![]() | This page 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. |
A modest proposal:
![]() |
This user is a member of the U.S. Interstate Highways WikiProject |
Aerobird 02:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The template {{ 3di 5}} was messed up for a bit by an IP and Rschen7754 tried to fix it, but couldn't successfully do so with dial-up. I fixed it - but also someone may want to verify that the other 3di templates work as they are supposed to as well • master_son Lets talk 04:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that to help the articles be more presentable, we should move the Intersections with other Interstates and the Spur Routes to below the (Route) Notes and Trivia sections, as the case may be. That would get more information closer to the top. -- MPD ( T / C) 06:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Two users and two anons added legal definitions for every U.S. route and Interstate over the past couple of days. With the exception of California and Washington, I personally feel that these additions are trivial and irrelevant. The question, though, is what to do with them. Do we keep them and give them their own section? Do we remove them? I'm wide open to suggestions. -- TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Being from both California and Washington I support the additions :>| but that's IMHO. I added the section field so I don't think the Interstate infobox has it yet. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 22:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I looked at that, and we should add the control cities note in the template. Here's what I did, just an example:
Major cities Bolded cities are officially-designated control cities for signs |
---|
Bold cites are AASHTO control cities. [1] |
---|
Here is what I am using for Texas interstates, it is Texas based since the cites link goes to a Texas cities article, but you get the idea. This is for Interstate 10 in Texas. -- Holderca1 19:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Rob; I've used the new cities box on the article I rewrote ( Interstate 195 (New Jersey), as well as I-295 in progress on my sandbox), and very much like the look of them. I agree that it wouldn't look as good on Interstate 95, but I-95 is a special case -- that article doesn't have any text in the route description section to go along with it. -- NORTH talk 18:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, I recently expanded this article and nominated it for GA status. The GA nomination failed for some relatively shocking (to me, at least) reasons: namely that the "future developments" section, while completely sourced and obviously not speculation, does not constitute encyclopedic fact, and that the exit list should be converted to a bulleted or numbered list (?!?!?).
Thoughts? -- NORTH talk 17:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Tangentally related to the good article nomination, this article has spurned two other discussions. First, a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Exit numbers on whether the "E" in "Exit 60" should be capitalized. (See this diff for exactly what I'm talking about.)
Also, where should the "History" section go? As I mentioned above, I ordered the sections in the I-295 article according to WP:NJSCR standards instead of WP:IH standards, putting it above the exit list. I prefer it that way, because it puts all the text sections first, then the "extra" sections (exit list and gallery), then the link sections. The WP:IH way also makes sense though, since the exit list is essentially a continuation of the "Route description" section.
It's probably important to note that in the peer review for Interstate 95, someone said that they would like to see the history section moved closer to the top. -- NORTH talk 01:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
It definitely makes sense to me to put the exit list below any prose; you shouldn't have to scroll past a big table to get to the history. -- NE2 03:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Somewhere on Wikipedia is an old map of the planned Interstate highways from the 50's. I think it's from '57 but I'm not sure. Does anybody know where it is? -- MPD T / C 16:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Peer reviews |
---|
{{ Project U.S. Roads/Peer reviews}} |
It'd be great to have some input... Wikipedia:Peer review/Interstate 5/archive1. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 01:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Update: I have just nominated Interstate 95 and Interstate 90 for peer reviews. I-90 had a failed FA nomination, so I'm trying peer review. I-95's pretty good, but trying to get both at A-class or better. Comments are welcome. V60 VTalk - VDemolitions 02:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The formatting and section headers used for the references on Interstate 81 in Pennsylvania are currently inconsistent with the guidelines laid down by this project. Two issues are at stake:
Should (a) the two sections be combined into "Notes and references" and (b) the title of the trivia section be renamed to avoid conflict with WP:GTL (ignore whether or not the trivia section should exist for right now, please)? -- TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know who thought of this...but the child routes box looks really hideous. For example, {{3di|70}} looks like this:
It used to not have the additional shields, and the past/future routes used to run along the bottom of the box. The bottom line is that I do not favor the new design. Comments? V60 VTalk - VDemolitions 02:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
If you put in a pipe and the text after the size on the image, it will show up in text-only browsers: [[Image:I-44.svg|20px|I-44]]
. The text shows up as the "alt" attribute for the image tag, which most browsers will display if for some reason the image doesn't exist. —
Scott5114
↗
05:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
My opinion regarding the past/future routes is that the new version is fine (perhaps even better) if we shorten what comes in parentheses afterwards. Perhaps we should do something like what kurumi.com does, and just have a set of single words that goes in the parentheses: cancelled, decommissioned, renumbered, proposed. -- NORTH talk 07:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I think I like including past/future on the same line as current routes, but I don't think the 3DI shields add anything. -- NE2 19:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how well this is working right now; took me a while to make. It's just made right here; no template or anything, and it's not finished since the only former route is Maryland. But this is what I envisioned.
-- MPD T / C 21:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I-895 in RI/MA should be listed as cancelled. -- Polaron | Talk 18:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay... I need help figuring out the categories being thrown around. I will use I-80 as an example.
Shouldn't all of the Category:Interstate Highways in (state) be moved to a subcategory of Category:Interstate 80? I think the point of Category:Interstate 80 was so that Interstate 80 wouldn't have 15+ categories. I think that would make all of the Category:Interstate Highways in (state) categories subcategories of I-80, which is what we want... kind of.
In any event, I'll try this on I-39 (read: a small sample) and see what happens. — Rob ( talk) 20:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that Kingery Expressway should be in Category:Interstate Highways in Illinois; taking this to the logical conclusion would mean that all the state highway categories are full of local roads that carry the highways. -- NE2 20:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I noticed today that the good article review for the I-295 article was tagged with "Progress: Awaiting consensus to be reached." It seems to me that concensus already has been reached, as the only person who still says it's not GA is the editor who originally failed the nomination, and good points were made by multiple people in support of GA status. Nevertheless, additional input from editors from this project (especially those who have already given their opinion on this page), would be most helpful. -- NORTH talk 00:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
To match the project guidelines with what's being used in practice, I propose adding an optional "Future" section to the project standards. Thoughts? -- TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
{{support}}
- The IH is always being expanded. This especially has to do with
Interstate 69; have nothing to say now.
V60
VTalk -
VDemolitions
22:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC){{support}}
- Only makes sense; always big projects or extentions being done somewhere. --
MPD
T /
C
22:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC){{support}}
- That's not there already? That's a bit of a surprise to me. (I have yet to figure out what to do with
Interstate 290 (Illinois)#Lingo too, though... so I'm thinking the section structure is strict, but also open-ended.) —
Rob (
talk)
22:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC){{support}}
- Why it's just being brought up now is shocking to me. I'm all for it!
Eagles
Fan
In
Tampa
(formerly Jimbo)
14:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Pennsylvania Turnpike. -- TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone heard of this? I've marked it for deletion because I couldn't find any sources. -- NE2 23:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be SOME explanation how these two signed Interstates, at roughly the same latitude, came to both be named I-88? Like there was/is the intention that they'll eventually be connected? [Right now, they're separated by several hundred miles, but like I say, at roughly the same latitude. You expect all the duplicate numbering of beltways around cities, but how in the heck did two widely separated E/W Interstates get handed the same stand-alone semi-primary number??? Puzzled.
The disambig page is at: [2]
68.228.70.223 15:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
In the past, I actively spoke out against moving the History section above the Exit list, using the reasoning that the present (exits) should come before the past (history). However, after cleaning up the article on the New York State Thruway a little while ago, I realized that placing the History in between the route description and the exit list may actually make the article not only appear better, but actually be better. For this reason, I propose moving the History and Future sections ahead of the list sections (Major intersections and Exit list). The Notes section...ideally, the articles wouldn't have a Notes section as everything in the Notes should be incorporated into other areas of the article. If it can't be integrated into other sections, then chances are that it shouldn't be in the article to begin with. Returning to the point, the History/Future/Notes (?) sections should come before the Exit list and Major intersections. Some articles already have this format, but I'd like to see where consensus stands on this issue. -- TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 03:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#Article Improvement Drive for what we could do. I think it would greatly benefit this project. I know almost everyone who reads this has read it there, but here's the subject on this project's page. -- MPD T / C 20:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Can someone who knows about California verify if the recent additions are true, and, if so, cite sources? Thank you. -- NE2 01:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Should we use {{ lengths table}} or the custom table with the cyan border? From what I've seen, the usage is about 50/50. -- TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 03:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
At the moment, Interstate 95 in Maryland is 35 kilobytes long, with a large portion of that length devoted to describing the route and history of I-95 within the city of Baltimore. Granted, some sections of the article may be redundant or mislabeled, but I doubt that enough information can be deleted to slim the article down to a more reasonable size without compromising its level of comprehensiveness. Given the precedent set for Washington D.C., which is a federal district not part of any state and has a separate locality tag for its Interstate articles, is it permissible to explicitly create Interstate 95 (Baltimore, Maryland) as a separate article, given that Baltimore is an independent city that is not part of any county, but still part of a state?
If the WikiProject chooses to grant this as valid, could the precedent be extended to other independent cities, such as Richmond, Virginia? Separate articles for Richmond are certainly a possibility, as the city has at least two mainline Interstates (and may have several 3dis wholly within its boundaries) that undoubtedly have the same amount of historical and topical information as Baltimore's Interstates. If the WikiProject feels that a separate article is not needed, how do other articles describing state-specific Interstate alignments deal with length issues if/when they arise? - TheOneKEA
OK, the article is finished. Comments are welcome - I had a bit of trouble balancing content in places between the child article and the parent article. - TheOneKEA
I agree, if the content is their, by all means. What is this independent city stuff? So it's not located in a county, how does the city annex more land, does it steal it from an adjacent county? San Antonio's city limits are constantly expanding, but the county is still present and has jurisdiction over the entire county, regardless of city limits. Also, I don't see how this is relavent to having a seperate article, the city is independent of a county, not of the state, which has the article. -- Holderca1 18:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
This is an unusual case.
I-294 (53 miles) is wholly and entirely within the Tri-State Tollway (78 miles). This makes reading and editing the two articles an exercise in frustration.
Previous merges of this sort have been the Eisenhower Expressway (23 miles) into I-290 (30 miles). But I think in this case I-294 is just going to have to redirect to Tri-State Tollway, and then we can make a consistent article from there. — Rob ( talk) 17:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Template:3di (the 3di spur navboxes) may appear broken for a short time, as the changes to the template proposed and agreed on long ago are in the process of being implemented. Your patience is appreciated. -- TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello Fellow Wikipedians!
I have enjoyed my time editing here on Wikipedia but I feel it is time to move on. I have done cleanup on some pages and other edits here but I feel it is time to start my own website for roads, I will post the link when it goes live. I have removed a chunck of articles from my watchlist and will begin to make a steady transition out. My subsequent edits will be more for matience and/or minor information changes. I have no hard feelings towards this project but I feel its time to move on. I am not leaving Wikipedia, just this project as it would not be appropriate for me to do this in addition to my future website. Thank you all for the wonderful time I had here! If there is anything you all want help with or want my opinion on, just let me know!
All the best!
Jgcarter
19:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
PS- You can help me out by using my website for citations!
Would anyone have any objections to moving the article to "14th Amendment Highway"? Right from the FHWA [4], there's no future I-14 corridor designation yet, even here on that map. I think it would be better as 14th Amendment Highway for now. -- MPD T / C 18:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
It looks like I-14 is the common name: [5] [6] -- NE2 18:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
This has been moved from Talk:Interstate 238.
Given this runs between a 580 and an 880, and was assigned 238 because CalTrans did not have space in the x80 range, and is generally considered to be anomalously numbered contrary to the usual rules, that logically would suggest its de facto parent would be I-80, no? Chris cheese whine 06:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
This is by far the worst thing I've seen since WP:SRNC. It's a poll started by one person, clearly originally written to support his views, and still being edited to support his views, with options being struck through despite his own rules: "Feel free to add alternative options, but do not remove any. There's faulty logic on both sides. One is trying to define I-238 as not a member of the I-80 family solely by its number – the sources being used to do so are somewhat questionable, but it is supported by AASHTO's numbering rules. The other side (which as the "poll" below shows is comprised of one person) is trying to define it as a member based solely on its termini, which is somewhat supported by AASHTO's quotes, but by this logic Interstate 287 would be a member of the I-95 family.
The article as it's written right now does not explicitly state that I-238 is not a member of the I-80 family. Anything added to the article stating that it is (or isn't) would need to be sourced (since it's obviously questionable). The claim that IT'S IN THE ARTICLE isn't enough; that would be an original research leap of faith. -- NORTH talk 22:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
A modest proposal:
![]() |
This user is a member of the U.S. Interstate Highways WikiProject |
Aerobird 02:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The template {{ 3di 5}} was messed up for a bit by an IP and Rschen7754 tried to fix it, but couldn't successfully do so with dial-up. I fixed it - but also someone may want to verify that the other 3di templates work as they are supposed to as well • master_son Lets talk 04:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that to help the articles be more presentable, we should move the Intersections with other Interstates and the Spur Routes to below the (Route) Notes and Trivia sections, as the case may be. That would get more information closer to the top. -- MPD ( T / C) 06:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Two users and two anons added legal definitions for every U.S. route and Interstate over the past couple of days. With the exception of California and Washington, I personally feel that these additions are trivial and irrelevant. The question, though, is what to do with them. Do we keep them and give them their own section? Do we remove them? I'm wide open to suggestions. -- TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Being from both California and Washington I support the additions :>| but that's IMHO. I added the section field so I don't think the Interstate infobox has it yet. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 22:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I looked at that, and we should add the control cities note in the template. Here's what I did, just an example:
Major cities Bolded cities are officially-designated control cities for signs |
---|
Bold cites are AASHTO control cities. [1] |
---|
Here is what I am using for Texas interstates, it is Texas based since the cites link goes to a Texas cities article, but you get the idea. This is for Interstate 10 in Texas. -- Holderca1 19:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Rob; I've used the new cities box on the article I rewrote ( Interstate 195 (New Jersey), as well as I-295 in progress on my sandbox), and very much like the look of them. I agree that it wouldn't look as good on Interstate 95, but I-95 is a special case -- that article doesn't have any text in the route description section to go along with it. -- NORTH talk 18:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, I recently expanded this article and nominated it for GA status. The GA nomination failed for some relatively shocking (to me, at least) reasons: namely that the "future developments" section, while completely sourced and obviously not speculation, does not constitute encyclopedic fact, and that the exit list should be converted to a bulleted or numbered list (?!?!?).
Thoughts? -- NORTH talk 17:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Tangentally related to the good article nomination, this article has spurned two other discussions. First, a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Exit numbers on whether the "E" in "Exit 60" should be capitalized. (See this diff for exactly what I'm talking about.)
Also, where should the "History" section go? As I mentioned above, I ordered the sections in the I-295 article according to WP:NJSCR standards instead of WP:IH standards, putting it above the exit list. I prefer it that way, because it puts all the text sections first, then the "extra" sections (exit list and gallery), then the link sections. The WP:IH way also makes sense though, since the exit list is essentially a continuation of the "Route description" section.
It's probably important to note that in the peer review for Interstate 95, someone said that they would like to see the history section moved closer to the top. -- NORTH talk 01:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
It definitely makes sense to me to put the exit list below any prose; you shouldn't have to scroll past a big table to get to the history. -- NE2 03:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Somewhere on Wikipedia is an old map of the planned Interstate highways from the 50's. I think it's from '57 but I'm not sure. Does anybody know where it is? -- MPD T / C 16:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Peer reviews |
---|
{{ Project U.S. Roads/Peer reviews}} |
It'd be great to have some input... Wikipedia:Peer review/Interstate 5/archive1. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 01:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Update: I have just nominated Interstate 95 and Interstate 90 for peer reviews. I-90 had a failed FA nomination, so I'm trying peer review. I-95's pretty good, but trying to get both at A-class or better. Comments are welcome. V60 VTalk - VDemolitions 02:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The formatting and section headers used for the references on Interstate 81 in Pennsylvania are currently inconsistent with the guidelines laid down by this project. Two issues are at stake:
Should (a) the two sections be combined into "Notes and references" and (b) the title of the trivia section be renamed to avoid conflict with WP:GTL (ignore whether or not the trivia section should exist for right now, please)? -- TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know who thought of this...but the child routes box looks really hideous. For example, {{3di|70}} looks like this:
It used to not have the additional shields, and the past/future routes used to run along the bottom of the box. The bottom line is that I do not favor the new design. Comments? V60 VTalk - VDemolitions 02:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
If you put in a pipe and the text after the size on the image, it will show up in text-only browsers: [[Image:I-44.svg|20px|I-44]]
. The text shows up as the "alt" attribute for the image tag, which most browsers will display if for some reason the image doesn't exist. —
Scott5114
↗
05:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
My opinion regarding the past/future routes is that the new version is fine (perhaps even better) if we shorten what comes in parentheses afterwards. Perhaps we should do something like what kurumi.com does, and just have a set of single words that goes in the parentheses: cancelled, decommissioned, renumbered, proposed. -- NORTH talk 07:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I think I like including past/future on the same line as current routes, but I don't think the 3DI shields add anything. -- NE2 19:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how well this is working right now; took me a while to make. It's just made right here; no template or anything, and it's not finished since the only former route is Maryland. But this is what I envisioned.
-- MPD T / C 21:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I-895 in RI/MA should be listed as cancelled. -- Polaron | Talk 18:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay... I need help figuring out the categories being thrown around. I will use I-80 as an example.
Shouldn't all of the Category:Interstate Highways in (state) be moved to a subcategory of Category:Interstate 80? I think the point of Category:Interstate 80 was so that Interstate 80 wouldn't have 15+ categories. I think that would make all of the Category:Interstate Highways in (state) categories subcategories of I-80, which is what we want... kind of.
In any event, I'll try this on I-39 (read: a small sample) and see what happens. — Rob ( talk) 20:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that Kingery Expressway should be in Category:Interstate Highways in Illinois; taking this to the logical conclusion would mean that all the state highway categories are full of local roads that carry the highways. -- NE2 20:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I noticed today that the good article review for the I-295 article was tagged with "Progress: Awaiting consensus to be reached." It seems to me that concensus already has been reached, as the only person who still says it's not GA is the editor who originally failed the nomination, and good points were made by multiple people in support of GA status. Nevertheless, additional input from editors from this project (especially those who have already given their opinion on this page), would be most helpful. -- NORTH talk 00:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
To match the project guidelines with what's being used in practice, I propose adding an optional "Future" section to the project standards. Thoughts? -- TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
{{support}}
- The IH is always being expanded. This especially has to do with
Interstate 69; have nothing to say now.
V60
VTalk -
VDemolitions
22:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC){{support}}
- Only makes sense; always big projects or extentions being done somewhere. --
MPD
T /
C
22:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC){{support}}
- That's not there already? That's a bit of a surprise to me. (I have yet to figure out what to do with
Interstate 290 (Illinois)#Lingo too, though... so I'm thinking the section structure is strict, but also open-ended.) —
Rob (
talk)
22:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC){{support}}
- Why it's just being brought up now is shocking to me. I'm all for it!
Eagles
Fan
In
Tampa
(formerly Jimbo)
14:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Pennsylvania Turnpike. -- TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone heard of this? I've marked it for deletion because I couldn't find any sources. -- NE2 23:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be SOME explanation how these two signed Interstates, at roughly the same latitude, came to both be named I-88? Like there was/is the intention that they'll eventually be connected? [Right now, they're separated by several hundred miles, but like I say, at roughly the same latitude. You expect all the duplicate numbering of beltways around cities, but how in the heck did two widely separated E/W Interstates get handed the same stand-alone semi-primary number??? Puzzled.
The disambig page is at: [2]
68.228.70.223 15:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
In the past, I actively spoke out against moving the History section above the Exit list, using the reasoning that the present (exits) should come before the past (history). However, after cleaning up the article on the New York State Thruway a little while ago, I realized that placing the History in between the route description and the exit list may actually make the article not only appear better, but actually be better. For this reason, I propose moving the History and Future sections ahead of the list sections (Major intersections and Exit list). The Notes section...ideally, the articles wouldn't have a Notes section as everything in the Notes should be incorporated into other areas of the article. If it can't be integrated into other sections, then chances are that it shouldn't be in the article to begin with. Returning to the point, the History/Future/Notes (?) sections should come before the Exit list and Major intersections. Some articles already have this format, but I'd like to see where consensus stands on this issue. -- TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 03:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#Article Improvement Drive for what we could do. I think it would greatly benefit this project. I know almost everyone who reads this has read it there, but here's the subject on this project's page. -- MPD T / C 20:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Can someone who knows about California verify if the recent additions are true, and, if so, cite sources? Thank you. -- NE2 01:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Should we use {{ lengths table}} or the custom table with the cyan border? From what I've seen, the usage is about 50/50. -- TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 03:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
At the moment, Interstate 95 in Maryland is 35 kilobytes long, with a large portion of that length devoted to describing the route and history of I-95 within the city of Baltimore. Granted, some sections of the article may be redundant or mislabeled, but I doubt that enough information can be deleted to slim the article down to a more reasonable size without compromising its level of comprehensiveness. Given the precedent set for Washington D.C., which is a federal district not part of any state and has a separate locality tag for its Interstate articles, is it permissible to explicitly create Interstate 95 (Baltimore, Maryland) as a separate article, given that Baltimore is an independent city that is not part of any county, but still part of a state?
If the WikiProject chooses to grant this as valid, could the precedent be extended to other independent cities, such as Richmond, Virginia? Separate articles for Richmond are certainly a possibility, as the city has at least two mainline Interstates (and may have several 3dis wholly within its boundaries) that undoubtedly have the same amount of historical and topical information as Baltimore's Interstates. If the WikiProject feels that a separate article is not needed, how do other articles describing state-specific Interstate alignments deal with length issues if/when they arise? - TheOneKEA
OK, the article is finished. Comments are welcome - I had a bit of trouble balancing content in places between the child article and the parent article. - TheOneKEA
I agree, if the content is their, by all means. What is this independent city stuff? So it's not located in a county, how does the city annex more land, does it steal it from an adjacent county? San Antonio's city limits are constantly expanding, but the county is still present and has jurisdiction over the entire county, regardless of city limits. Also, I don't see how this is relavent to having a seperate article, the city is independent of a county, not of the state, which has the article. -- Holderca1 18:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
This is an unusual case.
I-294 (53 miles) is wholly and entirely within the Tri-State Tollway (78 miles). This makes reading and editing the two articles an exercise in frustration.
Previous merges of this sort have been the Eisenhower Expressway (23 miles) into I-290 (30 miles). But I think in this case I-294 is just going to have to redirect to Tri-State Tollway, and then we can make a consistent article from there. — Rob ( talk) 17:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Template:3di (the 3di spur navboxes) may appear broken for a short time, as the changes to the template proposed and agreed on long ago are in the process of being implemented. Your patience is appreciated. -- TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello Fellow Wikipedians!
I have enjoyed my time editing here on Wikipedia but I feel it is time to move on. I have done cleanup on some pages and other edits here but I feel it is time to start my own website for roads, I will post the link when it goes live. I have removed a chunck of articles from my watchlist and will begin to make a steady transition out. My subsequent edits will be more for matience and/or minor information changes. I have no hard feelings towards this project but I feel its time to move on. I am not leaving Wikipedia, just this project as it would not be appropriate for me to do this in addition to my future website. Thank you all for the wonderful time I had here! If there is anything you all want help with or want my opinion on, just let me know!
All the best!
Jgcarter
19:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
PS- You can help me out by using my website for citations!
Would anyone have any objections to moving the article to "14th Amendment Highway"? Right from the FHWA [4], there's no future I-14 corridor designation yet, even here on that map. I think it would be better as 14th Amendment Highway for now. -- MPD T / C 18:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
It looks like I-14 is the common name: [5] [6] -- NE2 18:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
This has been moved from Talk:Interstate 238.
Given this runs between a 580 and an 880, and was assigned 238 because CalTrans did not have space in the x80 range, and is generally considered to be anomalously numbered contrary to the usual rules, that logically would suggest its de facto parent would be I-80, no? Chris cheese whine 06:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
This is by far the worst thing I've seen since WP:SRNC. It's a poll started by one person, clearly originally written to support his views, and still being edited to support his views, with options being struck through despite his own rules: "Feel free to add alternative options, but do not remove any. There's faulty logic on both sides. One is trying to define I-238 as not a member of the I-80 family solely by its number – the sources being used to do so are somewhat questionable, but it is supported by AASHTO's numbering rules. The other side (which as the "poll" below shows is comprised of one person) is trying to define it as a member based solely on its termini, which is somewhat supported by AASHTO's quotes, but by this logic Interstate 287 would be a member of the I-95 family.
The article as it's written right now does not explicitly state that I-238 is not a member of the I-80 family. Anything added to the article stating that it is (or isn't) would need to be sourced (since it's obviously questionable). The claim that IT'S IN THE ARTICLE isn't enough; that would be an original research leap of faith. -- NORTH talk 22:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)