would like to see in the next 20 years or so in Michigan is I 65 extend to Mackinaw City using the freeways of US 31 and a modified route north of Ludington. I 67 using US 131 north to meet up with I 65. That would use a cosigned I 80-90 route to get it from South Bend to Elkhart. The interstate is this I 73 which as you said not that far off from being completed. Only a freeway section from North of Gary to Jackson will be required. Mihsfbstadium
What we really need is sources to either back up the statement "I-73 is also not likely to be built in Michigan" or back up a possible statement like "While the governor of Michigan does not foresee I-73 being built in the near future, a new governor could change that". It's all speculation, so if we're going to include it, we need the sources to back it up per WP:OR. -- Triadian ( talk) 19:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
This comes from the I-74 list, since it's pointless to have a long overlap in both articles. Remove this section once the I-73 exit list is cleaned up. -- NE2 12:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
|- |[[Asheboro, NC|Asheboro]] | |Pineview Street | |- | | |Spero Road | |- |rowspan=5|[[Asheboro, NC|Asheboro]] | |{{jct|state=NC|to1=to|US-Bus|220|dab1=Asheboro|name1=Vision Drive, North Fayetteville Street}} | |- | |Presnell Street | |- | |{{jct|state=NC|NC|42|city1=Asheboro}} | |- | |{{jct|state=NC|US|64|NC|49|city1=Lexington|city2=Charlotte|city3=Raleigh}} | |- | |McDowell Road | |- | |51 |{{jct|state=NC|US-Bus|220|dab1=Asheboro|dir1=north|NC|134|dir2=south|city1=Ulah|city2=Troy|name1=[[U.S. Route 220 Alternate (Seagrove, North Carolina)|US 220 Alt.]] south}} | |- !colspan=5|Temporary west end of I-74 |- | |49 |New Hope Church Road | |- |[[Seagrove, NC|Seagrove]] |45 |{{jct|state=NC|NC|705|city1=Robbins|city2=Seagrove}} | |- |rowspan=9|[[Montgomery County, North Carolina|Montgomery]] | |41 |Black Ankle Road | |- | |39 |[[Ether, North Carolina|Ether]], [[Steeds, North Carolina|Steeds]] ([[U.S. Route 220 Alternate (Seagrove, North Carolina)|US 220 Alt.]]) | |- |[[Star, NC|Star]] |36 |[[Star, North Carolina|Star]], [[Robbins, North Carolina|Robbins]] | |- |[[Biscoe, North Carolina|Biscoe]] |<!--33?--> |{{jct|state=NC|NC|24|NC|27|city1=Biscoe|city2=Carthage|city3=Troy}} | |- |[[Candor, North Carolina|Candor]] |<!--28?--> |{{jct|state=NC|NC|211|city1=Pinehurst|city2=Candor}} | |- !colspan=4|Temporary east end of I-74 |- | |24 |{{jct|state=NC|US-Alt|220|dab1=Seagrove|dir1=north|city1=Candor}} | |- | |22 |Tabernacle Church Road | |- |rowspan=2| |rowspan=2|18 |rowspan=2|[[Norman, NC|]] |rowspan=2| |- |rowspan=11|[[Richmond County, NC|Richmond]] |- | |16 |{{jct|state=NC|NC|73}} | |- | |13 |John Barwell Road<!--?--> | |- |[[Ellerbe, NC|Ellerbe]] |11 |{{jct|state=NC|NC|73|dir1=west|road=Millstone Road}} |Under construction |- | |8 |{{jct|state=NC|US-Bus|220|dab1=Ellerbe|dir1=north}} |
What do the asterisks mean in the exit number list as currently existing? Tckma ( talk) 14:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I've gone through and reformatted and cleaned up the citations.
|deadurl= no
to the templates. This way when the links go dead (and they will because the media doesn't leave their sources up for archival purposes indefinitely) we can strip that parameter from the template. That will flip the links around, linking the article title to the archive.I hope that this helps, but there's a lot of the article that's not properly sourced that needs attention before a less-generous editor removes content. Imzadi 1979 → 21:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
When we can find something to replace them with. And if I can't, I don't. Others may get lucky.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
{{
citation needed|date=July 2012}}
tags, and eventually, that could mean that the information itself is removed.
Imzadi 1979
→ 13:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
<removed information irrelevant to this particular discussion> Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
If Wikipedia was really like that I would have gotten so frustrated I would have left and you wouldn't have all my hard work. Furthermore, you would have a LOT of stuff missing. I think Hyacinth Bucket needs to let Onslow edit from time to time.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I've used NewsBank too many times to go back and link. Since I'm one of the few fortunate ones, I was told it was pointless. As for this SPS, somewhere I got the idea that these were official pages for the projects concerned and that he was an expert. But if I start being skeptical, I will find information online that I feel needs to be here because I was looking for it and it wasn't here. And Wikipedia won't benefit if I'm scared to do anything. I do know about vanity presses. My grandfather used one. He ran out of books but his needed updating. I had the time and the education. But I always told people not to consider the book reliable, but look at the sources if they're shown. I made a lot of mistakes, though I corrected many of my grandfather's previous mistakes. But not all. And I used his reference formatting, which wasn't all that helpful.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I stopped by the office of the man I talked to last week. He said he passed the information along to the person he thought could help me, but he did wonder why I seemed to expect him to drop everything and spend time on this. I explained the idea was people would be able to find all this information and know it was right, though I never used the word Wikipedia. I was afraid he might think that made it less important. Anyway, that's our major obstacle. I had seen links to the NCDOT web site used as sources, but I don't know how one finds information there. He didn't succeed in finding anything while I was there. But I'm back at the library and working on another set of newspaper articles where I'm sure information can be found. And a week from Thursday it is my plan to go to a state university because parking is free that week.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I didn't find one of the facts that source is supposed to confirm. But I found someone who may be able to help.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Can someone with some "on-the-ground knowledge" with I-73 go through and start updating these tables with an eye toward merging them and cleaning them up? I'll help with formatting details where needed, but we need more information and context for me to really help.
|type=unbuilt
, and then making a comment in the notes column. The orange color helps make them stand out as unopened/under construction/proposed/etc.I will work with anyone to do the necessary formatting changes if people can provide me missing information or context. Imzadi 1979 → 19:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
However, if/when they're added, they need to be in a dedicated column for that purpose. I've converted the table over to the templates, so someone will need to locate the correct counties and locations.
|county_special=
to |county=name
.|cspan=#
after the |county=name
line. Then remove the county definition from the next several rows of the table.|location=none
to include that location name. If it's in an unincorporated section of a county that lacks a place name, leave it as is.|lspan=#
and remove the addition location definitions as needed.|length_ref=
parameter. Then add the mileages to the appropriate rows of the table.|type=unbuilt
, |type=concur
, or |
to any rows of the table for unbuilt interchanges (or those not yet a part of a signed/approved segment of I-73, concurrency termini or interchanges missing movements as appropriate.
That's the instructions for what to do next to complete the SC table. Imzadi 1979 → 21:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
|cspan=11
into the first row of the template so that it would set the county to span those first 11 rows of the table. Notice how in the NC table, Richmond County's label spans the first five rows? That's because |cspan=5
in that first row of the template. If a row above in the table is defining the county, |
|
etc, then the next 10 rows or whatever shouldn't have |county=
or |county_special=
at all.
Imzadi 1979
→ 19:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to create a map similar to what I have for I-86 East for the current and future path of I-73. I need some help in making sure I have the current theoretical alignment correct, as well as some help with the alignment in South Carolina. I've bolded the stuff I need clarification on.
Any help is appreciated! Cheers! Stratosphere ( T/ C) 03:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I've created a map and thumbed it above. It looks like it should suffice, since at that scale it's hard to tell the minor changes that are indicated in TinMan's and my original post. I'll see if anyone has any comments about the alignment in the map before I put it up. Thanks, TinMan for your quick and thorough response to my question yesterday. Cheers. Stratosphere ( T/ C) 00:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)