Talk:Interstate Highway System/Archive 10

Discussion
Since none of you are discussing beyond the edit summary why you are edit warring, I will go ahead and start a discussion. --Rschen7754 07:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My reasons for keeping the article as is on this point are simple:
 * The term "freeway" has been in use in the article for 12 years, Since September 2002.
 * Multiple reliable sources about the system use the term "freeway" for the concept:
 * (also uses "expressway", but uses "freeway" as the primary term)
 * (also calls them "superhighways")
 * Other books use different terms, which aren't "controlled-access highway":
 * (uses "superhighways")
 * (uses just "interstate" or "highway", eschewing any other specialized terminology)
 * Conversely, the only books I could find using the term "controlled-access highway" in relation to the Interstate Highway System were using a direct quote from:
 * (italicized text is what is repeated in other works)
 * In any case, the sources don't use the term "controlled-access highway", which as an article title is a compromise between "freeway" (US) and "motorway" (UK) Just because we used a compromise for the title doesn't mean an American-specific topic needs to do so as well, not when more sources, including one from the UK, use "freeway".  Imzadi 1979  →   08:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally I've never heard the term "Controlled Access Highway" until now. However, I have heard and seen the related term "Limited Access Highway" in some official and technical documents. (I even recall it being used on freeway entrance signs in the 1970's) I agree that general interest documents would be more likely to use freeway in the US. Beyond that, I don't have a dog in this fight. Either term gets the point across, and even though I hadn't heard the term Controlled Access Highway until now, it was not a confusing term and I knew what it meant. Dave (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * IMHO, controlled access highway is better in this case. Yes, the term freeway is more common in the US, but then US readers don't need someone to tell them that the Interstate system is a freeway or a controlled access highway.  For non-US readers, the term "freeway" might be seem to emphasize freedom from tolls rather than freedom from stoplights.  Controlled access highway may not be as common, but it clearly communicates what it means. YBG (talk) 07:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * (uses just "interstate" or "highway", eschewing any other specialized terminology)
 * Conversely, the only books I could find using the term "controlled-access highway" in relation to the Interstate Highway System were using a direct quote from:
 * (italicized text is what is repeated in other works)
 * In any case, the sources don't use the term "controlled-access highway", which as an article title is a compromise between "freeway" (US) and "motorway" (UK) Just because we used a compromise for the title doesn't mean an American-specific topic needs to do so as well, not when more sources, including one from the UK, use "freeway".  Imzadi 1979  →   08:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally I've never heard the term "Controlled Access Highway" until now. However, I have heard and seen the related term "Limited Access Highway" in some official and technical documents. (I even recall it being used on freeway entrance signs in the 1970's) I agree that general interest documents would be more likely to use freeway in the US. Beyond that, I don't have a dog in this fight. Either term gets the point across, and even though I hadn't heard the term Controlled Access Highway until now, it was not a confusing term and I knew what it meant. Dave (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * IMHO, controlled access highway is better in this case. Yes, the term freeway is more common in the US, but then US readers don't need someone to tell them that the Interstate system is a freeway or a controlled access highway.  For non-US readers, the term "freeway" might be seem to emphasize freedom from tolls rather than freedom from stoplights.  Controlled access highway may not be as common, but it clearly communicates what it means. YBG (talk) 07:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of template conversion
There is a discussion about the template ongoing at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 7. It is likely that the discussion will result in formatting changes (including some improvements and additional flexibility) to the template, which is used in about 18,000 articles. Your feedback, as frequent users of this template, will be welcome and needed if these changes are to be implemented with the least amount of negative side effects.

Please link to this discussion from Talk pages of other projects that use frequently. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Abandoned urban interstates due to local opposition
Opinions requested on what to do with this recently added section. I do agree that the urban protests and re-routings in urban areas need some amount of coverage in this article; it would not be complete without it. However, the way the section is currently presented leads me to say this isn't the right way. Can I get some opinions on what we should do?

Here's my thoughts:
 * This is related in some way to the content in Freeway revolt
 * It is yet another regionally focused indiscriminate list (all examples listed are in the northeast, ignoring the similar changes that were made in San Francisco, Phoenix, Portland, Denver, etc.)
 * This article suffers from these types of lists now: the speed limit, numbering, exit numbering and statistics sections all currently or have in the past have had regionally biased indiscriminate lists.
 * There are literally dozens (possible 100+ such entries) if this were a thorough list. In San Francisco alone there were I think 7 or 8 cancelled Interstate Highway proposals.
 * But again, this is something that needs coverage in some form in the article.

My eventual vision for this article is to have a history and criticisms section that details with major urban changes where we have significant media coverage. I have found sources for the changes in the DC and Baltimore areas. There's a lot of coverage about the protests over the I-95 routing through Overtown (Miami), the cancelled I-480 in San Francisco, the cancelled freeways in Portland, and the former central artery in Boston. And if/when I get off my duff and dedicate more time to Wikipedia, this is where I was planning to take this article.Dave (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I think we should move (a) create a brief non-parochial summary paragraph in this article (b) move the individual items into a newly created stub-class list (c) reference that list from this article and from Freeway revolt. YBG (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I attempted to clean up the list that was added here, hoping that maybe if given a little bit of time, it might develop into something worthwhile. Most of these examples are already in Highway revolts, so replacing them with a decent summary of the situation here, using a few examples, would be a good course of action.  Imzadi 1979  →   23:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Map improvements
The existing maps are certainly very helpful, but there are some improvements that could be made: -- Beland (talk) 05:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no statewide map for Hawaii
 * Having a SVG version with numbers would be good; the version I just linked to is a blurry scan of a government map and is hard to read.
 * It would be nice to have the Lower 48, Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico all on one map, as we do on File:National_Highway_System.jpg.
 * It's unclear what "selected" three-digit interstates and "selected" planned interstates means; maybe they should all be there?

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Interstate Highway System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080116125059/http://www.dot.state.co.us:80/50anniversary/funfacts.cfm to http://www.dot.state.co.us/50anniversary/funfacts.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061101234238/http://cms.transportation.org/sites/route/docs/HO2_Policy_Retention_HO1.pdf to http://cms.transportation.org/sites/route/docs/HO2_Policy_Retention_HO1.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061101234239/http://cms.transportation.org/sites/route/docs/HO1_Policy_Establ_Develop_USRN.pdf to http://cms.transportation.org/sites/route/docs/HO1_Policy_Establ_Develop_USRN.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070922220101/http://www.vmsom.com:80/projectsoverviewbytype.shtm to http://www.vmsom.com/projectsoverviewbytype.shtm#Interstates

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on Interstate Highway System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080215220316/http://etext.virginia.edu:80/journals/EH/EH38/Norton.html to http://etext.virginia.edu/journals/EH/EH38/Norton.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120224045451/http://itd.idaho.gov/50.Years/I-50_I-90.html to http://www.itd.idaho.gov/50.years/I-50_I-90.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130117094333/http://www.modot.org/southwest_archive/I-49MapsandInformation.htm to http://www.modot.org/southwest_archive/I-49MapsandInformation.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140517130607/http://www.campo-nc.us/TCC_Agenda/2013/Agenda-TCC-2013-01-03-ATT-10-Addition%20of%20I-44,%20Wake%20County.pdf to http://www.campo-nc.us/TCC_Agenda/2013/Agenda-TCC-2013-01-03-ATT-10-Addition%20of%20I-44,%20Wake%20County.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120225170530/http://www.interstate50th.org/gallery.shtml to http://www.interstate50th.org/gallery.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Nominate to GAclass
See WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment

This article seems fine to be upgraded to GA-class. It's lengthy yet understandable and is able to capture the reader's (at least my) mind. It most likely has all the criteria to upgrade to GA-class. I've seen much smaller FA articles. Kevon kevono (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC) (What the hell is UTC?) 16:09 (PT)
 * Additionally, I nominate this as a good article. Kevon kevono (talk) 23:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC) (What the hell is UTC?) 16:19 (PT)
 * That's not how it works. If you're not sure how it works, maybe you shouldn't be the one to nominate it. –Fredddie™ 01:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * While you don't have to be a major contributor to an article to nominate it for GA status,, it is a good idea. Otherwise, you may not be able to address review comments. In the future, you can't just say you're nominating something for GA the way you have. You have to follow the process at WP:GAN. If you can't do that, you shouldn't think about nominating articles, as stated above.  Imzadi 1979  →   05:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2016
The Title should be 'Eisenhower Interstate Freeway System', not highway system.

122.167.172.222 (talk) 05:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the article title is correct per WP:COMMONNAME, and your proposed name isn't even correct per the much longer official name.  Imzadi 1979  →   08:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Verify the accuracy of one piece of information contained on the article
In the article, you present:"Numbers divisible by five are intended to be major arteries among the primary routes, carrying traffic long distances."

yet you don't seem to state that correct. You see, I-5 is a north-south route, yet I-10 (which is divisible by 5) is an east-west route. Don't you mean "Numbers ending in 5 are intended to be major arteries..." You contradicted your information with inaccurate data that didn't seem like it was researched well.

98.15.240.241 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the information is exactly correct. Both I-5 and I-10 are divisible by 5.  I'm not sure what you're going on about.   -- Jayron 32 12:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Why no Interstate 6 ?
It seems that that one don't exist.Also, how come some are contained within a state, such as i-2 and i-4 ? I mean : why are they labeled as interstate highways ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The numbering system was designed during 1955 and published in a document widely known as the Yellow Book. See here for samples from that document.  The numbering system is explained in the article; though to answer your question directly, the system is based on multiples of "5".  Most numbers that end in "5" and "0" are major routes, designed to completely cross the country, with the "0" routes crossing from Atlantic to Pacific, and the "5" routes crossing from Mexico or the Gulf of Mexico to Canada.  The system puts 90 at the north and 10 at the south, and in the other direction, 5 along the Pacific coast and 95 along the Atlantic Coast.  There are a few of these that aren't part of the system (50 and 60 are skipped, and 45 and 85 are shorter regional routes) but mostly it holds up.  The OTHER numbers, like I-16 or I-4 or I-81, were added to the system to supplement the main routes, and are added on an "as needed basis".  Originally, the only numbers less than 10 used were I-4 (east-west across Florida) and I-8 (east-west in California-Arizona along the Mexican border).  I-2 is a very recent addition to the system, and the number was chosen because of its southern location.  There is no "I-6" because there has been no need to build another medium-length east-west route south of I-10.  If we ever build one, it will likely get that number.
 * The word "Interstate" is not applied to any individual highway, but to the system as a whole. The system is designed to be funded and numbered not by individual states, but by agencies of both the federal government (the FHWA) and of the states collectively (AASHTO).  The entire system is "interstate".  This is different from state highways where the numbering and funding is a purely state-level matter.  -- Jayron 32 14:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I would guess the kind of highway you're talking about (leaving unspecified whether/when it will ever be constructed) would go either from Laredo to Corpus Christi or from Tallahassee to Daytona Beach (the former route in Texas and the latter in Florida.) Georgia guy (talk) 14:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, its important to remember the full name of the system: the "Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways". Based on that name, we have highways wholly within a single state that otherwise supplement the national system and help to serve an overall defense purpose.  Imzadi 1979  →  16:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)