This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Interstate 90 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 31 days

	Interstate 90 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 12, 2023.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 29, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted January 31, 2007 Peer review Reviewed August 28, 2016 Good article nominee Not listed December 24, 2020 Good article nominee Not listed December 14, 2021 Good article nominee Listed April 29, 2022 Featured article candidate Promoted
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " Did you know?" column on January 4, 2022. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Interstate 90 is the longest freeway in the United States, at 3,020 miles (4,860 km)?
Current status: Featured article

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

U.S. Roads: Interstates High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Topics   Interstate Highways   This article has a map. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it. This article does not require a junction list. This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it. Article recognition:   A fact from this article was featured on the Did you know? section of the U.S. Roads Portal in October 2007, April 1, 2009, May 2009, February 2016.

After doing thorough research, I have found out that the WikiProject for Roads allows 10 significant junctions. Normally, this isn’t an issue but for a highway as long as I-90, there are a lot of junctions and there has been constant edit warring and talk page discussions over what junctions to include. I am proposing the following

• Option A: Status quo
• Option B: Merging I-5 and SR-519 together, since they are right next to each other and we have done similar combination of junctions when they don’t exactly intersect in the same spot, see U.S. Route 20 and the merger of I-87 and I-90, and how U.S. Route 11 combines the junction of I-76 and I-81 despite not being in the exact same spot.
• Option C: Replace the second I-80 junction with another unique road, such as the I-87 junction in Albany, the I-29 junction in Sioux Falls, or even the concurrency with I-39.
• Option D: Use IAR to allow 11 junctions.

Some of these options contradict each other, but feel free to support multiple options that don’t contradict or offer your own opinions. RoadFan294857 ( talk) 23:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Discussion

• Personally, I oppose A, neutral on B, support C, neutral on D. This infobox does need improvements but I am not sure that combining SR-519 and I-5 is the right call, and just because it’s done on one article doesn’t make it correct. Also, 11 junctions might make it look awkward. That being said, there is absolutely no reason why I-80 needs to be listed there twice, and on such an important interstate, it really takes a valuable spot away from another more significant junction. Plus, I-75 also intersect I-90 in Ohio, and we can get more states junctions linked if we do a switch. RoadFan294857 ( talk) 23:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• I don't get involved much in this stuff. D seems reasonable, since it's just a one-junction difference, and guidelines are treated with common sense, and some exception may apply. However, B could also work. I'm not sure I fully understand C. A doesn't seem very practical ("keep having an unresolve dispute indefinitely" is pretty much never the answer).  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Support A and strongly oppose B. It's a separate junction, end of story; that is how it is treated by WSDOT, the FHWA, and the local press in Seattle. We should not be bundling interchanges on our own, which is basically a form of original research. The status quo agreed upon by USRD has been stable for years and has carried through this article's FAC, so I don't see why anything needs to change here. Sounder Bruce 23:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  Should I fix it on US 20 and US 11, in that case? RoadFan294857 ( talk) 00:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ RoadFan294857: the fact that two other articles do something incorrect (falsely implying a concurrency that does not exist) does not mean that we should do the same incorrect thing here. Since those other articles are wrong, they should be fixed and not used as models for editing here. Imzadi 1979  → 05:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• This has implications beyond that of I-90, and should be advertised at WT:USRD, WT:HWY and probably a few others. The 10 junctions limit originally came about after feedback and discussions at venues such as FAC. The concern as expressed at the time was the infobox was drowning out the rest of the article by being too long. Somewhere in those discussions, the number 10 came about as what kept the infobox at an appropriate length. I don't think it was originally intended to be a hard limit, but it became one after a seemingly never ending pattern of new editors that would add an 11th, and then a 12th, and then ... I do like them, and do think they add to the article. However, I've reluctantly come to the conclusion we'd be better off ridding the infobox of the major junctions section entirely. Through the years that section has proven to be an article maintenance distraction. People just seem bizarrely infatuated with which junctions go into this infobox and bizarrely offended if their favorite isn't included. I assure you, if we agree "ok in this case we'll have 11" it won't be long before someone will start adding an 11th junction to other articles because "I-90 has 11" and then add number 12 to this one. Dave ( talk) 00:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Support A and Strong Oppose B/C/D—per Sounder Bruce above. Additionally, the obsession with the junction list in the infobox boggles my mind. We can have an article that's totally crap in terms of content or formatting, even an article missing content, and people will argue that we left out their favorite junction in the infobox or included one they don't like, as Moabdave also mentions. A full-fledged RfC on this topic seems premature as well as there has been no other discussion or attempts to resolve a minor content dispute. Imzadi 1979  → 05:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  Your justification doesn’t exactly explain why C or D doesn’t work, it does say why B wouldn’t work, but especially not C. And an RFC is appropriate here as WP:RFCBEFORE was satisfied - discussions in the past occurred [1] [2] on the I-5/SR-519 issue, the Infobox discussion also were debated [3]. It appears that without a formal consensus, this issue will never be resolved. As for removing the junctions would have to come down to a seperate RFC once this one concludes. RoadFan294857 ( talk) 11:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  You didn't attempt to discuss the other issues though. We've jumped from recent discussions about the terminus in 2023 to an RfC (a heavyweight process) about the whole of junction list in the infobox without intervening steps. (The one discussion on the topic of the junctions as a whole is from 2006. That's too long ago to be of much use other than starting another basic talk page discussion on the expanded topic.)

  I'm also a bit suspicious of an account that starts an RfC as its third edit and knows about WP:RFCBEFORE by its fifth edit without knowledge of prior editing history. Imzadi 1979  → 04:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• :Oppose A, Support B, Strongly Support C, Neutral on D - I opened a now-archived talk here to merge I-5 with the western end SR 518 with the argument that I-90 inbetween I-5 and 519 is roughly just a connector for I-5 and 90 drivers to enter T-Mobile park & seaports. Regardless of whether this happens, I would like to see I-87 in Albany or I-29 in South Dakota be on the list. Removing the I-80 without 94 jct would also be a feasible option. Hence why I best recommend we go down the option C path and change the second 80 with 87 or 19. This seems to be the most harmless option that sets no precedents of any kind, or breaks some sort of rules. I see no reason replacing said junction would have major implications unlike B and D, as it just be a typical Wikipedia edit. Jason Ingtonn ( talk) 16:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Support option D, oppose A, neutral on B and C. Option D is the simplest way to resolve this, especially as it's a very small departure from an arbitrary guideline, and fully agree with SMcCandlish when they say "keep having an unresolve[d] dispute indefinitely" is pretty much never the answer so option A is not desirable here. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply