Talk:Interstate 4/Archive 1

Untitled
I reverted the recent change by an anon IP. I'm just gonna trust the at least one logged in person more than the anon. &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;)  01:28, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Some of us anon's have dozens -- if not hundreds -- of edits. In my case, I have a username, but my work computer rejects cookies... and I gave up having to sign in every five minutes months ago. The contribution history will help you if need be... 147.70.242.21 01:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Interstate
Per the mediation on Interstate 76 (east) the routeboxint must stay. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I put a fresh routeboxint in earlier (as I understand, that's the project's specs), and now it's gone, replaced by the original template. Who's in the right? And if it's me, can someone put it back, please? --WhosAsking 23:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I would say that you are in the right because of the Mediation Cabal. It's also happened at Talk:Interstate 76 (east), see that page for more details. We're working on a solution now. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As an outside opinion, it seems to me that the results of the Mediation Cabal and the RfC should stand. SPUI, I've seen a lot f your edits and you're not stupid, but I think you're being unreasonably obstinate here. Considering the circumstances, this seems like an awfully silly thing to be digging your heels in opposition to (maybe not quite to the level of WP:LAME but getting there). As WP:DR states, if you still can't come to a resolution, the last step is to ask for arbitration and this really shouldn't have to escalate to that.  howch e  ng   {chat} 07:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Malfunction Junction
I heard from both news articles (I cannot locate those at this time) and a now shut-down Tampa Blog, that the I-4/I-275 Interchange, better known as Malfunction Junction, actually earned the notorius nickname about five years after the interchange was built in 1965. At that point, the junction was already seeing rush hour backups due to the immense ammount of traffic that the interstate was handling. This was blamed mostly on the rapid growth of Tampa in the 1970s. Wslupecki 12:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC). Now with the current reconstruction, I'm sure that has made everyone's commute just that much more frustrating. However, I am quite thrilled that the construction is almost done, so that traffic can finally flow through the junction more efficiently and that rotten nickname will finally disappear as a result. Wslupecki 12:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC).

history_educator
What has me curious is why is an entire INTERstate highway located in only one state? Doesn't the meaning of interstate involve several states and not just one?


 * List of intrastate Interstate Highways --SPUI (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It's part of the Interstate Highway System -- the name was spelled out in a bill signed by President Eisenhower in the 1950s -- believe it or not, all 50 states (and Puerto Rico) have Interstate Highways (many of which don't have that red, white and blue shield). 147.70.242.21 01:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I-4 is also one of the only parent interstates in the continental US that has NO spur routes. Wslupecki 14:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC).

Split I-4/Crosstown Connector section
I believe that this section should be split into its own section entitled Interstate 4/Crosstown Connector. Please visit the Lee Roy Selmon Crosstown Expressway discussion to voice your opinion.

Split Complete. I have created the new I-4/Crosstown Connector article after much planning. As a result, all pertinent info on the Selmon Exwy and I-4 pages have been replaced with a link to the new article. Wslupecki 03:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Rewrite of Article needed
Over the newxt few weeks, I will be substantially rewriting the history and notes sections of the I-4 article. I have noticed that several points are out of order and the bulleted lists make the article look further unorganized and less encyclopedic. Again, over the next few weeks, I will be working on rewriting these sections. Wslupecki 20:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC).

History Expansion
Thanks to a website I found that lists historical info about Florida's Interstates. I was able to dramatically update the history section on I-4. I have listed a link to the website in the Reference section of the article. Wslupecki 14:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC).

Also, a few bits of the information used in the history section for the Tampa area came from the shuttered Bayciti.net. Wslupecki (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup Issues
Sorry for the mass confusion regarding the I-4/Crosstown connector project. I was using the original, full of mumbo-jumbo, template for that section, which contained a ton of misspellings and confusing phrases. I have since revised the section and added a link to the project page (which is in the Tampa Bay Interstates website). I have also removed the cleanup tag now that the article is neat and clean. If there are any issues regarding the revisions, please contact me via my talk page. Wslupecki 12:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC).

For those of you who are already well familliar with the proposed I-4/Crosstown Connector project. I am planning to eventually spilt the I-4/Crosstown Connector section from this and the Lee Roy Selmon Crosstown Expressway article, and create a new section entitled "Interstate 4/Crosstown Connector". For details, visit the Selmon Expressway Talk Page.

I noticed that some revisions will be needed in the near future to bring this article up to standards. Wslupecki (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC).

Exit list
The last change to the exit list took it out of standards, directional plates and scaps are not to be used in exit lists. Also, don't remove use of jct, it ensures that the standards are being met, it also ensures easy transition if the standards are changed. --Holderca1 18:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I must have missed the memo on the directionals and scaps, so my apologies on that. However, none of the exit lists ranked as "excellent" by the exit list guide use the jct template, and I tend to agree for a few reasons:
 * It makes the toll road shields too small to read (I think that's a 15px, tops, and they need to be 20px),
 * If there is more than one road name, it only places the first one listed in parentheses and leaves the remaining ones listed almost like towns, and
 * It doesn't always pick up the correct links (U.S. Route 92 (Florida) didn't exist until I redirected it (purely because US 92 is only in Florida), but does a redirect need to be created every single time I want to use jct?)
 * That being said, I think it'd be much better leaving everything else the way I changed it, of course fixing the other things like the scaps, etc. That way, more flexibility and reliability can be done so there's less red-links and errors in general.  So, I'm going to be bold, change it back to my edit, make the necessary corrections, and we can go from there...sound fair? EaglesFanInTampa 18:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I will reply to each of those, jct generates what is written specifically in the guide and it has been used on Florida and Texas exit lists for lack of a better word, beta testing, look at the edit history for the template and you will what I mean, it is very complex and constantly undergoing changes to improve it. Okay going into your detailed list:
 * 1. Hmmm, it actually makes all the shields 20x25px (20px tall x 25px wide), that way it makes wide shields 25px and square ones 20px, I think the problem with the FL toll shield is that it is taller than it is wide, the template is forcing it to 20px tall and it is causing it to be less than 20px, I will look into this, see if I can find a work around.
 * 2. Not sure exactly what you mean. You can put as many as you want in parathesis.  These are just for examples:
 * 3. Actually those links/redirects need to be created anyway, jct uses in the infrastructure of infobox road. Although in some circumstances it seems pointless to point to a redirect, it is nigh impossible to do it any other way.  Redirects are not bad things and the end user is only aware of it is they see the redirect notice under the article name.
 * 3. Actually those links/redirects need to be created anyway, jct uses in the infrastructure of infobox road. Although in some circumstances it seems pointless to point to a redirect, it is nigh impossible to do it any other way.  Redirects are not bad things and the end user is only aware of it is they see the redirect notice under the article name.
 * 3. Actually those links/redirects need to be created anyway, jct uses in the infrastructure of infobox road. Although in some circumstances it seems pointless to point to a redirect, it is nigh impossible to do it any other way.  Redirects are not bad things and the end user is only aware of it is they see the redirect notice under the article name.

I am not sure what you mean by "red links and errors" Can you provide specifics? Any additional feedback is appreciated. --Holderca1 18:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I also noticed another error in your version, street names should not come after the "ndash;". Only cities and landmarks come after the dash. If the state road has a common name, it should follow the state road designation in parantheses. For example if SR 5 is also known as Lincoln Avenue at that intersection, it should be notated as SR 5 (Lincoln Avenue) – Orlando. If the named road is an additional road at the exit and not the name of the state road, it should follow after a comma. For example, SR 5, Lincoln Avenue – Orlando. --Holderca1 18:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:jct is merely a tool that helps; use it if you want, and don't use it if you don't want. I'm not at all a fan of using templates where ordinary wikicode will work, but the template is just so nice. But it's up to you; you don't need it to make an exit list. --NE2 20:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Definitely, it is not mandatory, I initially created it to help streamline the exit list creation, everything is so repetitive when it comes to exit lists. Another reason is trying to keep all the naming conventions of not just all the articles straight, but images as well.  Another added benefit is it takes much less to to type to get the same result, for example,
 * [[Image:Florida A1A.svg|25px]] SR A1A – Miami, Florida, Jacksonville, Florida
 * [[Image:Florida A1A.svg|25px]] SR A1A (FL) – Miami, FL, Jacksonville, FL
 * They all three produce the same result. --Holderca1 20:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * They all three produce the same result. --Holderca1 20:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I mean its extremely hard to tell looking at a map, but the Par Street exit is in Orlando, NOT Winter Park. Its near Winter Park, but both sides of the exit are in Orlando's city limits. Its confusing. It even confuses Government officials. I lived right by that exit on Formosa Street for 17 years and if you ever had to call emergency services of any sort, you'd get the county, Orlando, Winter Park, and sometimes even the State responding because the area didn't have defined boundries until 2007 or so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.121.128.214 (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Dead Zone
There's one line in History with a request for location; the source (#5) is from 2007.

I found this from 2009:

http://www.orlandobuzz.com/2009/07/29/the-dead-zone-of-i-4/

which has links to these (photo map image and google map, respectively): http://www.clickorlando.com/slideshow/news/13274460/detail.html and http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&ll=28.83926,-81.318998&spn=0.043006,0.074244&z=14&msid=117346615511020361713.00046f66994fc3341db1f

The I-4 Dead zone has also been mentioned in (featured as the basis of?) the Season 2 episode "Road Kill" of Supernatural ref: http://www.supernatural.tv/epguides/s2/roadkill.htm and http://www.supernatural.tv/reviews/legends/s2/roadkill.htm

Maybe a slightly more expansive mention is in order?

VulpineLady not logged in 74.4.86.220 (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

SR 400 merger
Propose to merge SR 400 to I-4: All but two some odd miles are concurrent with I-4. The 2 miles in Daytona Beach can be covered in a little blurb in the RD. -- Admrboltz (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support as nom. --Admrboltz (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support: Mostly un-signed too. – CG Talk 04:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - Most of FL 400 is I-4, making the FL 400 article redundant. The Daytona Beach extension can easily be mentioned in this article.  Dough 48  72  04:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. As an aside, SR 400 was merged with I-4 until an editor split it out in October 2009. –  T M F 04:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. –Fredddie™ 18:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per above. --Rschen7754 06:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Major junctions (infobox)
According to the Infobox standards for the U.S. roads WikiProject (the only applicable WP guideline/standard for this issue), the infobox should be an overview of key facts and therefore there should be no more than 10 major junctions listed. The guideline specifically states that "These are preferably Interstates". When I noticed that this article only listed relatively minor junctions (SR39, US98, & SRs 408, 46, & 44), I decided to fix this and include the major intersections. I changed the list (forgot Turnpike...oops!) to include I-75 and the limited-access toll state roads which, functionally, are like interstate highways in terms of traffic volume. These two edits were reverted with the following edit summary: "there's a reason for choosing those: they're more evenly spaced and cover all the major cities on I-4". The major highways I had added cover all major cities and cover most of the length of the highway (appx. miles: 2, 9, 27/41, 60, 62, 72, 77, 82, 101). There is no way to have evenly-spaced major junctions, because roads aren't built with a certain number of major junctions per mile. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for indiscriminate, curated lists. If the section is called "major junctions", then it needs to list major junctions. SR39 is just a two-lane road...just a mile west is Alexander Street, which is the main exit for Plant City (and a four-lane, divided highway)...and both fail in comparison to I-75 (the main artery along Florida's peninsular Gulf Coast), the Turnpike (major diagonal north-south highway), SR417 (Orlando's eastern beltway), and SR528 (major highway connecting Orlando with the Space Coast). I'm going to revert to the following list (nine junctions which accounts for all limited-access highways I-4 intersects/connects with, excluding termini I-275/95): SR618 (Crosstown Expressway), I-75, SR570 (twice, but listed once), SR429, SR417 (southern junction), SR528, Florida's Turnpike, SR408, & SR417 (northern junction). If anyone wants to add a 10th major junction, my top choices (most->least preferred) among routes west of downtown Orlando would be: I'm not very familiar with I-4 north of downtown Orlando. I know SR414 (Maitland Blvd) is a major road on that side of town, but not sure how it compares with the choices above. AHeneen (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) US17/92/441 (Orange Blossom Trail; major north-south surface street across Orlando metro area);
 * 2) US27 (2nd major north-south artery in interior FL after Turnpike & major trucking route);
 * 3) (tie) US192 (major east-west route in Central Florida, and especially busy with local traffic (Kissimmee/Disney) where it meets I-4) & US98 (important north-south route, but less so than US27)


 * The point of the infobox is to give someone not very familiar with Florida's roads a general idea of where I-4 goes. Giving six Orlando-area junctions doesn't do that. Reverted. (PS: Alexander is now SR 39.) --NE2 05:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The map gives people unfamiliar with the area an idea of where the road goes. I've tried finding an official source for the routes of state highways, but couldn't find any. Anyways, even if Alexander Street is now SR39, it's still far less important that I-75 and SR570...which are both close by. AHeneen (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Nitpick: the map gives people with working eyes an idea of where the road goes.
 * Anyway, it's a lot more useful to know that it passes through the mid-sized regional cities of Plant City, Lakeland, and DeLand than to know that it intersects with almost every single toll road in the Orlando area. The latter is trivia. --NE2 22:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The template has a "location" header and lists the counties the highway passes through...maybe what's needed is to be able to display cities in the infobox. All images on Wikipedia (and especially images that convey information) should be accompanied by the "alt" parameter for visually impaired users...Template:Infobox road has a "map_alt" parameter to describe the route. The section is called "major junctions"...if its purpose is to describe the route of highway, then it should be called something else! Furthermore, in the list I added Lakeland was represented with SR570. Plant City's city limits extend almost to the Hillsborough-Polk County line (County Line Rd, exit 25/mile 25.563) which is just ONE mile west of the SR570 exit...I-75 is 13 miles to the west of SR39 while SR570 is only 5 miles to the east. Deltona is three times larger than DeLand (85,000 vs 27,000 residents) but Deltona is less than 7mi from the northern junction with SR417. Again, the section is called "major junctions" if letting people know what cities lie along the route is the purpose, there should be another way to accomplish that not lying to readers by claiming that a two-lane road into a town of 35,000 is a "major" junction. AHeneen (talk) 02:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So your argument is that it's called "major junctions" so we must interpret that literally rather than doing what's best for the reader. (PS: Deltona is bigger in population but is just a bunch of sprawl that decided to incorporate. DeLand is the actual urban center of west Volusia.) --NE2 11:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that at least I-75 should be listed as a major intersection, though I also agree that the AHeneen's list lacked variety. Scarlettail (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * How does it lack variety? NE2's version has junctions at exits (miles): 21, 32, 82, 101, & 118. That version has no exits for 50 miles, 20 miles of which (~62-82) is the most densely populated region that I-4 travels through (roughly miles 62-94)...Orange & Osceola counties have a combined population of 1.5 million plus the area receives over 50 million tourists per year (who mostly stay south of downtown, where the attractions are) so a reasonable guess would be that there are another 0.5-1 million people in the area at any time! There's just one "major junction" in this area and one roughly at the northern edge. At the very least, the 408 should be replaced by the Turnpike which connects Orlando to the most populous region of the state. And SR528 & SR417 would both be better choices than SR408.
 * The list I added includes junctions at exits/miles: 2, 9, 27/41, 60, 62, 72, 77, 82, & 101. That spans most of the highway's length (Note: miles 33-62 pass through rural area...33-55 is very rural, part of the Green Swamp. SR570 at exit 41 is only mentioned because that highway is a loop...the western part of it is not very busy and wouldn't be worth mentioning if not for the other junction at exit 27, which is important).
 * If "variety" refers to types of highways, then you have a point...however, the section is called "major junctions". SR39, SR46, & SR44 aren't major junctions. I've already discussed SR39...SR46 is ONE mile from SR417's (Orlando's eastern half-beltway) northern junction!! This type of variety doesn't match the word choice used for the section..."major junction". AHeneen (talk) 02:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

4 Express
The MOS says that exits shouldn't be added until the construction phase. Work begins in December...here's the exit list for the "4 Express", which should be placed as a subsection of "exit list" once work begins. Just copy & paste the following & put in the edit summary something to the effect of "Copied from Talk:Interstate 4#4 Express". AHeneen (talk) 03:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

4 Express
The 4 Express lanes are being added as part of a project which began construction in December 2014, with scheduled completion of the entire project in 2021.

highway length and exit mileage
It strikes me as rather questionable to be including the length of a highway to a precision of 0.001 miles, even if there are documents from the state highway department to support it. Even if we were to accept that these measurements were actually that precise, this is only an encyclopedia, not an engineering document. I would advocate specifying the length to the nearest mile, with exits specified to the nearest 0.1 miles.

The length of "132.298" miles seems to have come from a 2011 (or earlier) version of http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/statistics/hwydata/interchange.pdf. But as of the 30 June 2015 version, the length has shrunk to 131.9 miles. Fabrickator (talk) 07:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What's so hard to believe that someone could measure a highway to the nearest 5-foot increment?  Imzadi 1979  →   08:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Assuming you had a car with a highly accurate odometer (and which displayed to the thousandths of a mile), and you started with your car at one end of the highway and you drove to the other end, where the front of your car was aligned with the beginning and end of the highway respectively, you stayed in lane the whole time, and the odometer maintained its accuracy over the course of the trip. Do you suppose that's the distance this number should represent, or would you expect it to represent something else?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabrickator (talk • contribs) 16:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Or maybe the engineers and surveyors can measure the raw distances along the highway segments from cross road centerline to cross road centerline and use math to accurately compute the results? Or since this is the 21st century, they've built accurate GIS models of the roads and use that? There are a number of ways they could accomplish it, and at the 5-foot increment, all are believable to me.  Imzadi 1979  →   19:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The measurement is almost certainly the centerline of the highway, which can be accurately determined and thus the length of the highway can be determined. That is especially easy to do with GIS mapping data. However, the centerline will move slightly over the course of time to reflect improvements made to the highway, so the length of the highway changing over time is not unfathomable. AHeneen (talk) 22:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Is it appropriate to talk about a "centerline" when there's a median strip? Or would the centerline then be an imaginary line between the two edges of the median?  What about when the two different directions aren't adjacent (median strip notwithstanding) to each other (such as in mountainous terrain)?  I would think that this could easily create differences of more than 5 feet in the length of the highway (  though I-4 may not have this, it's still something to consider). Fabrickator (talk) 23:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yet even FHWA reports the lengths of Interstates, by state segment and nationally to the hundredth of a mile, a 52.8-foot increment, so it's apparently not unfathomable to compute a length of a freeway on some basis, and if they can do it to that level of precision, why can't an individual state do so to another level of precision? In short, I don't see the issue with the mileposts as presented, but will allow that newer sources may have adjusted them slightly to account for intervening construction.  Imzadi 1979  →   05:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would take a different approach on this: we're an encyclopedia, and we report what the sources say, and it's not our job to round the numbers just because we don't think that the road could possibly be measured that accurately; verifiability not truth and all that. --Rschen7754 06:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is tantamount to saying that we can only include direct quotes. I remind you: we are still editors.  Notwithstanding the requirement to provide reliable sources, it is our job to select appropriate content and organize or otherwise arrange that content in a manner that serves the needs of the Wikipedia community.  Is there any serious disagreement with that?  And on another note, the accuracy or ambiguity of the numbers provided by the state highway department is only part of the objection.  Even if the number is accurate and if it is not onerous to explain what the number represents, it will tend to be subject to more frequent change, which is a problem in and of itself.  To provide excessive precision puts an emphasis on that which is simply not material.  The additional precision requires greater cognitive effort (This plausibly increases the time to read it to oneself and obviously increases the time to read it aloud).  Going by the numbers currently provided by the highway department, this number has been off by (roughly) 400 thousandths of a mile, and you would essentially have to argue that Wikipedia has been materially misleading its users (albeit negligently rather than intentionally) for close to a year, yet if we switch to a rounded value (which would have saved Wikipedia from presenting this erroneous information), then you consider that to be objectionable.  For the ordinary purpose to which a reader may put this information, precision to 1 one-thousandth of a mile serves no purpose. Presenting it as whole miles is natural, fulfills the ordinary use to which this information may be put, avoids the need to explain exactly what the length represents, as well as avoiding the need to update it with every minor change that might somehow affect the length of the highway.  The reader who actually has a requirement for such precision has some particular purpose and needs to get an explanation from the "source" that fully explains what is really represented by the greater precision. Fabrickator (talk) 07:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Volusia rest areas
I can't find a ref for when the rest areas were removed (concerning this diff), but it was sometime between June 2006..."The search for a missing semi driver led to a Volusia County rest area along I-4 and the discovery of his body in his rig."...and October 2012..."The pawpaw, a federally listed species, is believed to grow only in Volusia County, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Using a backhoe and carefully removing the plants to avoid damage to taproots, a team moved the pawpaw plants from the I-4 roadside near the former rest area" AHeneen (talk) 02:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe there are some topographical maps showing these rest areas. -User:DanTD (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Why Interstate
Why is this an Interstate when it is only in one state? Seven Pandas (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * it is a part of the "Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways", aka the "Interstate Highway System". Several components of that system fail to cross a state line, including four signed highways in Hawaii, yet they're all still Interstates.  Imzadi 1979  →   21:55, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * IOW, in these cases it's an oxymoron Rationally, the ones that don't cross into another state should be "Defense Highways". Seven Pandas (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And on that note, we're straying away from the purpose of an article talk page, which is to discuss improvements to this article. In any case, "Interstate Highway" (with capital letters) is a proper name and a classification; other highways may cross state lines and be properly described as being interstate highways (all lower case), but since they aren't part of the Interstate Highway System, they aren't Interstates. I-4 fits that last classification, and the nomenclature doesn't draw the distinction you're positing.  Imzadi 1979  →   23:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes it does, but whatever. Seven Pandas (talk) 00:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I-4-Beyond-the-Ultimate-Project-Logo-2018-02-cmyk-circleR-white.png
 * I-4-Ultimate-Project-Logo-2014-08-rgb-400px.png