Talk:Interstate 8/Archive 1

Stub?
Rschen7754 reverted one of my edits and believes that the template should be left in there. May I ask why no one has placed that template in the description in California? AL2TB  Gab  or  Tab  02:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Separate article?
Any reason for this article to be separate from the overall Interstate_8 article? Looking for a merge onto the I-8 here. Kidshare (talk) 02:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, this is the Interstate 8 article... --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ideas to expand this article
This is pasted from WT:USRD, where a discussion about notability guidelines, where I-8 was used as "test case" generated ideas for improvement:


 * Although not covered in the current history section, both spans also have quite a bit notable history. In both states I-8 led to the truncation of US-80.
 * In Arizona, the freeway closely follows the proposed (but cancelled) route of First Transcontinental Railroad. The US purchased this land from Mexico (the Gadsen Purchase) explicitly for the purpose of routing a transcontinental railroad through it. When these plans were cancelled and the route of the First Transcontinental railroad was moved north (to what is now Wyoming, Utah and Nevada) this was one of the factors that agitated the south in the run-up to the American Civil War. (the rail line was later built by the Southern Pacific Railroad, and is still in use today.)
 * In California, the proximity of the freeway to the Mexican border has lead to other notable issues. To the best of my knowledge, it is the only freeway that does not cross an international boundary and yet has immigration checkpoints. The freeway has been the subject of several tragic accidents from human smugglers using unsafe practices (such as driving in the lanes for the opposite direction of travel, at night, with no headlights) to sneak around said checkpoints.

So, what say ye? Again, I'm asking an honest question to test if our guidelines are appropriately written, knowing I-8 is a tough case. Dave (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the railroad-related history would probably fit better as a brief bit in the US 80 article, with a link to the most appropriate railroad article. (By the way, did you know that the Texas and Pacific Railway did some work between San Diego and Texas, but sold it to the SP after that company's subsidiary Galveston, Harrisburg and San Antonio Railway beat it to El Paso? Later the San Diego and Arizona Railway built east from San Diego, and had to cross into Mexico to get a decent route.) As for splitting, if you think there's enough information to support a split, go for it. Also, in this case, there's a definite natural, not just political, boundary between the two states. This really has nothing to do with notability. --NE2 20:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, an I-8 in California article could cover US 80 in California too, since it was built as an upgrading of that road. There's a lot of history there, for instance the Old Plank Road. --NE2 20:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Dave (talk) 21:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal
The state-detail articles Interstate 8 in California and Interstate 8 in Arizona should be merged here as this article is lacking in detail and all the details from those two articles can easily be covered here.  Dough 48  72  05:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per precedent that individual states and the interstate as a whole have separate articles. And that the resultant article would both lack certain easy to find information in the existing set up and may be too long combined. Gateman1997 (talk) 05:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We have articles like U.S. Route 113 that cover a road that runs through multiple states and is manageable to read. If the state-detail articles were merged here, the setup would look similar to US 113.  Dough 48  72  06:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not think it is precedent that highways that pass through two states need to have state-detail articles in addition to the main article. In fact, there are several two-state counterexamples: Interstate 83, Interstate 68, Interstate 89, Interstate 82, and the Interstate 86 (east).  The merged article can be organized so finding information is easy.  Finally, the California I-8 article is about 18 KB and the Arizona one is about 11 KB.  Merging the information in the two articles with the main article will not produce a size of much more than 30 KB, since redundant information can be removed.  V  C  06:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Gateman1997, that was never precedent. "Highways that span multiple jurisdictions may be notable enough to merit multiple articles, one for the highway as a whole, and detail articles about specific sections of the highway. However, this is not automatic. Each article should establish its own notability." - WP:USRD/NT. --Rschen7754 06:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Precedent for Interstates has been that Interstates with < 3 sections should never be split into state detail articles. As the founder of WP:IH who was an active IH editor at the time state-detail articles were introduced, state-detail articles were never meant to be abused like this. Yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - but those instances are violating consensus and should be remerged back into one article. --Rschen7754 06:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support without prejudice There is a LOT more that can be said about I-8. I both have listed some ideas for expansion above, and have this article on my infinitely long "get around to it list". If the I-8 article were fully developed and bursting at the seams, I could see how state detail articles would make sense. As the articles currently exist, we have 3 extremely inadequate and redundant articles, and combining those into 1 is probably the best short terms solution. Dave (talk) 07:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support the "state-detail" concept was, in part, to prevent the parent article from having an exit list that encompassed every exit in several states. The concept, in general, has not been meant to split a two-state highway into three articles. Even some three-state highways can still have one article without the need for a split.  Imzadi  1979   →  08:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per Dave. –Fredddie™ 18:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per Dave, Dough, Imzadi. – CG Talk 00:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Reluctant support AZ will loose a GA, but the main article is lacking. Though its gonna be one massive RJL on this page. --Admrboltz (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If the merger is done right, the newly merged article should be easily nominated and passed as a GAN.  Imzadi  1979   →  23:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, this article, Interstate 8 in Arizona may need a GAR before it is merged. JJ98 (Talk) 01:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No need to GAR that article. If merged, it gets summarily delisted. The newly merged article can be nominated on its own to GAN afterwards.  Imzadi  1979   →  02:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The GAC process appears to be a drive-by nomination. As such I wouldn't worry about the loss of a GA ranked nomination. Dave (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Citations and history
I've replaced the citations to WP:SPSs in the article to specifics, but some additional work is still needed. The page numbers are missing from a handful of statute citations because those old statutes are not online. Someone with access to the bound volumes in California will need to have a look.

has a timeline of freeway segment openings for California. If we can find some newspaper accounts, or even old maps to verify those dates, we can use that chronology as a basis to add missing CA history to this article, much like the AZ timeline has been fleshed out already. Either way, the article is a lot closer to GA status, but it just needs a little bit more.  Imzadi 1979  →   12:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Recent formatting reversion
For those reasons, I reverted the page back.  Imzadi 1979  →   06:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) The lengths table isn't needed because the exit list has both state's lengths (aka the terminal mileposts) in it.
 * 2) The lengths table wasn't correct. The length in CA is 171.98 miles, in AZ it's 178.36 miles for a total of 350.34 miles. that's not the 276.77, 287.04 and 563.82 miles listed. Also, there aren't state-detail articles, so the links just redirect back here.
 * 3) There is no "standard" to name the subsections for the states, as there is no standard to name any RD subsections in WP:USRD/STDS.
 * 4) Exit list sections should not have photos in them under normal circumstances. Adding the photo there narrows the entire table in width. Don't assume our readers have wide-screen displays, and instead let the table have the full width of the page.

Headings
Maybe it's my imagination, but shouldn't the headings in this article be "California" and "Arizona"? If I remember correctly, that would match other multi-state USRD articles. The current setup sounds almost like the entire roadway is in one state. I didn't change them, for "fear" of my edits being reverted (or me being yelled at). If someone could change them (and any other articles/redirects/links that lead to the specific sections), that would be great. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Headings should be unique in a page though. The history section already has an "Arizona" subsection, so the RD should not. I think the current setup is fine, and its not unique in this regard. See U.S. Route 8 for and example of an article on an interstate highway that doesn't use the states involved as headings.  Imzadi 1979  →   13:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact, that doesn't work very well for the history section of this article. --Rschen7754 10:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify my previous comments slightly. When there are state-detail articles, it might work better to explicitly subdivide the RD by state, but in cases like US 8, US 131 and I-8 where there are no state-detail articles, there's no reason not to break the subsections where the prose naturally divides up.  Imzadi 1979  →   11:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Photo Captions
It may be prudent to introduce into roadway captions which direction the photo is showing eastbound (EB) or westbound (WB)). I-8 is a divided interstate, and not including this information can be unintentionally misleading. Also, could the photo captions indicate which state (CA or AZ) the photos of I-8 are showing? The photo indicating the easternmost end of I-8 (in Casa Grande, AZ) may also be out of date. Interstate 10 was widened to 6 lanes (3 lanes in each direction) in 2010, but it tapers back to a 4 lane section around the I-8 traffic interchange (TI)... Technically, that particular photo is a photo of I-10 looking WB towards the I-8 exit. Roads change, so it might also be beneficial to include a date in the photo captions as well.Jadewik (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Kiloposts (KP)
As far as kiloposts go, I'm reading a Final Project Assessment document for ADOT Project No: 8 MA H4135 01C, Painted Rock - Theba TI (pavement preservation), dated April 1996. It's in metric. I understand there was some metrification going on in the mid-1900's-- the federal government was making a push towards conversion to metric, which did not seem to take. I know I-19 was converted to metric, but were there ever any KP markers on I-8?Jadewik (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Pending Changes
Note that this article's semi protection has been requested to be replaced with Pending Changes due to lower amounts of vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.254.163 (talk) 03:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Split Request

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'd say we split this article into Interstate 8 in California and Interstate 8 in Arizona. This is to promote consistency of road articles, because many articles are shaped like that. We keep the Interstate 8 article, of course. Kevon kevono (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC) 13:17 (PDT)
 * Splitting a Featured Article does not make the subsequent articles FAs as well. Then we'd have three articles to maintain instead of just one.  Let's leave it as is. –Fredddie™ 21:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose—the general rule has required three states. For example, U.S. Route 141 also passes through only two states, like I-8, and it only has a single article (also a FA); ditto U.S. Route 131. Even in cases where a highway passes through three states, we don't guarantee separate sub articles, like U.S. Route 8 or U.S. Route 491.  Imzadi 1979  →   22:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose another example is Interstate 68. --Rschen7754 00:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This also applies to U.S. Route 199 as well. iirc, this rule dates back to at least six or seven years ago. Zzyzx11 (talk) 11:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A medieval route?!
I don't believe that this route was built in the 14th century, but this is what is stated. Perhaps this is vandalism; but if so, could someone fix the 14th century dates please? Rif Winfield (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's vandalism by this user: Hyilix. He messed the entire article. --Deansfa (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

New request to split excessively long article

 * The following is a closed discussion of a split request. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the split request was: No article split. There was a clear WP:SNOWBALL consensus against splitting up the article.  Light and Dark2000  (talk) 06:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

As this article has swelled to more than 100kb in size, I propose that it be split into Interstate 8, Interstate 8 in California, and Interstate 8 in Arizona. The last proposal to split omitted keeping the original article intact, but under this proposal, the original article will remain on Wikipedia, albeit with the state-specific elements spun-off into separate articles. Per WP:SPLIT, any article larger than 100 kilobytes should definitely be split. Surely, that trumps any policy regarding the minimum number of states an Interstate highway must pass through in order for it to have multiple articles about it. Due to the sheer size of this article as it is, splitting the article at this time is definitely warranted. Greggens (talk) 02:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is at least the third proposal to do this. What makes this time any different? --Rschen7754 02:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I concur, what's different this time? According to that guideline, yes, 100kB is a split point, but we're only at 102 kB. I can easily imagine someone doing a little copy editing to trim some extraneous and redundant verbiage, thus dropping the article under that guideline. However, if we were to split this, we'd have the issue of what would remain in the parent article? The proposal above is ill-considered at this time, and thus I oppose it.  Imzadi 1979  →   02:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If we do the split, it would be like any other Interstate highway with multiple articles. The parent article would focus on the history of the route nationally, with summaries of each state's route described in the parent. Each state-specific article would focus on the details of the route within the given state. Previous proposals to split simply didn't explain the need to split well enough, nor did they propose keeping the parent article while placing its excess information into spin-off articles. Plus, this article has only gotten larger, not smaller, since the last time someone proposed a split. Greggens (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Plus, this article has only gotten larger, not smaller, since the last time someone proposed a split." by 3 KB, yes. There would be too much redundancy between the three resulting articles; see WP:CONTENTFORK. And I still see little difference between this and the last proposals. 100KB is not a hard and fast rule (note the "almost"). --Rschen7754 03:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What about this page is too long? All of the sections are long enough to be informative and short enough to not be boring.  Besides, the 2010 discussion that brought the then-three Interstate 8 articles together cited getting rid of redundancies among the three articles.  Why would we go back to that? –Fredddie™ 21:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that in 2011, when three articles on this subject were merged into one, the merge resulted in an article that was only 28kb is size, not 100+ kb. Maybe the article should have been split two years ago when someone else proposed it. Plus, how hard would it be to accept having one article exclusively about the California portion of the highway, one exclusively covering the Arizona portion, and one parent article summarizing the highway in its entirety? Hardly sounds like there'd be any significant amount of redundancy in that scenario. Greggens (talk) 03:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't think there would be any redundancy in the parent article!? --Rschen7754 19:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Seriously, this is just ridiculous. The article isn't anywhere near the size limit (about 150,000 to 180,000 Kilobytes), and it's currently a Featured Article, meaning that it has very little problems as it is right now. Also, there was already a strong consensus to merge the former component articles, and as User:Rschen7754 stated earlier, this would be the 3rd such proposal (following 2 failures). The problem is, such a split would likely introduce WP:CONTENTFORK issues and degrade the overall quality of each new article. This article is already very good, and an article split isn't really necessary at this point. I've seen plenty of articles that are much longer than this one, and have been so for years. Besides the point, none of the size limits that we employ are to be strictly enforced.  Light and Dark2000  (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Opening party has misread the article size guideline, which relates to readable prose size not the wiki text size. Readable prose size is 40 kB (6906 words), well within the guideline. It is the wiki text size that is 102kB. DrKay (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Closing as No Split - Per obvious WP:SNOWBALL consensus.  Light and Dark2000  (talk) 06:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested article split. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.