Talk:Interstate 90

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleInterstate 90 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 12, 2023.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 29, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 31, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
August 28, 2016Good article nomineeNot listed
December 24, 2020Good article nomineeNot listed
December 14, 2021Good article nomineeListed
April 29, 2022Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 4, 2022.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Interstate 90 is the longest freeway in the United States, at 3,020 miles (4,860 km)?
Current status: Featured article

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Improved to Good Article status by SounderBruce (talk). Self-nominated at 04:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Epicgenius (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: QPQ completed. SounderBruce 04:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess this is the name of this toll pass then. Epicgenius (talk) 13:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ALT0 to T:DYK/P5

RFC: Infobox junctions[edit]

After doing thorough research, I have found out that the WikiProject for Roads allows 10 significant junctions. Normally, this isn’t an issue but for a highway as long as I-90, there are a lot of junctions and there has been constant edit warring and talk page discussions over what junctions to include. I am proposing the following

  • Option A: Status quo
  • Option B: Merging I-5 and SR-519 together, since they are right next to each other and we have done similar combination of junctions when they don’t exactly intersect in the same spot, see U.S. Route 20 and the merger of I-87 and I-90, and how U.S. Route 11 combines the junction of I-76 and I-81 despite not being in the exact same spot.
  • Option C: Replace the second I-80 junction with another unique road, such as the I-87 junction in Albany, the I-29 junction in Sioux Falls, or even the concurrency with I-39.
  • Option D: Use IAR to allow 11 junctions.

Some of these options contradict each other, but feel free to support multiple options that don’t contradict or offer your own opinions. RoadFan294857 (talk) 23:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

  • Personally, I oppose A, neutral on B, support C, neutral on D. This infobox does need improvements but I am not sure that combining SR-519 and I-5 is the right call, and just because it’s done on one article doesn’t make it correct. Also, 11 junctions might make it look awkward. That being said, there is absolutely no reason why I-80 needs to be listed there twice, and on such an important interstate, it really takes a valuable spot away from another more significant junction. Plus, I-75 also intersect I-90 in Ohio, and we can get more states junctions linked if we do a switch. RoadFan294857 (talk) 23:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't get involved much in this stuff. D seems reasonable, since it's just a one-junction difference, and guidelines are treated with common sense, and some exception may apply. However, B could also work. I'm not sure I fully understand C. A doesn't seem very practical ("keep having an unresolve dispute indefinitely" is pretty much never the answer).  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  23:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A and strongly oppose B. It's a separate junction, end of story; that is how it is treated by WSDOT, the FHWA, and the local press in Seattle. We should not be bundling interchanges on our own, which is basically a form of original research. The status quo agreed upon by USRD has been stable for years and has carried through this article's FAC, so I don't see why anything needs to change here. SounderBruce 23:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Should I fix it on US 20 and US 11, in that case? RoadFan294857 (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @RoadFan294857: the fact that two other articles do something incorrect (falsely implying a concurrency that does not exist) does not mean that we should do the same incorrect thing here. Since those other articles are wrong, they should be fixed and not used as models for editing here. Imzadi 1979  05:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has implications beyond that of I-90, and should be advertised atWT:USRD, WT:HWY and probably a few others. The 10 junctions limit originally came about after feedback and discussions at venues such as FAC. The concern as expressed at the time was the infobox was drowning out the rest of the article by being too long. Somewhere in those discussions, the number 10 came about as what kept the infobox at an appropriate length. I don't think it was originally intended to be a hard limit, but it became one after a seemingly never ending pattern of new editors that would add an 11th, and then a 12th, and then ... I do like them, and do think they add to the article. However, I've reluctantly come to the conclusion we'd be better off ridding the infobox of the major junctions section entirely. Through the years that section has proven to be an article maintenance distraction. People just seem bizarrely infatuated with which junctions go into this infobox and bizarrely offended if their favorite isn't included. I assure you, if we agree "ok in this case we'll have 11" it won't be long before someone will start adding an 11th junction to other articles because "I-90 has 11" and then add number 12 to this one. Dave (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A and Strong Oppose B/C/D—per Sounder Bruce above. Additionally, the obsession with the junction list in the infobox boggles my mind. We can have an article that's totally crap in terms of content or formatting, even an article missing content, and people will argue that we left out their favorite junction in the infobox or included one they don't like, as Moabdave also mentions. A full-fledged RfC on this topic seems premature as well as there has been no other discussion or attempts to resolve a minor content dispute. Imzadi 1979  05:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your justification doesn’t exactly explain why C or D doesn’t work, it does say why B wouldn’t work, but especially not C. And an RFC is appropriate here as WP:RFCBEFORE was satisfied - discussions in the past occurred [1] [2] on the I-5/SR-519 issue, the Infobox discussion also were debated [3]. It appears that without a formal consensus, this issue will never be resolved. As for removing the junctions would have to come down to a seperate RFC once this one concludes. RoadFan294857 (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't attempt to discuss the other issues though. We've jumped from recent discussions about the terminus in 2023 to an RfC (a heavyweight process) about the whole of junction list in the infobox without intervening steps. (The one discussion on the topic of the junctions as a whole is from 2006. That's too long ago to be of much use other than starting another basic talk page discussion on the expanded topic.)
    I'm also a bit suspicious of an account that starts an RfC as its third edit and knows about WP:RFCBEFORE by its fifth edit without knowledge of prior editing history. Imzadi 1979  04:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]