Talk:Interstate 840 (Tennessee)

NHS Viewer
The NHS Viewer shows that the southeast part between I-65 and I-40 is I-840. Is this an error, or is it an unsigned designation like I-305, I-910, and I-878? I can't find any mention of I-840 on the FHWA site (though I can't find the North Carolina one, which has been approved), I-878 and I-910 aren't even on the map, and there are other errors like a missing piece of I-495, so it's probably an error. --NE2 03:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This must be an error or an old map. 840 was originally intended to be part of the Interstate Highway System, but when the state wanted to avoid more strict environmental survey guidelines, they decided to build the road with state monies.  It is entirely a state highway. --  Huntster  T • @ • C 04:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Requested move 4 January 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: not moved. Too soon. Jenks24 (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Tennessee State Route 840 → Interstate 840 (Tennessee) – The road, while not yet signed, has officially been re-designated as Interstate 840, which makes that the official name. Even without that, "Interstate 840" has always been the common name of the route; everyone who lives in Nashville calls it Interstate 840; you never hear of "Highway 840" or "Tennessee 840." 208.99.110.76 (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * While I know that the AASHTO and FHWA has approved the redesignation, where is it announced that TDOT has actually formally designated it as Interstate 840? I couldn't find a press release or news bit on their website. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * One of the issues with road pages is the desire of some editors jumping the gun. I say until it's officially signed-off by TDOT, it should remain as is.  --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose- would support in the near future when it gets signed. I do agree, however, about "Interstate" being the common name. Let's just wait at least a few months. 2602:306:83F9:1880:7821:2635:EAD8:98C2 (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. We can move this page when the renumbering officially happens.  Dough   4872   15:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment—I've e-mailed TDOT to ask what the timeframe is for the redesignation. I will post when I receive an answer.  Imzadi 1979  →  16:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * the reply: "Sign changes should begin early this year. As soon as the schedule is received by the Regional Traffic office, crews will begin replacing the signs." In other words, it's not supposed to be that long before the change starts.  Imzadi 1979  →   21:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose until such time as one can make a credible case for this being how it is commonly referred to. Dicklyon (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Missing the point
The discussion above largely misses an important point. The change in the official name has no direct relevance in terms of WP:AT. As correctly notes, the more important question is instead: What is the common usage? This is mentioned in the rationale as one of two reasons for moving; It's by far the more important consideration, yet the discussion then centres on the other reason, the official renaming. I'm not questioning the decision to close as not moved, I think that's quite correct, but the reason given again misses the point. The discussion above on whether it is too soon is largely about the official renaming. The point is rather, the only contributor to correctly address the issues has opposed the move. Andrewa (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * For roads, we need to stick with the official name as using the common name can sometimes be misleading. This road is currently SR 840 and not I-840 at the time. All the signs on the road and the maps indicate this is SR 840 and we need to refer to it as that for now.  Dough   4872   22:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Dough on this. As for common usage, it is definitely not referred to as Interstate 840 in casual discussions. The only time I've heard it called I-840 is in a historical context, where the state of Tennessee wanted it to have an Interstate designation prior to construction, but instead decided to use state funds to build it to get around certain federal regulations involving environmental impact studies to gain federal funding, as I recall. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If we have consensus for this, then it should be documented in a naming convention and linked to from the WP:AT sidebar. Have I missed it? Andrewa (talk) 12:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I would think that would be common sense, considering the same road can have different "common" local names in different jurisdictions. Regardless, at this time "Tennessee State Route 840" is the most commonly recognisable name. If and when it officially becomes Interstate 840, we would change to that name because leaving it as TN SR 840 would be factually inaccurate. Not sure how else to put this. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Factually inaccurate... You're entitled to this personal opinion as to what is correct, but if we have consensus on this then it should be documented as a naming convention, and if not... that is, if you're alone or even in the minority in this opinion... then I'm afraid it doesn't count for much, however strongly you may personally believe it.
 * the same road can have different "common" local names in different jurisdictions... If we accept this argument then much of WP:AT goes out the window. Many articles have different common names in different areas. So far, we've always held that the most common name overall was preferred, with specific exceptions in particular areas which are documented in specific naming conventions. Good luck in promoting this major change in policy. Andrewa (talk) 11:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's always that simple as saying the official name is irrelevant. WP:UCN does not actually make a distinction between official and unofficial sources – it simply wants the most common name in reliable sources, regardless of whether they are official or not. For highly prominent articles obviously the number of times the topic is mentioned in non-official sources is going to far outweigh the official ones, but for topics that are a bit more obscure like this it's not necessarily the case. Look at the sources currently used to reference the article, I think all but one of them would be considered an official source. In any case, the discussion had been open for over a week and no one had provided a single source (whether official or independent) in favour of renaming so there was clearly not a consensus to move. When the official sources do switch over this will be well worth revisiting. Jenks24 (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree that the official name is not irrelevant, and hope I didn't say it was. But is it any more relevant than any other usage? That is the issue raised above.
 * It's a good question, and I thank all for the feedback. Andrewa (talk) 12:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Route description
I'm sorry, but I fail to understand how the route description section lacks citations. There is no need to place the citations after every paragraph. With regards to the statements about specific sections of the route, that is clearly visible in the Google Maps source. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)