Talk:Interstate 49 in Arkansas

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interstate 540 to be redesignated as I-49[edit]

http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/I-49-announcement-north.pdf

Requested move 23 April 2014[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: not moved no consensus. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 49 in Arkansas → Interstate 49 in Arkansas and Texas – since a very small section plan on going into Texas it does not need it's own article but a small section just like done with Interstate 24 in Tennessee and Georgia where I-24 briefly goes into Georgia from and back into Tennessee, this highway is just like that but with it going into Texas from and back into Arkansas. Sawblade5 (talk to me | my wiki life) 13:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose—actually, I think the other article should be retitled to remove the "and Georgia" from its title. As in this case, if the highway was closer to a 50–50 split in lengths, then I'd support the rename. As it is, the Texas highway segment is so short that it doesn't need a separate article, which is why it redirects here. A similar situation is why there are not Michigan, Indiana or Ohio articles for U.S. Route 8, U.S. Route 131 or U.S. Route 223, respectively. Imzadi 1979 → 23:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, for now. I believe that the merge requests should be sorted out prior to this move request being considered, given the fact that Interstate 540 (Arkansas) was just renamed Interstate 49 today. Steel1943 (talk) 23:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because it's good to have true titles. Red Slash 03:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As of right now, there isn't any Texas-related content though, so the title isn't "false" at the present. Imzadi 1979 → 03:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I mean, this is hardly WP:CRYSTAL, right? Aren't they building it right now? Red Slash 04:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

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

Merge Discussion of Arkansas Highway 549[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved
 – I moved the original title to Arkansas Highway 549 (2004–2014) and redirected that to I-49. In its place, I recreated the AR 549 article as a stub about the Bella Vista Bypass. –Fredddie™ 06:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the proposal tag and saw that it need a discussion topic on it.

Partial Article Merge Support Since the article as it is now somewhat redundant to this one and the fact that the 549 the article is about is now part of I-49 I say go ahead and merge that section. However there's another issue here, there's a new AR-549 in the Bella Vista, AR area Bella Vista Bypass that the article needs to talk about making it outdated really bad. There needs to be some info on this and need to keep that section on the Bella Vista Bypass as Arkansas Highway 549 until the Highway Project is completed and becomes I-49. Sawblade5 (talk to me | my wiki life) 13:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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


Merge Discussion of Interstate 540 (Arkansas)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was merging the relevant parts of Interstate 540 (Arkansas) into Interstate 49 in Arkansas and keeping the I-540 article because the Fort Smith segment is remaining. –Fredddie™ 20:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is now official: the I-540 located in Arkansas has now been renamed I-49. Here are some refs from news outlets that report this fact:

If anyone who specializes in these types of edits wants to get around to performing this merger, be my guest ... considering that per these reports, the portion of I-540 in Arkansas has now been renamed and absorbed into I-49. Steel1943 (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally this should happen. The only thing I am not certain of is what will become of the segemnt of I-540 between the Oklahoma state line and US 71. Once we know that and can back it up, I see no reason to not move forward. –Fredddie™ 00:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is, unless the plan is to route I-49 along US 59 from Texarkana to Fort Smith. –Fredddie™ 00:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Various newspaper and TV reports have said I-540 from I-40 at Van Buren to the Oklahoma State Line will NOT change to I-49.US 71 (talk)

So is that remaining I-540 or changing to something else? –Fredddie™ 00:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge objections[edit]

Does anyone still object to the merge of this article?? With current knowledge, I support that this article should be merged with Interstate 49 in Arkansas, as well as a move of Interstate 540 (North Carolina) to the un-disambiguated Interstate 540. There can be a dis-ambiguation header at the top of the new Interstate 540 article saying:

{{About|Interstate 540 in North Carolina|the former Interstate 540 in Arkansas|Interstate 49 in Arkansas}} Any thoughts?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of I-540 is becoming I-49, so yes, I oppose an all-out merge. –Fredddie™ 00:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Show me a map of Arkansas that has both the new I-49 and I-540, with the I-49 in black and the section of I-540 that's not becoming I-49 in red. Georgia guy (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're asking for a map that does not yet exist. However, THIS is the application that AHTD submitted to AASHTO regarding the designation of I-49. On the map included (the fourth page of the PDF), you can clearly see that I-540 south of I-40 remains. The application was approved by AASHTO on October 28, 2013. –Fredddie™ 01:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose a merger at this time because it's too early for the change to fully reflected in sources and it is unclear as to whether I-540 still exists or not. As User:Fredddie notes, this source strongly implies the original rump I-540 will continue to exist. —  AjaxSmack  00:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose and all-out merger, because it's not all becoming I-49, but I have already started merging the relevant portion, which we should do with bells on. –Fredddie™ 13:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have completed the merger/split. Would someone care to look it over to see if I may have missed something? –Fredddie™ 15:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You missed adding a line about the History of I-540 going into NW Arkanasas the way the article reads now, it is as if I-540 never used that section of I-49. Sawblade5 (talk to me | my wiki life) 21:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Per above, I-540 still exists as a separate Highway from I-49 in the Fort Smith Area. However the page needs fixed to where it needs to list the history of the route using the Section of I-49 into NW Arkansas before it got numbered to I-49. Sawblade5 (talk to me | my wiki life) 21:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Expected to open in 2014[edit]

It's 2014 now. Can anyone add better info?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 09:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 49 in Arkansas → Interstate 49 in Arkansas and Texas – Google Earth says that the short section that heads into Texas and back into Arkansas has been constructed. (Yes, some segments are still being constructed, but the short part in Texas has been constructed. Georgia guy (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose—Interstate 49 in Texas redirects to this article, making the proposed move unnecessary. Given the relative disparity in lengths between the two states, it's not necessary to give both "equal billing" in the article title. Imzadi 1979 → 22:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. If the segment is partially in Texas, is it okay to pretend it's fully in Arkansas?? No, it's not. A road partially in Texas is a road partially in Texas, regardless of how short the Texas distance is. If the Texas distance were long enough to be in its own article, it could go in a separate article called Interstate 49 in Texas. But it's too short, and it's surrounded by parts that are both in Arkansas, so the best solution is to have it here. But we still shouldn't pretend that the short Texas distance is still in Arkansas?? That's what the title of the article is doing; it implies that the segments in states other than Arkansas of the distance of the highway this article focuses on is exactly zero. Any article title you would like to compare this with?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are two options at work. U.S. Route 2 in Michigan has two segments of highway in the state separated by a short segment in Wisconsin. This article could do the same and totally not cover the Texas segment of I-49 other than to say that the highway leaves Arkansas and then re-enters the state. In that case, Interstate 49 in Texas should be redirected to Interstate 49 and covered there without state-detail article.

        The second option is the status quo whereby the Texas segment is still covered in this article. As for similar titles, we have the situation with State Route 74 (New York–Vermont). In that case, the article deals fairly evenly between the New York and Vermont segments, so both states are listed in the title. However, Vermont Route 149 has been merged and redirect to New York State Route 149 because the former is just over a mile and the latter is over 32 miles in length. With this precedent in mind, we do not have to have a merged title when one highway is clearly dominant over the other. Imzadi 1979 → 03:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose – the article notes "follows through the Texas state line for a few hundred feet." This is hardly a reason to change the description of the article topic. Dicklyon (talk) 03:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – NY 17 passes through Pennsylvania for maybe a few thousand feet (just guessing). Just don't confuse that with Pennsylvania Route 17, which doesn't even hatnote back to the section I'm thinking of. The fact that any highway briefly passes through another state for a few hundred or thousand feet is trivia. – Wbm1058 (talk) 11:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Until it gets completely built, adding "Texas" into the title is essentially a WP:CRYSTAL violation. Steel1943 (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

49 at 412 Bypass[edit]

I do not know if it is worth mentioning or if this is the right place, but the 412 Bypass at I-49 will have a temporary designation of Arkansas Highway 612 when it opens in 2018. This is per an e-mail from Arkansas Department of Transportation US 71 (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC) Arkansas Highway 612. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HighwayTyper (talk • contribs) 18:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The map[edit]

Why does the article state that there are currently two sections of I-49, when the map shows three? It seems that the map is wrong, for the brief northernmost section is currently designated (like the "future" section in yellow) as Arkansas State Highway 549. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HighwayTyper (talk • contribs) 16:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I-49 North Exit Numbers[edit]

I am assuming that the exit numbers on the northern segment from Fort Smith to Bella Vista will be renumbered in the future. Cwater1 (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bella Vista Bypass exit renumbering, winter 2021-2022[edit]

Looks like we have a bit of an edit war going on. Exit numbers were changed from "Future I-49" numbers to a continuation of the old I-540 numbers in late 2021 or January 2022. It may not make much sense that ARDOT did this, but it was in fact done. Video confirming this is provided in the citation I added in my [second edit] on 14:29, 20 February 2022‎. Please take the time to view the citations provided, rather than just skipping straight to "Look at Google!" Google Maps is not the be-all and end-all; it frequently has incorrect & outdated information. This is one of those times. Google is wrong. Yakra (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interstate_49_in_Arkansas&oldid=1202981579"