Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Interstate Highways/Archive 3

Userbox for the project?
A modest proposal:

Aerobird 02:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A userbox for this project already exists. This one looks nice, but I favor the existing design, personally. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 02:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah - I hadn't seen that the page went further down past "Other Templates", sorry... - Aerobird 03:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No worries - even I had to figure out where it was on the page when I looked for it earlier. In any case, welcome to the project! -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 03:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

3DI Templates
The template 3di 5 was messed up for a bit by an IP and Rschen7754 tried to fix it, but couldn't successfully do so with dial-up. I fixed it - but also someone may want to verify that the other 3di templates work as they are supposed to as well •  master_son  Lets talk  04:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Format
I think that to help the articles be more presentable, we should move the Intersections with other Interstates and the Spur Routes to below the (Route) Notes and Trivia sections, as the case may be. That would get more information closer to the top. -- M PD (T / C) 06:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am concerned about the format about those Notes and Trivia sections, as they are very prevalent among the Interstate articles and strongly violate WP:TRIV. Most of them are haphazard mixes of data that contain important information that should have its own separate sections or be integrated into other parts of the article, along with interesting but unimportant trivia (the most common being "records" set by the interstate). A good majority of the Interstate articles have these sections, some of which, like I-80 and I-95, are huge. I think it is important that these sections be integrated into the rest of the article, discarding information that doesn't hold up to the standards of Trivia. Krimpet 08:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, they could be better integrated. Trivia should be small and quick, many facts and information would do well as a physical part of the article.  -- M PD  (T / C) 09:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

State law additions
Two users and two anons added legal definitions for every U.S. route and Interstate over the past couple of days. With the exception of California and Washington, I personally feel that these additions are trivial and irrelevant. The question, though, is what to do with them. Do we keep them and give them their own section? Do we remove them? I'm wide open to suggestions. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * They're not consistent. The only thing on Interstate 70 is a little sentence in the Utah section.  I did see an addition on Interstate 81 about New York Interstate Route 505 which is confusing for someone who isn't familiar with it.  I think one of two things should happen: there's a better explenation of the laws and they stay, or we get rid of them because for example Utah Code Section 72-4-112 doesn't tell me anything more about I-70.  -- M PD  (T / C) 04:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I saw the New York code addition go up on Interstate 95; I moved it to Interstate 95 in New York and fleshed it out to a full reference. I tried to go with what I remember from the California statute citations, so there's at least some level of consistency. Also, the New York codes don't ever mention, say, I-95; it just defines the internal route number along the route with I-95 follows. I see that as on par with the unsigned 400-series route numbers that Georgia assigns all the interstates (except that MapQuest will label maps with, say, GA 405 instead of/in addition to I-95. —C.Fred (talk) 05:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a field called "section" in infobox road that you put the statute number into. I don't know if Infobox Interstate can do that too yet. •   master_son  Lets talk  05:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a stretch, but perhaps could be part of the "Notes" section (and at that, a part - not the entire section itself, perhaps a sub-section), since they do differ from state to state. Because of the inconsistency, there isn't a place in the article format as it currently stands. Not saying it's unwelcome, just wondering if they should stay. As such though, I would argue that any such inclusion should be referenced. Fwgoebel 05:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think they're fine in the state-specific articles. In the main Interstate article though...perhaps the Notes section for now, or in the state section of the Interstate should there be one.  -- M PD  (T / C) 06:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with MPD's approach to this. Here's an idea: the Notes section should be broken up by state headings. Some Interstate articles, but not all, do this already (and, obviously, this is a moot point for intrastate/state-specific articles). The law definitions should then be placed there. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 01:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Notes should be removed, in fact, and dispersed to other places in the article. GA and FA don't like that kind of thing. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case, I'd trash the law sections as I don't believe (at least in the case of New York) that their legal definition is worth mentioning. I believe someone brought up the case of Georgia earlier, where the legal definition of the Interstate is used by the transportation department for indexing purposes. Now, I can't speak for other states, but in New York, their legal definition is never used, at least not by NYSDOT - instead, the DOT sticks an "I" onto the end of the Interstate number (78I, 86I, 490I, etc.) for indexing. If the DOT doesn't use the "legal definition", then why should we? -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 01:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * For the case of New York, it's probably better to remove them from the articles as they don't really add meaningful information there. It might be useful to include them in the Interstate section of List of State Routes in New York though. --Polaron | Talk 01:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd be open to that option for NY. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 01:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say farm this off to the states, but with the restriction that it can't clutter the main article. If they want to put it in the state article, that's fine, but not the main one. But in California it's somewhat useful though- for example, parts of California State Route 2 are not State Route 2. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Being from both California and Washington I support the additions :>| but that's IMHO. I added the section field so I don't think the Interstate infobox has it yet. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Major cities
I looked at that, and we should add the control cities note in the template. Here's what I did, just an example:
 * Why do we need to have another box on each page? Is there any reason the bulleted lists are inadequate? —Scott5114↗ 22:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Iono. That's the template on the project page, so I figured it should be modified.  --MPD01605 (T / C) 22:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks cleaner, IMHO. Also, it shortens up the page by placing the list in a floatable box in the description instead of devoting an entire section to it. For articles with a bunch of clutter already along the side however, then it'd probably be better to use the list.
 * I still say we should include this list in the infobox if we're just going to add another box. Maybe.  Just a thought. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MPD01605 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC).
 * I don't like it as a box, personally, but then, I'm not a member of this project... =)  Powers T 16:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * El Paso
 * Socorro
 * Horizon City
 * Van Horn
 * Fort Stockton
 * Junction
 * Kerrville
 * Comfort
 * Boerne
 * Fair Oaks Ranch
 * Balcones Heights
 * San Antonio
 * Seguin
 * Luling
 * Columbus
 * Sealy
 * Brookshire
 * Katy
 * Houston
 * Mont Belvieu
 * Winnie
 * Beaumont
 * Vidor
 * Orange

Here is what I am using for Texas interstates, it is Texas based since the cites link goes to a Texas cities article, but you get the idea. This is for Interstate 10 in Texas. --Holderca1 19:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I once again, given our new Major Cities table, propose that we add major cities into the infobox, rather than have two templates one below the other like on Interstate 95. -- M PD (T / C) 06:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally don't like sections that consist entirely of bulleted lists, and an assortment of editors in the past didn't like huge infoboxes (which is why junctions got pulled from the infobox and became the Interchanges section). Most Interstates have 10+ major cities on the lengths. I just can't see how that information will be put in the infobox and still look decent. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 15:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rob; I've used the new cities box on the article I rewrote (Interstate 195 (New Jersey), as well as I-295 in progress on my sandbox), and very much like the look of them. I agree that it wouldn't look as good on Interstate 95, but I-95 is a special case -- that article doesn't have any text in the route description section to go along with it. -- NORTH talk 18:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I also concur with Rob and Northenglish. I have been changing bulleted lists to independent infoboxes when I update articles as of late. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Master son (talk • contribs) 01:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC). •   master_son  Lets talk  01:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Interstate 295 (Delaware-New Jersey)
As I mentioned above, I recently expanded this article and nominated it for GA status. The GA nomination failed for some relatively shocking (to me, at least) reasons: namely that the "future developments" section, while completely sourced and obviously not speculation, does not constitute encyclopedic fact, and that the exit list should be converted to a bulleted or numbered list (?!?!?).

Thoughts? -- NORTH talk 17:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a bunch of horse-hockey to me! How can an articulated exit list not constitute a good article?  And if everything sourced, then what's the issue?  I have to admit I'm slightly biased as I started current version of te exit list, but nonetheless, I feel this is ridiculous and should be appealed.  Didn't it say something in that guy's reply about an appeals process? EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 18:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh. Don't they usually frown on bulleted lists of any kind for featured good articles?  The assessment seems contradictory to me.  The exit list would be a disastrous mess as a bulleted list.  They need to actually look at the article again then assess it, methinks.  S tratosphere (U T) 20:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll have the decision reviewed, as well as opening a peer review, in just a few moments.
 * Good article review
 * Peer review
 * -- NORTH talk 00:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I looked it over, and the only problem I have with it is that the picture at the top overlaps the infobox. Other than that, it's GA-quality to me (and I agree that complaining about the exit list is inexplicable).


 * Speaking of the exit list - where'd you get the county-road shields? - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 00:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I can see how the image at the top left might be a problem for users with smaller monitors. I'll get around to finding a better place for it.  The county road shields were mostly created by myself using Inkscape and uploaded to the Commons.  If you need some, I've read somewhere that I'm in charge of creating new ones *wink* along with User:TwinsMetsFan. -- NORTH talk 01:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Tangentally related to the good article nomination, this article has spurned two other discussions. First, a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters) on whether the "E" in "Exit 60" should be capitalized. (See this diff for exactly what I'm talking about.)

Also, where should the "History" section go? As I mentioned above, I ordered the sections in the I-295 article according to WP:NJSCR standards instead of WP:IH standards, putting it above the exit list. I prefer it that way, because it puts all the text sections first, then the "extra" sections (exit list and gallery), then the link sections. The WP:IH way also makes sense though, since the exit list is essentially a continuation of the "Route description" section.

It's probably important to note that in the peer review for Interstate 95, someone said that they would like to see the history section moved closer to the top. -- NORTH talk 01:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we do need to take a look at our section order, and the suggestion on moving it closer to the top is a good one.. On the exit list, yes, a bulleted list would be a disaster.  And the future developments section certainly should stay.  That would set a precedent that all future...things...would be non-encyclopaedic.  The whole PA Turnpike/I-95 project would be unencyclopaedic, as would any real construction projects I suppose.  -- M PD T / C 02:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It definitely makes sense to me to put the exit list below any prose; you shouldn't have to scroll past a big table to get to the history. --NE2 03:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Old map
Somewhere on Wikipedia is an old map of the planned Interstate highways from the 50's. I think it's from '57 but I'm not sure. Does anybody know where it is? -- M PD T / C 16:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to the Yellow Book map scans? If so, they're here. --Polaron | Talk 17:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * US-wide map series for Interstate plans starting from here. --Polaron | Talk 17:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer reviews
It'd be great to have some input... Peer review/Interstate 5/archive1. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think if we want to get any Interstate article up to GA or even FA, the Notes section for that highway needs to be broken up and rewritten into prose. A big section of disconnected trivia isn't really GA/FA-standard material.—Scott5114↗ 02:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think in general, there are a lot of lists. I like the idea of the list of cities template like on the U.S. Routes (U.S. Route 1 for example).  That would remove one list.  And to get rid of another list, perhaps we could include all Interstate junctions in the routebox.  It would make the routebox really big, but it would remove another list from the article itself.  Just a thought, though.  --MPD01605 (T / C) 03:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't interstate junctions be merged into Route description though? (Take a look at some of the Oklahoma state highway articles to see what I mean.) —Scott5114↗ 18:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I like the idea that I can go to one place and see a whole list of junctions rather than skimming through a route description. Ease of finding information is an important part of an article.  It's not bad as it is, but to be a GA or even a FA, the lists may need to be presented in a different way. --MPD01605 (T / C) 18:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd think that those should be part of an exit list. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The WP:IH guidelines say that a intersection list is optional, but should not be included if an exit list is "present and complete." On something like Interstate 5 or Interstate 95, an exit list is in a different place, so IMO, an intersection list is perfectly fine. --MPD01605 (T / C) 19:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: I have just nominated Interstate 95 and Interstate 90 for peer reviews. I-90 had a failed FA nomination, so I'm trying peer review. I-95's pretty good, but trying to get both at A-class or better. Comments are welcome. V60 VTalk - VDemolitions 02:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, I just expanded and formatted Interstate 295 (Delaware-New Jersey) – although I put the history section before the exit list (per WP:NJSCR and most other state wikiprojects) instead of after (per this wikiproject) – and nominated it for GA status. If that fails, I'll probably open a peer review then. -- NORTH talk 07:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * See below. -- NORTH talk 17:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm disappointed at the lack of Wikipedia community (non-roads people) support of Peer Reviews. Sure, all us roads people have our views, but the best views would have been from non-roads people, like on I-95.  That said, I think I-95 looks great, and I think it should go to GA nomination.  Do others feel this would be a good move?  -- M PD T / C 03:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know; I doubt it's ready for GA. A lot of sections are still solely bulleted lists. -- NORTH talk 04:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I-81 in PA
The formatting and section headers used for the references on Interstate 81 in Pennsylvania are currently inconsistent with the guidelines laid down by this project. Two issues are at stake:
 * The first is that two sections: "Notes" and "References" are used for the references.
 * "Notes" is already used for one of this project's sections; for the miscellanea.

Should (a) the two sections be combined into "Notes and references" and (b) the title of the trivia section be renamed to avoid conflict with WP:GTL (ignore whether or not the trivia section should exist for right now, please)? -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Notes" should be changed to "External links", unless that link is used as a reference, then it should be properly formatted as a reference. Trivia should be the name of the section that incorporated random but notable information that we can't easily put somewhere else in the article; else that section should be named "Notes", but there isn't really a reason to have a Notes/Trivia section right now (as far as I can see by looking at the article).  -- M PD T / C 21:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (a) I think MPD has it backwards. The cited reference (currently under "Notes") should be titled "References", and the uncited site (try saying that five times fast) should be under "External links".
 * (b) Yes, rename it to either "Miscellanea" or "Trivia", but discourage it.
 * I went ahead and fixed the article to reflect this. I also moved the major cities to a box, and removed the deleted image. -- NORTH talk 22:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've also changed the project page to reflect this discussion. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Holy... that must be a record for the quickest we've ever gotten anything done related to roads on Wikipedia. 58 minutes? Wow... -- NORTH talk

"Child routes..." box looks hideous now
I don't know who thought of this...but the child routes box looks really hideous. For example, looks like this:

It used to not have the additional shields, and the past/future routes used to run along the bottom of the box. The bottom line is that I do not favor the new design. Comments? V60 VTalk - VDemolitions 02:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on the shields, but I do prefer the new future route setup. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 02:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * {Edit Conflict} I have to agree. The thing I dislike the most is, at least in this one, there's too much wording for past/former/(future?) routes.  I don't mind the shields...so much....but especially looking at, it's too big and too cluttered.  I think Past routes should be like it was before, sans shields.  Future routes can stay as they are. -- M PD T / C 02:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice the garbage following the past route link (in this case I-170 in Maryland) until now. If the link is shortened to simply read Maryland, then my prior comments stand; otherwise, if the garbage remains, then my standpoint is the same as MPD's. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 02:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In my opinion while the shields aren't necessarily a bad thing, it's redundant to have the shield immediately followed by the route name. There should only be one or the other, it looks cluttered with both. Krimpet 03:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Also agreed with previous two replies above. V60 VTalk - VDemolitions 03:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I used to hate the argument I'm about to present, but images should always be supplimented with words, because (although I'm yet to find any), some people turn images off. Also, sometimes the images don't load, such as right now when the 25px I-795 shield won't load.  If I had to choose between the two, I'd say the text.  Or we could make the text smaller?  So long as it's not so cluttered, I'm game for almost anything.  I do think we need more input from the project though.   -- M PD T / C 03:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As an aside, the fact that the 25px I-795 shield won't load means that the image needs to be purged over at the commons. Back to the issue at hand, the best option would probably be to make the shields 20px wide and remove any clutter present after a link to a former/future interstate (as it is not necessary to indicate its current designation). Of course, at only 20px wide, you begin to get readability issues, which would probably lead to the removal of the shields. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 03:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Also, sometimes the images don't load, such as right now when the 25px I-795 shield won't load." I've noticed that; the fix is to change the size up or down a pixel. Go figure... As for images vs text, wouldn't doing something like [[Image:I-795.svg|center|Interstate 795]] produce a tooltip that pops up on mouseover? IIRC that's generally reccomended for websites to get around the people-setting-no-images problem. - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 03:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't change the image dimensions – that's not a fix, it's a workaround, and while it might not seem noticeable, to the trained eye it definitely is. The fix is to purge the image cache. -- NORTH talk 04:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, whaddaya know. It worked.  Thanks for the tip.  I hate when things are just on my end.  -- M PD T / C 05:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If you put in a pipe and the text after the size on the image, it will show up in text-only browsers:. The text shows up as the "alt" attribute for the image tag, which most browsers will display if for some reason the image doesn't exist. —Scott5114↗ 05:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So is it safe to say that the image vs. text problem is solved? How about if we move on to the presentation of past/future routes?  -- M PD T / C 05:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What about designating past and future routes with different font styles, for example future routes in italics and former routes in strikethrough (OK, strikethrough is probably too ugly, but it's somewhat intuitive), with a small legend at the bottom? Krimpet 05:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say both text and image are redundant. One or the other... unless the alt thing is used. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

My opinion regarding the past/future routes is that the new version is fine (perhaps even better) if we shorten what comes in parentheses afterwards. Perhaps we should do something like what kurumi.com does, and just have a set of single words that goes in the parentheses: cancelled, decommissioned, renumbered, proposed. -- NORTH talk 07:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That would probably be fine, although the sheer length of the words is, in most cases, longer than the state name, creating a situation like the current one. I agree with Krimpet that a style legend would probably be the best way to go. My proposal, however, would be to use italics for decommissioned and bold (as there's no underline feature that I'm aware of) for future routes. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 14:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Underline is represented by the HTML code < u> < /u>. One thing to remember with that is that links, when floated over, are underlined, too.  -- M PD T / C 17:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The italics/bold thing is fine by me. (Underline is bad for the reason MPD pointed out.)  However, perhaps we should make the current routes bold to make them stand out? -- NORTH talk 19:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Bold is typically used for "you're already on this page"; its use for all current routes might be confusing. On the other hand, the italics are a bit hard to distinguish. Maybe use italics and slightly smaller text, as well as a vertical bar before the first former route? --NE2 19:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I like including past/future on the same line as current routes, but I don't think the 3DI shields add anything. --NE2 19:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * With my settings (which I believe are still default), "you're already on this page" makes the link not only bold, but also black and unclickable. That being said, yes, bold would be a little garish to use, I just think it's important to make the current routes the most prominent links.  Perhaps the solution would be to have two columns to the table? -- NORTH talk 19:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how well this is working right now; took me a while to make. It's just made right here; no template or anything, and it's not finished since the only former route is Maryland. But this is what I envisioned. -- M PD T / C 21:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I like this idea. Nothing else to say now. V60 VTalk - VDemolitions 23:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You know, even though it was my idea, I really didn't think it would work in practice. However, that looks really good!  The three changes I can think of right now are:
 * Rowspan the I-70 shield in the corner so it spans both header rows.
 * Have the words "Current" and "Former" in bold and centered.
 * Make sure you include proposed somewhere, either in a third column, or change one of the columns to "Current/proposed" or "Former/proposed". (My preference has always been to combine them with current, but consensus always seems to combine them with former.  Eh.)
 * -- NORTH talk 00:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it would look better if the blue was solid. How about using "other" rather than "former"? --NE2 00:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the idea that future routes should be combined with current routes rather than former. Former routes are generally of historical relevance, while future routes, like current routes, are often of current relevance. Krimpet 01:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It depends how "future" it is. If it's something like Interstate 605 (Washington), it has very little current relevance. How about placing them on the left if construction has begun (or in the case of a future designation for an existing road, "future" signs are up)? --NE2 02:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good but concur with Northenglish. Also, there's a lot of wasted space in the current section, can that be removed? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed the hard-coded width. --NE2 02:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's how I changed things. First I changed it to I-95 since there are more routes to work with and it's the largest box.  First, I widened the box from 550px to 700px, so it's not as tall, but I'm not sure if it made a difference.  Nothing goes on either side of the box anyway, but I have a regular monitor and my browser is actually thinner than that, and it still looks fine on my end.  I made the 2di shield 35px (larger) over two rows (I originally meant two rows, but i spelled it "rospan" not "rowspan").  I used an F to denote future, and that's defined in the column title.  I centered the column titles.  I don't think it matters what the current status is, if it's set to be a route as far as plans go now, why not?  Past routes are still italicized, the only one I had a problem with was Virginia State Route 895, which was listed as a "Future" route, but I moved it to Past routes because there aren't any official plans to be a future route as far as I've seen, but there were original plans.  I don't really care why the route doesn't exist, if people want to know, they can follow the link.  I bolded the column titles, but I guess it doesn't work under the HTML small code.  I can't find a way to make the blue solid, but I think the little break between the two columns serves as a useful line for separation.
 * I think that covers everything I did. -- M PD T / C 03:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the fixed width needs to go back. As it stands right now, it covers the entire width of my 1280x1024 monitor (and looks horrible). Everything else looks fine, aside from the broken link in the table header, the missing link for I-70 (which should actually read I-95)... -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 03:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good, except I-295 (Florida) is a current, not future, route. - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 03:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As the one who started this whole change, this new box looks even better (though its very wide especially through IE7 which seems fudge on width). But wasn't it decided above to put the text as an alt image?  Thats a good start for shrinking the width. -- KelleyCook 17:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The only problem I see with width is that what we give up in width, we add to in height, which means that we'd have almost half of a screen of template. I-95 may be the only one where this happens.  It doesn't matter to me; if we want to go back to 550px width like it's always been, we can.  And did we agree on the alt-image text?  I was confused as to what was decided.  I replaced the text now.  How does it look?  -- M PD T / C 17:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. I agree it still appears a bit wide, but I also agree that we can't scrunch it up so much that it covers the screen vertically. Perhaps 625px is a suitable compromise. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 17:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I-895 in RI/MA should be listed as cancelled. --Polaron | Talk 18:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Category madness
Okay... I need help figuring out the categories being thrown around. I will use I-80 as an example.


 * Interstate 80 --> Category:Interstate 80, Category:Interstate Highways in (state), more...
 * Interstate 80 in California --> Category:Interstate 80, Category:Interstate Highways in California
 * Kingery Expressway --> Category:Interstate 80, should have Category:Interstate Highways in Illinois

Shouldn't all of the Category:Interstate Highways in (state) be moved to a subcategory of Category:Interstate 80? I think the point of Category:Interstate 80 was so that Interstate 80 wouldn't have 15+ categories. I think that would make all of the Category:Interstate Highways in (state) categories subcategories of I-80, which is what we want... kind of.

In any event, I'll try this on I-39 (read: a small sample) and see what happens. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 20:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Your logic is flawed in this point: making the state categories subcategories of Cat:I-80 implies that all of the interstates in that state have some relation to I-80, which, unless there's some kind of weird circumstance, is not the case. A discussion over at WT:USRD (I believe) elaborated on this issue further. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It brought up the issues for sure, but I couldn't discern a resolution. What I did with I-39 was...
 * I-39 owns (is a) Category:Interstate 39
 * Category:Interstate 39 is a Category:Interstate Highways in Illinois
 * Category:Interstate 39 is a Category:Interstate Highways in Wisconsin
 * The hairy issue is the implementation of subcategories, which doesn't make sense to me. When I go to Category:Interstate Highways in Illinois, it tells me that it Category:Interstate 39 is a part of that category, which makes sense to me. Wikipedia calls it a subcategory, which sounds misleading. Am I looking at this wrong? &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 21:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Consider this statement, by using the suggested hierarchy above, Interstate 39 in Wisconsin is placed into Cat:Interstate highways in Illinois by way of Cat:I-39. Please read this discussion for a more in-depth explanation. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If I-80 has 15+ cats. so you put them all in Cat:I-80 instead, Cat:I-80 now has 15+ cats. How is that supposed to be better? (If you think nobody's going to look at the category page and see the many parent categories then we shouldn't be having that category page.) If we have an article with too many cats. that's a hint that either:
 * the category structure is flawed, and we have too many categories (Imagine something like "Cat:Interstate Highways in San Francisco", "...in Oakland, California", "...in Berkeley, California", ...), or
 * the category structure lacks sufficient depth, so we can create more appropriate subcategories, e.g. instead of having both Category:Interstate Highway System and Category:Roads in California in an article, we should instead create Category:Interstate Highways in California (this part is already done, this is just an example) and use that in the article.
 * we have a very big article, and we should divide it into smaller articles such that each of those articles will take away some of the categories in the "currently big article" (e.g., Category:Interstate Highways in California should be added to the Interstate 80 in California and removed from Interstate 80), or
 * we have the article in many maintenance categories and should fix the article and remove those.
 * MediaWiki only supports having a "supercategory" for a category, and not categorising categories like categorising articles, i.e. if "Cat:X" has [[Category:Y]] in it, it becomes a subcategory of "Cat:Y". There is no support for us to say "Cat:X is a part of Cat:Y but not a subcategory thereof". Hence, it looks like your concept of "Cat:I-39 is a part of Cat:Interstates in IL" is incompatible with MediaWiki's categorisation scheme, so one shouldn't try to pursue that concept. Also, IMHO MediaWiki support for "is part of" is an overkill. -- Paddu 07:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that Kingery Expressway should be in Category:Interstate Highways in Illinois; taking this to the logical conclusion would mean that all the state highway categories are full of local roads that carry the highways. --NE2 20:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Only notable ones. :-) I wouldn't write an article on the name of every street for a state highway in any given state, for sure, but articles like Wacker Drive (which has no number, and has never been numbered) should exist. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 21:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about notable ones. For instance, the New York category would have Broadway (New York City), Fordham Road, West Side Highway, Henry Hudson Parkway, Queensboro Bridge, Henry Hudson Bridge, Queens Boulevard, Prospect Expressway, Caton Avenue, Linden Boulevard, Boston Road, Northern Boulevard, Hillside Avenue, Conduit Avenue, Sunrise Highway, Jamaica Avenue, Rockaway Boulevard, George Washington Bridge, Alexander Hamilton Bridge, Trans-Manhattan Expressway, Cross-Bronx Expressway, Webster Avenue, Outerbridge Crossing, West Shore Expressway, Staten Island Expressway, Willowbrook Expressway, Bayonne Bridge, Hempstead Avenue - and that's just signed routes in New York City. --NE2 21:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:GA/R
I noticed today that the good article review for the I-295 article was tagged with "Progress: Awaiting consensus to be reached." It seems to me that concensus already has been reached, as the only person who still says it's not GA is the editor who originally failed the nomination, and good points were made by multiple people in support of GA status. Nevertheless, additional input from editors from this project (especially those who have already given their opinion on this page), would be most helpful. -- NORTH talk 00:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

New section proposal
To match the project guidelines with what's being used in practice, I propose adding an optional "Future" section to the project standards. Thoughts? -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * - The IH is always being expanded. This especially has to do with Interstate 69; have nothing to say now. V60 VTalk - VDemolitions 22:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * - Only makes sense; always big projects or extentions being done somewhere. -- M PD T / C 22:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * - That's not there already? That's a bit of a surprise to me. (I have yet to figure out what to do with Interstate 290 (Illinois) too, though... so I'm thinking the section structure is strict, but also open-ended.) &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 22:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support Surprised it wasn't there... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * - Why it's just being brought up now is shocking to me. I'm all for it! EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 14:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why are we voting on this? Can't we just be bold and add it, or even just add it to any articles that might have a use for it? --NE2 14:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I hadn't intended on making this a poll - it just turned out that way. Really, my intention was just to see where consensus stood on this issue and, based on the results above, this addition would be supported by consensus. So, I'll go ahead and add the section. As for adding the section to articles... that's the reason I brought this issue up - some articles already have this section. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 14:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles for exit lists...again
Talk:Pennsylvania Turnpike. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Interstate 278 (Pennsylvania)
Has anyone heard of this? I've marked it for deletion because I couldn't find any sources. --NE2 23:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Never heard of it; and 15 Google pages later, still nothing. Deletion sounds fine.  -- M PD T / C 23:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be any evidence anywhere that the current routing of I-78 was ever proposed under any other number prior to it being proposed as I-78 after abandoning the route through Philipsburg. This "I-278" seems to have been completely made up. Krimpet 00:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Commented on this issue over at WT:PASH; my comments there are identical to the ones above. Green light to deletion. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 01:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What the heck! I have never heard of this one. I'll give www.phillyroads.com a looksie but I didnt see it there before. But yeah, I think it was a vandal. Jgcarter 02:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC) EDIT: Its not listed therefore I say we contact the creator of this page and if (s)he doesnt have a source then we can delete it. Jgcarter 02:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Interestingly I just noticed that this image, from 1967 according to the description, seems to suggest that plans for an Allentown bypass may have existed prior to the rerouting of I-78 in 1969, but there is no information about it anywhere on the Internet to confirm this, let alone that it was to be numbered I-278. Krimpet 02:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Interstate 88 East and West
Shouldn't there be SOME explanation how these two signed Interstates, at roughly the same latitude, came to both be named I-88? Like there was/is the intention that they'll eventually be connected? [Right now, they're separated by several hundred miles, but like I say, at roughly the same latitude. You expect all the duplicate numbering of beltways around cities, but how in the heck did two widely separated E/W Interstates get handed the same stand-alone semi-primary number??? Puzzled.

The disambig page is at:

68.228.70.223 15:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a basically a product of renumbering from suffixed Interstates. Example: Western I-84 used to be I-80N. V60 VTalk - VDemolitions 16:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's also like I-76; there's a section that runs through Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and a section that runs toward Denver, Colorado from I-80. They were never built to meet each other, but due to placement along the grid, it only makes sense to have the same number; they're far enough away that people wouldn't get confused.  Same goes for I-86 and I-84.  I-74, however, is a different situation; both halves are scheduled to meet within the next 20 +/- years.  Other than that, however, the rest will never touch, at least not in the forseeable future. EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 17:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "It is a basically a product of renumbering from suffixed Interstates. Example: Western I-84 used to be I-80N." THAT decision makes sense, I-84 lying pretty much in its numerically proper geography. But the I-76 example (and the others) are just plain silly. But thanks for the answers. But I'll contend that such decisions to so number (including most of the later cited examples) are extremely poor. With a supposed convention that is purportedly in place of the higher numbered Interstates being to the north and east of the country. Not wholly unlike having a N/S I-93 somewhere out close to the Pacific coast, or an E/W I-12 paralleling a stretch of the Canadian border, because they replace 'previous US numbered routes carrying those labels'. The Interstates were intentionally reversed in numbering from the previous (east to west, north to south)numeric sequence, specifically to prevent ambiguity. If there is a numbering convention, failing to follow it is a step towards chaos, IMHO.68.228.70.223 13:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * But how does I-76 (and the other "silly" ones) not fall into convention? I-76 is south of I-80 (and I-78 in the east) and north of I-70 in both cases, I-86 is south I-90 and north of I-84, and I-84 is south of I-90 (I-88 in the east) and north of I-84.  Your example of I-93 in the west and I-12 in the north is invalid, as there's no such plans; the only ones that currently outright violate the grid are I-99 (written into law from a pork-barrel project) and I-238 (the original number designation of a CA Route; there are a few misplaced by one route (I-82, for example), but they're close enough to not cause too much controversy.  The only plan in the works that could screw things up is I-3 from Savannah to, I believe, Augusta, Georgia.  However, that probably will be renumbered, seeing as something like I-93 or I-87 could be reused without confusion, seeing as they end ~900mi and ~550 mi, respectively, away from where this one would run, and either would fit into the grid.


 * In all seriousness, is there anything else that could fit into the grid that's not already in use? I-76 couldn't use I-78, I-74, and I-72 since they're used.  Same thing goes for I-86 and I-84, as I-82 is taken, and even if you wanted to be flexible, I-92 is the only option, but it's still out of kilter.  AASHTO prohibited suffixed routes back in the '70s, and the only reason I-35 can do it is b/c the cities in the path of both legs (Dallas/Fort Worth and Minneapolis/St. Paul) fought long and hard to get an exemption and prevent one of them from getting a 3di instead.  So, without viable alternatives, there's nothing more that can be doen except recycling.  But don't worry: there's not gonna be an I-95 on the West Coast any time soon. EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 14:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Section shuffle
In the past, I actively spoke out against moving the History section above the Exit list, using the reasoning that the present (exits) should come before the past (history). However, after cleaning up the article on the New York State Thruway a little while ago, I realized that placing the History in between the route description and the exit list may actually make the article not only appear better, but actually be better. For this reason, I propose moving the History and Future sections ahead of the list sections (Major intersections and Exit list). The Notes section...ideally, the articles wouldn't have a Notes section as everything in the Notes should be incorporated into other areas of the article. If it can't be integrated into other sections, then chances are that it shouldn't be in the article to begin with. Returning to the point, the History/Future/Notes (?) sections should come before the Exit list and Major intersections. Some articles already have this format, but I'd like to see where consensus stands on this issue. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 03:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I like your idea. The notes section could just be a "Miscellanea" section or something...I dunno.  V 6 0  VTalk ·  VDemolitions  ·  VRoads 04:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC) ( It's getting hot in here...so take off all your clothes! )
 * I've always advocated putting the exit list last; just look at what it did for Pennsylvania Turnpike. Notes and Miscellanea...yes ideally it shouldn't exit, but we all know there will be times when Notes (Miscellanea) may happen.  As for putting all that in front of the Intersections list...it could be very beneficial.  I'd have to see it in action on something like I-10 or I-90.  I've brought it up before, I thought I'd brought it up before (I can't find it), but I still think we could make intersections into a box much like the Cities...but like many things, it sounds good in my head, but in practice it may not work well at all.  Anyway, point: Exit list, after all prose and other lists.  Intersections, let's do a trial for a week or so with a few different Interstates, and if we and other editors like it, we can go ahead with that.  -- M PD T / C 04:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Article Improvement Drive
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads for what we could do. I think it would greatly benefit this project. I know almost everyone who reads this has read it there, but here's the subject on this project's page. -- M PD T / C 20:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Interstate Highways
Can someone who knows about California verify if the recent additions are true, and, if so, cite sources? Thank you. --NE2 01:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Interstate-guide.com supports this... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not a reliable source, and from my experience is full of speculation. --NE2 03:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Found one:, section 3.5. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I found this sentence pretty amusing: "Since there is an I-99 route currently in existence in Pennsylvania, it is anticipated that should designation be granted, the Route 99 designation would become I-7 or I-9 to satisfy Interstate numbering convention." --NE2 06:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Although you never know.  Maybe Caltrans could throw their weight around and have Bud Schuster switch his highway to 7 or 9 (or better yet, 67 or 73) to free up the number for them. -- NORTH talk 18:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Simple question
Should we use lengths table or the custom table with the cyan border? From what I've seen, the usage is about 50/50. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 03:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Use lengths table, as cleanup of articles use this.  V   6   0   VTalk ·  VDemolitions  ·  VRoads 03:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Interstates in independent cities
At the moment, Interstate 95 in Maryland is 35 kilobytes long, with a large portion of that length devoted to describing the route and history of I-95 within the city of Baltimore. Granted, some sections of the article may be redundant or mislabeled, but I doubt that enough information can be deleted to slim the article down to a more reasonable size without compromising its level of comprehensiveness. Given the precedent set for Washington D.C., which is a federal district not part of any state and has a separate locality tag for its Interstate articles, is it permissible to explicitly create Interstate 95 (Baltimore, Maryland) as a separate article, given that Baltimore is an independent city that is not part of any county, but still part of a state?

If the WikiProject chooses to grant this as valid, could the precedent be extended to other independent cities, such as Richmond, Virginia? Separate articles for Richmond are certainly a possibility, as the city has at least two mainline Interstates (and may have several 3dis wholly within its boundaries) that undoubtedly have the same amount of historical and topical information as Baltimore's Interstates. If the WikiProject feels that a separate article is not needed, how do other articles describing state-specific Interstate alignments deal with length issues if/when they arise? -TheOneKEA


 * I don't think the status of the city should matter, but the amount that can be said. We have several articles about I-95 in New York City: Trans-Manhattan Expressway, Cross-Bronx Expressway, and Bruckner Expressway. --NE2 20:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed - I feel that creating such an article is valid because a great deal can be said about the segment under discussion. The fact that Baltimore is an independent city simply made it seem more valid. So can it be done? -TheOneKEA


 * It probably could, provided the article that the information will be split from (in this case Interstate 95 in Maryland) is in good standing. I read this idea and was initially opposed to it, but after reading NE2's post, I'm a bit more open to the idea. As stated above, if the content is there, then make the article. Where trouble begins is when someone makes an article for, say, "Interstate 87 in Saratoga Springs, New York" or some other ridiculously obscure city-specific article.
 * Returning to the issue at hand, for the article title, I think Interstate 95 in Baltimore, Maryland would be more accurate. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Acknowledged. Article is currently being written. -TheOneKEA

OK, the article is finished. Comments are welcome - I had a bit of trouble balancing content in places between the child article and the parent article. -TheOneKEA
 * The article is really good, I'd say it proves that there is enough content to justify other city-specific articles where appropriate. My only suggestion is make sure to avoid neologisms, particularly "ghost interchange". Krimpet 02:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, if the content is their, by all means. What is this independent city stuff? So it's not located in a county, how does the city annex more land, does it steal it from an adjacent county? San Antonio's city limits are constantly expanding, but the county is still present and has jurisdiction over the entire county, regardless of city limits. Also, I don't see how this is relavent to having a seperate article, the city is independent of a county, not of the state, which has the article. --Holderca1 18:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * An independent city is a city that is not part of a county. All cities in Virginia are like this.  The county has no say in anything with an independent city, it's a separate entity.  In Virginia though, an independent city can be the county seat of the county around it.  Charlottesville an independent city in the center of Albemarle County.  It's not a part of Albemarle County, but it's also the county seat of Albemarle County.  The courts and all that jazz are located within Charlottesville.  It's an abstract idea, I know.  Towns, however, are part of a county.  The independent city article is pretty good at explaining it.  Greensboro, North Carolina is part of Guilford County, North Carolina, and it is always annexing new land (like the Greensboro Urban Loop, which used to be outside Greensboro, but now is part of Greensboro).  I'm no lawyer, but I'm guessing independent cities aren't able to annex new land.  At least not as easily as San Antonio, Greensboro, or Winston-Salem.
 * The content was created after we began talks. I think it's fine, and it should be a case-by-case basis on Interstate in City articles.  -- M PD T / C 19:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge Interstate 294 into Tri-State Tollway?
This is an unusual case.

I-294 (53 miles) is wholly and entirely within the Tri-State Tollway (78 miles). This makes reading and editing the two articles an exercise in frustration.

Previous merges of this sort have been the Eisenhower Expressway (23 miles) into I-290 (30 miles). But I think in this case I-294 is just going to have to redirect to Tri-State Tollway, and then we can make a consistent article from there. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 17:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I oppose this. If that happens, you could also suggest merging I-276 into the PA Turnpike, and I'm sure there are some other examples.  I support merging expressway (or "named roads") pages into Interstate articles, but not the other way around.  I can see where you're coming from though.  -- M PD T / C 18:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict] That's what I was about to say!  V   6   0   VTalk ·  VDemolitions  ·  VRoads 18:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay... I suppose at the expense of the Tri-State Tollway article, anything that has to do with I-294 will be placed in the I-294 article. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 21:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Just do it like you would any other article, in the 294 section of the Tri-State Tollway article, put at the top.  --Holderca1 23:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:3di
Template:3di (the 3di spur navboxes) may appear broken for a short time, as the changes to the template proposed and agreed on long ago are in the process of being implemented. Your patience is appreciated. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting us know and finally taking care of that. -- NORTH talk 23:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I think I got all of the 3di templates updated, so we should be good to go. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 02:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Goodbye
Hello Fellow Wikipedians! I have enjoyed my time editing here on Wikipedia but I feel it is time to move on. I have done cleanup on some pages and other edits here but I feel it is time to start my own website for roads, I will post the link when it goes live. I have removed a chunck of articles from my watchlist and will begin to make a steady transition out. My subsequent edits will be more for matience and/or minor information changes. I have no hard feelings towards this project but I feel its time to move on. I am not leaving Wikipedia, just this project as it would not be appropriate for me to do this in addition to my future website. Thank you all for the wonderful time I had here! If there is anything you all want help with or want my opinion on, just let me know! All the best! Jgcarter 19:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC) PS- You can help me out by using my website for citations!

Interstate 14 and Interstate 3
Would anyone have any objections to moving the article to "14th Amendment Highway"? Right from the FHWA, there's no future I-14 corridor designation yet, even here on that map. I think it would be better as 14th Amendment Highway for now. -- M PD T / C 18:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking around some more, I-3 is in the same position as I-14. So also moving Interstate 3 to "Third Infantry Division Highway" could be in order, because neither of them have been designated as future Interstate corridors.  -- M PD T / C 18:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like I-14 is the common name:  --NE2 18:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * To be fair though, of "Interstate 14" search, on the first page, only three of those are about the Interstate 14 we're referring to, two are about an already existing Interstate 14 in California which isn't correct, and the rest are about movie theatres (Regal Interstate 14) or mistakes (...interstate. 14...).  On the second page, only three again are about Interstate 14.  That's not to say how many of the articles are duplicates of other articles.
 * Even so, I'm not saying it's not a common name (there's the "Stop I-3" group), I'm just saying it's speculative and not official. I don't mind leaving them as is; just a thought though that it would be a better name for the article because of the speculation all around on the numbering of the highway.  -- M PD T / C 18:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I know that, but "14th Amendment Highway" only gives three relevant results total, and one also uses "I-14". People are actually calling it I-14, not the "14th Amendment Highway". --NE2 18:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, keep the current titles, for consistency reasons as well.  V   6   0   VTalk ·  VDemolitions  ·  VRoads 19:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think consistency is a valid reason, since these aren't Interstates. But "Interstate 14" is the name people are using. --NE2 19:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what I was meaning. Obviously people aren't really referring to US 6 as "Grand Army of the Republic Highway" that much, and it's the same case with I-14 and 3.   V   6   0   VTalk ·  VDemolitions  ·  VRoads 19:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I would prefer retaining the common names and having the other names you mention redirecting to the pages. --Mhking 21:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Interstate 238
This has been moved from Talk:Interstate 238.

Given this runs between a 580 and an 880, and was assigned 238 because CalTrans did not have space in the x80 range, and is generally considered to be anomalously numbered contrary to the usual rules, that logically would suggest its de facto parent would be I-80, no? Chris cheese whine 06:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have a parent defacto or otherwise. True 80 would have been its parent in a perfect world, but it's well documented from many sources that it technically doesn't have an existing parent until an I-38 comes about. Gateman1997 01:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Those are (in order), 404, 404, a personal home page, and 404. You can't argue that it doesn't have a parent purely based on its number.  The statements from AASHTO and CalTrans suggest with very little doubt that it is part of the x80 family.  Chris cheese whine 21:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the dead links. All 4 support my position on the matter. Also I'd like to see any evidence you have that says explicitly that AASHTO or Caltrans consider it a child of 80. I can find no such evidence. Gateman1997 08:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've also found this on the Caltrans site. . You'll notice that Caltrans links to at least one site, AA Roads from link 1, that supports my view. Gateman1997 09:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * RTFA. Chris cheese whine 17:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 238 is a family of its own. It is not related to I-80. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A fine opinion, but what definitive source do you have to support this viewpoint. AASHTO and Caltrans are pretty definitive. -- KelleyCook 18:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And the links are where? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't make me take screenshots. RTFA.  Chris cheese whine 19:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The source SPUI gave does not support your view. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In much the same way that my locak bus timetable doesn't support that view. The source above is a list, and gives no indication of parentage.  Chris cheese whine 19:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So where are your sources? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The quotes in the article beg to differ. AASHTO > you.  Chris cheese whine 18:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I just re-read the above comments. AARoads is a site run by a couple of roadgeeks.  Why are they apparently a greater authority than the memos from the California DOT and AASHTO on the page?  Chris cheese whine 19:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * They wouldn't be if AASHTO and Caltrans actually had a position on the matter but I can't find any such position beyond AASHTO objecting to the numbering because it violates the numbering system (because 238 isn't a child of 80), and Caltrans not even acknowledging it being an interstate on many of their lists and still referring to it as SR 238 including its exit numbering on CAL NEXUS. However AARoads is provided as BY CALTRANS as a reliable source of information. I'd like to see this evidence you claim to have that AASHTO and Caltrans consider it a child of 80. Because the 238 article shows that the major objection AASHTO had to Caltrans numbering it that way was that 238 is NOT a child of 80, which is why they suggested it be numbered as an 80 child. Gateman1997 19:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (indent reset) To address your non-points:
 * AASHTO objecting to the numbering because it violates the numbering system (because 238 isn't a child of 80). No, their objection actually suggests the exact opposite, that it is a child of 80 (hence them suggesting alternatives to give it an x80 designation).
 * However AARoads is provided as BY CALTRANS as a reliable source of information. No, it is provided by a pair of road enthusiasts, and therefore not a reliable source of information.
 * I'd like to see this evidence you claim to have that AASHTO and Caltrans consider it a child of 80. IT'S IN THE ARTICLE.  AASHTO suggest an x80 numbering, therefore they believe it is an auxiliary to 80.  CalTrans say "We'd like to, but can't", therefore evidently they also believed it to be an auxiliary to 80.  Then there's the insignificant fact of its endpoints being on 580 and 880.  All the reliable evidence points to it being part of the x80 family.  Saying that it isn't purely on the basis of the number is like saying a woman is not related to her parents because she married and took her husband's name.  It's utter nonsense.  Chris cheese whine 19:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * All AASHTO implies there is that is SHOULD have been a child of 80. They objected to the numbering because by using 238 it isn't a child of 80 and thus violates the numbering scheme. Gateman1997 19:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it implies that it IS a child of 80, and SHOULD have been numbered x80. Chris cheese whine 19:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You're making a jump of logic that's just not there. They would not have objected if it were actually a child of 80. However because it isn't they objected. But if you have ANY evidence other then RTFA please provide it. I've given at least one Caltrans endorsed link that supports my view and 3 roadgeek ones that also do. Gateman1997 19:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Your logic is flawed, and the wrong way around. They objected because the proposed number did not fit.  They saw it as a child of 80, wanted it to have an x80 number, and suggested alternative solutions that would have given it an x80 number.  It is logically impossible to reach your conclusion from the statement on this page.  Chris cheese whine 20:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This is by far the worst thing I've seen since WP:SRNC. It's a poll started by one person, clearly originally written to support his views, and still being edited to support his views, with options being struck through despite his own rules: "Feel free to add alternative options, but do not remove any. There's faulty logic on both sides.  One is trying to define I-238 as not a member of the I-80 family solely by its number – the sources being used to do so are somewhat questionable, but it is supported by AASHTO's numbering rules.  The other side (which as the "poll" below shows is comprised of one person) is trying to define it as a member based solely on its termini, which is somewhat supported by AASHTO's quotes, but by this logic Interstate 287 would be a member of the I-95 family.

The article as it's written right now does not explicitly state that I-238 is not a member of the I-80 family. Anything added to the article stating that it is (or isn't) would need to be sourced (since it's obviously questionable). The claim that IT'S IN THE ARTICLE isn't enough; that would be an original research leap of faith. -- NORTH talk 22:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to reiterate what I said above, this whole discussion is moot. Unless there's a source out there that explicitly states that I-238 is a child of I-80 – or a non-roadgeek site that says that it isn't – anything we derive here is going to be original research.  It's the perfect example of Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position.  On either side, look how many logical hoops we have to jump through to "prove" our case.  (I use quotes because at this point I'm fairly sure neither side will be able to convince the other.)  No good will come of this. -- NORTH talk 22:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

'''This is ridiculous. Discuss it here or on Talk:Interstate 238 but don't have a bloody vote.''' --SPUI (T - C) 23:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Facts
Polls are evil, but I think it's important that we stop and ensure that we are all on the same page, and looking at the same reality here, so let's step back, ignore each other's opinions, and examine the substantive facts of the matter. Numbered statements in this section should be simple statements, or logical extensions thereof. Feel free to add alternative options, but do not remove any. Any combination of facts must state its derivation. If you oppose any suggested interpretation, you must state why you oppose. Chris cheese whine 20:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

1. The endpoints of the road are junctions with I-580 and I-880, near the San Francisco Bay Area.

 * Support. Chris cheese whine 20:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose- be more specific. CA-238 does not have those terminii but I-238 does. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per rschen.  V   6   0   干什么？ ·  VDemolitions  ·  VRoads (路) 20:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

1.1. The endpoints of the stretch of road documented in this article are junctions with I-580 and I-880, near the San Francisco Bay Area.

 * Support. Chris cheese whine 20:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Partially oppose, actually the end point in the physical east/road south is at SR 238 and I 580. Gateman1997 21:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC
 * That would be a junction with I-580, just as the statement suggests, then ... Chris cheese whine 21:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose how may x80s were there available when Caltrans made the choice? Also - A road is a road is a road is a road. --  master_son  Talk  -  Edits 21:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

1.2. The endpoints of the stretch of road documented in this article are junctions with what are now I-580 and I-880, near the San Francisco Bay Area.

 * Adopted - no further comment on this particular one. Enough arguing over technicalities, we know which 2-mile piece of road we're looking at.  Chris cheese whine 21:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

2. The numbering of I-238 is non-standard.

 * Adopted - clear agreement on this one. Chris cheese whine 21:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. The standard is prefixing the number of a route to which it is related.  Chris cheese whine 20:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support because the number comes from a CASR. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per rschen.  V   6   0   干什么？ ·  VDemolitions  ·  VRoads (路) 20:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support because the number comes from CASR and my provided evidence. Gateman1997 20:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support based on the rules of Interstate system --  master_son  Talk  -  Edits 21:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

3. Following (2), the number I-238 would imply a spur of I-38, which does not exist.

 * Adopted Chris cheese whine 21:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. Chris cheese whine 20:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. but see notes above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per rschen.  V   6   0   干什么？ ·  VDemolitions  ·  VRoads (路) 20:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per my statements above. Gateman1997 20:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

4. The road is a little over 2 miles long.

 * Adopted - as with 1.2, it's clear which stretch of road we're dealing with. Chris cheese whine 21:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Support - definitely looks that way to me. Chris cheese whine 20:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Supoort conditionally. I-238 is a little over 2 miles long. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per all.  V   6   0   干什么？ ·  VDemolitions  ·  VRoads (路) 20:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support conditionally per Rschen. Gateman1997 21:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

5. Following (1) and (4), the road is part of the I-80 system.

 * Rejected Chris cheese whine 21:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Support - ignore the number, and it fits. Chris cheese whine 20:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose faulty premise. Citing I-105, where a route does not have to meet its parent to be a spur, --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not faulty, and the case you cite supports this interpretation, as I-238 does not directly meet I-80 either. Chris cheese whine 20:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose also citing Interstate 370.  V   6   0   干什么？ ·  VDemolitions  ·  VRoads (路) 20:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This opinion seems to be confused for precisely the same reason as above. Chris cheese whine 20:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my evidence above, per Caltrans linking to my evidence, per AASHTO's objection, and per I370. Gateman1997 21:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. I370 doesn't make a difference here.  I370 doesn't meet I70, and I238 doesn't meet I80 either.  Chris cheese whine 21:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

==== 6. Although I-238 may function as a spur of I-80 (functionally), it is not legislatively a spur of I-80. As Wikipedia is based on fact not opinion, I-238 should not be treated as a spur of I-80 on Wikipedia. ====
 * Rejected - not a well-formed proposal. Break the first sentence up into a logical sequence, and lose the second sentence altogether.  Chris cheese whine 21:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * How can you "reject". Gateman1997 21:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Because, asd I've said three times now, it is not a well-formed finding of fact . Chris cheese whine 21:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify this, the two parts of the first sentence need to be proposed independently. One is proposed as #7 below, and the second makes a jump without identifying its premises.  The second sentence is pure opinion, and does not follow from the premises given.  Chris cheese whine 22:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - please re-read the instructions at the top of this section. First sentence not supported by other proposed findings of fact on this page, and the second sentence is editorialising on your part.  Chris cheese whine 20:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So you can only propose something if it supports your view. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, but this is for findings of fact. Break the statement apart into its constituent parts, and remove all mention of what we should or should not do on Wikipedia - that is essentially trying to prejudge the issue.  Chris cheese whine 21:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Chris, what you wrote on your oppose statement derivatively implies WP:CANVASS.  V   6   0   干什么？ ·  VDemolitions  ·  VRoads (路) 21:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. In whay way?  All I said is that the first sentence needs to be broken up, and the second sentence effectively decides the whole issue, by-passing the whole point of this.  Chris cheese whine 21:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Do not strike that statement again. That is striking someone else's comments. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not a well-formed finding of fact. Chris cheese whine 21:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per legislative definition.  V   6   0   干什么？ ·  VDemolitions  ·  VRoads (路) 20:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per the reasoning I've expounded above. Gateman1997 21:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per Rschen and V60 - your opposition Chris pretty much tells us that you need to approve opinions before they go up - and that is not how this works --  master_son <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #aca607!important;"> Talk <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #aca607!important;"> - <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #aca607!important;"> Edits 21:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This section is about trying to find facts. Statement 6 was an editorial opinion.  Chris cheese whine 21:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

7. From (1.2), I-238 functions as part of the I-80 network.

 * Support - from Rschen's statement #6 above. Chris cheese whine 21:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

8. As in the cases of I-105 and I-370, an Interstate route does not need to meet its parent directly

 * Support - from the discussion above. Chris cheese whine 21:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, this is true, but it would support I-38 as parent of 238 then since 238 doesn't have to meet its parent. Gateman1997 21:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The second sentence is making a jump, and again prejudging the issue at hand, but not relevant to whether or not we consider this particular statement to be true. Is this making it clearer as to what I'm trying to achieve here?  Chris cheese whine 21:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You've struck out and changed so many of your statements above and below so far that I'm having trouble remembering what it was you were trying to prove. Joking of course. But to he honest, your tweaking your statements isn't changing the fact we get what you're trying to say, and 4 people have now rejected your supposition. Per WP:CON you may have to live with that. Gateman1997 22:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, you misunderstand the nature of consensus. This process is aiming to establish the facts, and nothing more.  No opinions, and no editorialising.  Just the facts, ma'am.  Chris cheese whine 22:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. The examples given in #5 above did use faulty logic. Use Interstate 287 as an example instead.  Just because it has both termini at I-95 doesn't make it a member of that family. -- NORTH talk 22:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 287 meets 87 in the middle rather than at the ends. Statement 8 is whether or not an 3DI must meet its parent.  Chris cheese whine 22:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Statement 5 was that since it ends at I-580 and I-880, it must be a member of the I-80 family. -- NORTH talk 22:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

9. I-238 meets no other Interstate highways than I-580 and I-880

 * Support (unless I'm missing one) Chris cheese whine 22:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

1. CalTrans proposed the number 238 based on, amongst other factors, the previous designation of the road as CA-238.

 * Adopted Chris cheese whine 22:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. Chris cheese whine 20:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support legislatively.  V   6   0   干什么？ ·  VDemolitions  ·  VRoads (路) 20:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support as it is the northern extension of SR238 to this day in most of Caltrans reporting and documentation such as Road Conditions and CALNEXUS. Gateman1997 21:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support CA law does not diffrentiate between I's and SR's in the law. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

2. AASHTO initially objected to the number.

 * Support. Chris cheese whine 20:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose ...the establishment of Route 880 and Route 238 have been approved.  V   6   0   干什么？ ·  VDemolitions  ·  VRoads (路) 20:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the did approve it, objections came after approval. Gateman1997 21:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

2.1. AASHTO initially expressed tacit objection to the number.

 * Support - evidently they didn't like it while approving it. Chris cheese whine 20:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Reject, they approved it first, objections came later. Gateman1997 21:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

2.2. AASHTO expressed tacit objection to the number.

 * Support - they did express some objection, clearly. Chris cheese whine 21:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

3. AASHTO suggested alternative options which would have numbered the road in the I-x80 series.

 * Support - stated in the article. Chris cheese whine 20:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per quotes.  V   6   0   干什么？ ·  VDemolitions  ·  VRoads (路) 20:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per quote on the main page. Gateman1997 21:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

4. Following (2) (2.1) and (3), AASHTO's intention was to number it I-x80.

 * Support - not a big jump. Chris cheese whine 20:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose AASHTO gave CalTrans an option, not AASHTO demanding x80 numbering.  V   6   0   干什么？ ·  VDemolitions  ·  VRoads (路) 20:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Their offering the option suggests that it was their intention. If they did not intend to do so, they would not have offered it.  Chris cheese whine 20:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, they objected and gave options, but they didn't show any intention of naming it an x80 since that's not their call. Caltrans submits numbers and they approve or disapprove. They'd already approved 238. Gateman1997 21:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So, if they did not prefer x80, why did they suggest it? Chris cheese whine 22:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

5. Following (4), AASHTO believed the road to be part of the I-80 system.

 * Support - otherwise they would not have suggested such numbering in the first place. Chris cheese whine 20:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose AASHTO's numbering rules apply to every single Interstate—no exceptions.  V   6   0   干什么？ ·  VDemolitions  ·  VRoads (路) 20:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This statement is specious - the number violates the rules, that's why we're here. Chris cheese whine 20:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per their suggestion that it be renamed to an X80 after the approval of 238. They approved it but obviously had reservations because the non standard numbering put it outside the X80 family. Gateman1997 21:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "...the non standard numbering put it outside the X80 family". That isn't backed up anywhere, and is part of the reason we're discussing this in the first place.  Chris cheese whine 21:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually as I've pointed out it is backed up in multiple places by "roadgeeks" as you term them. While they're not the most authoritative sources I'll grant you, however AA Roads, which supports my position, is linked to directly from Caltrans which is definitely an authoritative source on California Highways. Gateman1997 21:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * AA Roads is still a hobbyist site, and not a reliable or authoritative source by any definition, regardless of who links to it. Chris cheese whine 21:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would beg to differ. A large public entity linking to a site is tacit approval of its content IMHO. Gateman1997 21:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:RS. I don't see "some government person decided to link to them" in the list of criteria.  Chris cheese whine 21:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please provide a reliable source that EXPLICITLY states what you're suggesting is fact. Saying RTFA doesn't give us any evidence to support you. I've provided at lease partially reliable sources, lets see you do the same. I don't think you can. I've searched AASHTO's site and found nothing. In the absence of that evidence we'll have to build a consensus, one you keep striking out. Gateman1997 21:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are misunderstanding the concepts of "reliable sources" and "consensus". A source is reliable, or it isn't.  It's not "partially reliable".  The original memos are reliable sources, and if you ask nicely, I'm sure CalTrans or AASHTO would find copies of them for you.  Chris cheese whine 21:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The memos do not say I-238 is a child of I-80, or a member of the I-80 family. Many interstates had different planning numbers originally.  On of the I-79 spurs in Pittsburgh was originally given an x76 number (or vice versa).  An x95 number was originally considered for I-676 (actually present I-76).  -- NORTH talk 22:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.