Talk:List of auxiliary Interstate Highways

Contributions

Hi all 3di contributors

I was wondering if:

• Any way to section this list into separately editable sections, since this list is getting so big? (Haven't found any related templates yet.)
  • Thanks Bkonrad. Bwefler 19:05, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Want to collaborate & divvy out who does 3di's from which primary interstate? So far I have done (hopefully completely) the 3dis for many interstates involving western states, Texas, and some Midwestern states (and others I'd "call'em as I see 'em?")
  • I'll take I-24,26,30,40. talking to myself here ... Bwefler 19:30, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Any other suggestions?

Thanks. Bwefler talk 17:46, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I-805

Isn't the 805 a connector between I-5 and I-8 and hence the name? (I know the Interstate system relies on the list two digits for the main Interstate it associates with, but I think there could be a mention of I-8 here.) RickK 00:50, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Maybe save that for a historical section or something ... Bwefler talk 03:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • The 8 in the name is pure coincidence; it was the fourth even 3DI off I-5 (after 205, 405 and 605). --SPUI (talk) 22:09, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I-805 is actually I-5's bypass of San Diego downtown. --17:07, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

A couple notes

We should link to the pages for the Interstates. I've been working on separating them into pages (which I've done for the I-95 spurs). So we should link to [[I-295 (FL)|]] for instance, and if necessary put up a temporary redirect to the main page.

Unbuilt Interstates and old numbers should be included, but we need a line to keep stuff like I-102 out. I propose the following:

1. Don't list it if it was renumbered by 1959, when the routes were signed.
2. Don't list anything that was quickly renumbered, UNLESS the number was used by non-internal sources (like newspapers).

This goes without saying, but no I-394 (MI), no I-875 (MI), etc.

I think we should sort the states by order served along the parent, from south to north and west to east. Maybe sort the 3DIs by where they spur from the parent. --SPUI (talk) 22:42, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"I-38 does not exist..."

Hey all -- Since Interstate 38 does not exist, I recommend that I-238 be listed under heading "Other" or "Orphan."

Thanks -- Bwefler (talk) 17:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Object - someone looking for I-238 would see the pattern and look for it between 35 and 40. --SPUI (talk) 18:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the move idea and have done so WP:BOLDly... Interstate 38 doesn't exist and listing it would just confuse people. 238 should be listed in a section describing what it is, an exception. It's not a typical 3DI but neither is it a primary interstate.Gateman1997 20:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with moving it, however, I'd put it under I-80 (IIRC they ran out of numbers in California), then make a note of why it's an exception to the format. Just my $.02. Mtndrums (talk) 09:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Only issue I'd have with that is strictly speaking I-238 is a not an auxiliary interstate of I-80 either. If they'd intended it to be they easily could have changed the number in recent years to 480 but they've yet to do so which seems to me to indicate they do not intend it to be an aux of 80. For now it does just remain an exception to the general rules. Gateman1997 (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ref's need full state names to avoid redirects

SPUI:

I appreciate your efforts, but I have been spelling out the state names in the city article links to avoid redirect messages. (See in the history, NiteOwlNeil's note.)

Bwefler 02:58, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Redirects are there to use, and to make life easier. This way you can simply type [[I-295 (RI)|]] and get I-295. --SPUI (talk) 01:18, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Significance?

What is the significance of three-digit highways? Why have a list of these, separate from other highways? The introduction to this article should address these questions. I suspect three-digit highways are different from regular highways in some way ... dbenbenn | talk 09:54, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

These are meant to be less major spurs from the more major two-digit ones. Having these in a separate list keeps the 2-digit list from getting cluttered. --SPUI (talk) 10:51, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also, for example, I-180 is different from all other interstates since it has traffic signals almost everywhere. No other interstate can make that distinction, and it is also the shortest interstate. Vishwin60 03:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

• Found an even shorter one I-315 Justin 22:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• There was an error on the trivia I-878 is the shortest unsigned interstate at 4.93 miles. But I-478 in NY is only 9,000+ feet. Justin 22:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I-878 is 0.70 mi, so it is the shortest interstate. I-478 is 2.14 mi, according to the FHWA. V60 ^{VTalk - VDemolitions} 21:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• I removed the trivia section completely as it's inappropriate for a list article, all the info is already found elsewhere (mostly at Interstate Highway System), and the info that was there was inaccurate and contradictory anyway. Krimpet 04:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Table Completed!

The table of the List of auxiliary Interstate Highways is now officially completed! Artisol2345 16:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The list is also completed! However, I am willing to fix any inaccurate information and have the article conform to the highest qualities. But if you have any need to fix anything else, please do so. Artisol2345 00:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Improve list

How do you all think we can organize the table a little more? 68.101.124.142 01:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

More Information?

This article has too little of information for an article that has a long list.

-- Artisol2345

23:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a new proposal!

Interstate Length Southern/Western terminus Northern/Eastern terminus Interstate 5 California I-105 17.32 mi (27.87 km) SR 1 in El Segundo I-605 in Norwalk I-205 12.97 mi (20.87 km) I-580 near Tracy I-5 near Tracy I-305 8.44 mi (13.58 km) I-80 in West Sacramento I-80 BUS/US 50/SR 99 in Sacramento I-405 72.15 mi (116.11 km) I-5 in Irvine I-5 in Mission Hills I-505 32.98 mi (53.08 km) I-80 in Vacaville I-5 in Dunnigan I-605 27.40 mi (44.10 km) I-405 in Seal Beach I-210 in Irwindale I-805 28.02 mi (45.09 km) I-5 in San Diego I-5 in San Ysidro I-905 Proposed auxiliary route to connect to the Mexican border in the San Diego area Oregon I-105 3.49 mi (5.62 km) OR 99 in Eugene I-5 in Springfield I-405 3.53 mi (5.68 km) I-5 in Portland I-5 in Portland Oregon-Washington I-205 36.64 mi (58.97 km) I-5 in Tualatin, OR I-5 in Salmon Creek, WA Washington I-405 30.30 mi (48.76 km) I-5/WA 518 in Tukwila I-5/WA 525 in Lynnwood I-605 Proposed to bypass Seattle I-705 1.50 mi (2.41 km) I-5/WA 7 in Tacoma Schuster Parkway in Tacoma

Hi! I've been wroking on remaking the table and try to make it look neater. I want to hear what you all think about it, and if you think it's better than the current table. So here is a sample on Interstate 5...

-- Artisol2345

01:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't like it. The font size is excessively large and the background coloring is unnecessary. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 02:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well it's the same standard coloring used in Interstate infoboxes. The colors are what separates the Interstates into its proper categories. Also, I don't know if I made any font size bigger, but it's been that way. In fact, I made the fonts for the states smaller. I want to hear more people's opinions, though...

-- Artisol2345

02:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

In the cells containing information about each route, the text is most definitely larger in your "remake" than in the existing list. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 03:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The font is too big. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

So if I were to make the text smaller, what whould you still think about the remake?

Also, I put colors on the current table signifying an unsigned or future auxiliary route. I think it should have different colors; one that sticks out less. (Right now, I can't find such color.)

-- Artisol2345

03:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I found an error in the coding, fixed it, and made the text smaller. Now what do you think? What other adjustments do you think I can make?

-- Artisol2345

03:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If another reason is needed to not add colors to the list, consider this: with little extra code in the existing list, the size of the page is a painfully large 105KB, which takes forever to load as it is. Who knows how many more bytes will be added if colors are added to the entire list. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 03:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It's only 105KB based on the amount of characters in the text area on the editing page of the article. It would greatly reduce the number of characters if we use templates to shorten up the coding.

Just for the record, I like articles over 100KB. :) Besides, there are so many lists larger than this one. You can always try List of terrorist attacks (over 200KB).

-- Artisol2345

03:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't give this list permission to be gigantic. My guess is that some users that click on this list probably cancel loading due to the huge load time for the page. I do, anyway. Because of the hefty size, I really don't find the current list, or the proposed "remake" above, useful, tbh. If I want to find an auxiliary Interstate, I'll just use the state highway lists by state, which often include interstates in that state. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 03:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No duh, I said for the record. Sorry if I was harsh, but I never said I wanted the list to be gigantic. If no (what you call "consensus") can be reached, then would any of this matter at all?

-- Artisol2345

04:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

And, if you really believe that this list is extraneous and you use the Interstate Highways list, why was this page created in the first place? More importantly, who started with the table to organize the information? (Yes, I know, I finished the table when it was half-way completed.) Few more questions that some people would want to figure out.

-- Artisol2345

04:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the problem with the current list? --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well to me, nothing's wrong, really. I'll just stay on with the current list. Something sparked me an idea of a new table, and I wanted to see if editors find it acceptable. For now, I'm guessing it's a no.

However, there is another problem when I tinkered with the code on the list. I included additional colors in the current list, and as I mentioned above, someone should replace the colors and find the ones that don't stick out so much.

-- Artisol2345

03:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If it ain't broke, don't fix it master son^{T - C} 12:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The colors are a bad idea. What we really should do is make something sortable. --NE2 06:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Interstate 870

Is this possible I-870 ever been plan in history? Maybe i don't see any valid source saying so.--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 00:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It was floated around during the 1980s as I-255 was under construction in Illinois but it was not used. There was quite a bit of public comment on the I-270 Draft EIS that was made in the early 1980s. Kimmy78 (talk) 03:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Change from [[Image:AA-BB (CC).svg]] to{{jct|state=AA|BB|CC}}

Somebody has start changing from [[Image:AA-BB (CC).svg]] to{{jct|state=AA|BB|CC}}, stop after i-35 section. If people wants to do it they do it to all of them. I now have to dig it through and start fixing it. Plus this page is almost 100 KB long--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 00:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Maine Turnpike logo.png

The image File:Maine Turnpike logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This should be resolved now. ----DanTD (talk) 03:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)