Talk:Interstate 68

Control cities
The usual standard for bolding control cities is inclusion on the AASHTO list. AASHTO does not have a list for I-68; the cities listed are apparently used consistently by the state departments of transportation.

Should they be bolded as de facto official cities, or in the absence of an AASHTO list, should they be unbolded? —C.Fred (talk) 07:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering that the states own the roads and they are signing the control cities, I would say that makes them official by itself. Frankly, I fail to see the point of distinguishing between "official" and "unofficial" control cities - use what is signed.
 * For what it is worth, WVDOH has a directive listing the control cities it signs at http://www.wvdot.com/engineering/Manuals/Traffic/TED/TED220.pdf. Brian Powell (talk) 02:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Morgantown DUI Accident
I'd suggest removing the material on the Morgantown DUI accident. While it occurred out of the roadway, that was largely just a fluke. The accident itself had nothing to do with the roadway itself, its design or attending terrain considerations like the gasoline tanker and fog accidents. Brian Powell (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I can do that. I wasn't sure whether to include it to begin with, actually, as it didn't seem completely proper to include it. - Algorerhythms (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

section ordering
Isn't route description usually put before history on highway articles? Circeus (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Usually, though it isn't really set in stone. The reason I put them the way they are now is that I was thinking of at some point trying to take the article to Featured Article Candidates, and last time I nominated an article there, there were complaints that the road articles tend to focus too much on the route description and too little on the history and importance of the road, etc. - Algorerhythms (talk) 05:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Predecessors
In the discussion of the Cumberland Thruway, the sequence of events should be revised. I do not have access to specific dates for these events, so I am including them in the discussion instead.

In the early 1970's, US 48 was the sole designation for the completed portion of the National Freeway from the Willowbrook Road/Baltimore Avenue exit (now exit 44) to US 40 connector (now exit 39). US 40 was the label for Baltimore Avenue and continued eastbound on the National Freeway at exit 44. Due to a number of accidents resulting from tractor-trailers following US 40 into downtown Cumberland (and likely the extension of the National Freeway west to just west of the Finzel exit in Garrett County), US 40 was moved its old route to run concurrently with US 48 from exit 44 west to the western terminus at Finzel. The route through Cumberland was renamed US 40 Alt at this time - sometime between 1975 and 1980 I believe. US 220 was multiplexed with US 48 and US 40 from the Naves Cross Road exit to the Green Street exit sometime between 1980 and 1985.

PhilipDeLaneyWV (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The 1980 Maryland highway map backs this up, per File:Maryland State Highway Map - 1980.pdf. —C.Fred (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

A Congrats
Congrats on making it to a featured article status, I personally never edited this, but congratulations--JJBers (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)!

Unreliable source that doesn't even fully support what its used for
the source is unreliable, its a fansite not a WP:RS. If you'd like to change the cite to the sign itself you can, but "I-68 is the main route connecting Western Maryland to the rest of Maryland." would remain unsupported so you would either need to cite it or reinsert the citation needed tag. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

the current citation is to aaroads, if you would like to change the citation to the sign you can. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The citation is:
 * That uses cite sign, so yes, the citation is to the sign. The link within the citation to a photo hosted on AARoads showing that sign is a courtesy or convenience link. It is no different than providing a link to a newspaper article on Newspaperss.com instead of omitting the link and citing only the original article from the print edition of the paper that has been scanned.  Imzadi 1979  →   16:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Courtesy or convenience links to unreliable sources should be used only when absolutely necessary. The sign does not support "I-68 is the main route connecting Western Maryland to the rest of Maryland." at all... Doesn't matter whether its a convenience link or not the source actually has to support the text its been added as the citation for. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ...well, wouldn't this be an absolutely necessary case? Clicking on the citation only shows the sign anyway and a quick Google Street View check shows that as of August 2022, it's still there. I HIGHLY doubt that you're going to find a news article or a press release about one random interstate sign in the middle of nowhereville, so the current ref is fine. Chess  Eric  15:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * And where in the source does it say that "I-68 is the main route connecting Western Maryland to the rest of Maryland." or is supports the given text not what you meant by fine? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I just added another ref for that bro since the sign does not explicitly say that. Also, I've been on I-68. :p Chess  Eric  16:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Perfect! Thank you so much, it seems like such a silly thing but the standards for FA should be the highest and this isn't content which was there when the article was first evaluated so its worth taking the time to get right. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ur welcome. I'm not into petty arguments over small details. I made a point to try to end those in the WP:SVR this year. Of course, I caused a big one in February and got myself banned for 31 hours while exposing the entire project, but that's a different story. LOL! I've changed since then. Chess  Eric  19:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ur welcome. I'm not into petty arguments over small details. I made a point to try to end those in the WP:SVR this year. Of course, I caused a big one in February and got myself banned for 31 hours while exposing the entire project, but that's a different story. LOL! I've changed since then. Chess  Eric  19:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Failed verification and citation needed
since you removed the CN and Failed verification tags its up to you to demonstrate where in the given source that information can be found. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Too many pictures and order
(1) The route description should go before the history here. Even though most route description sections go before the history sections, my edit was on presentation based on, not the standard. People are going to look for the former more so than the latter. Plus, the route description is shorter than the history making it easier to navigate at the top then it is the bottom. (2) 11 pictures (which includes the timelapse) is WAY too many here. We have 4 that just show the shield along the route alone. I could understand this many pictures for I-90 or I-95, but this interstate is 113 miles long. Why do we need four pictures that essentially show the exact same thing, especially when there is a timelapse that shows these locations? It also makes the exit list table look ugly due to being compressed on both sides. Chess Eric  05:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)