Talk:Interstate Highway System

Translation into Chinese Wikipedia

Part of the version 21:57, 20 July 2022‎ 92.22.184.183 of this article is translated into Chinese Wikipedia to update an existing older translation.--Wing (talk) 10:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I-96

Why is Interstate 96 a different shade of red than the rest of them? NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• I am not finding a mention of I-96 in this article. Do you mean in the I-96 article itself or where? [Nevermind I-96 shown in main Intertstate map for Infobox.] -Fnlayson (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

That data is pulled from a couple dozen different GeoJSON files. It appears whomever made the file for interstate 96, which is here, used a different color from the rest. If you can compare that file from one from the another interstate highway, maybe you can find the offending code and change the color in that GeoJSON file to be the same as the others. Dave (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

It looks like it was already fixed, just today. Comparing this map file with the one used for I-70, they are both color #cc0000. However, the wikipedia server must be using a cached copy of the old version. Should be fixed next time the cache is flushed or refreshed. Dave (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Technology and Culture

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Whiskers8000 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Thecanyon (talk) 05:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Listing accidents or incidents

Imzadi1979 Please provide a permalink to whatever policy or discussion established that incidents or accidents cannot be tabulated on this page, as you claimed in your edit summary. Einsof (talk) 06:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, Imzadi1979 claimed on my talk page that the table cannot be added without citations, but the corresponding table on the Amtrak page contains no such citations, so I find this rationale to be dubious. Since every entry in the table is linked to an article or article section that contains citations, I see no WP:V issue here. Einsof (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

For reasons I don't fully understand, the policy enforcers and article taggers have been much harder on road articles than train articles. So far train articles have been routinely given a pass, and mass transit articles even more so. They seem to be almost untouchable by the policy enforcers. However, policy is still policy, regardless of if the policy enforcers are paying attention or not. Also, I suspect that won't last forever. The policy enforcers tend to focus on one set of articles at a time, and while rail and mass transit articles have so far escaped the microscope, I suspect it will someday be their turn to be placed under a microscope and orange tagged to death.

Setting policy aside, let's focus on article quality, which IMHO is more important. Where I agree with Imzadi is road accidents are much more common than train accidents. Every accident involving an Amrtak Train makes national news, as they are relatively rare. Except for the most local of coverage, accidents involving roads almost never make the news, as there are dozens every day. As such I agree the threshold of notability would have to be higher for a list of road accidents verses a list of train accidents.

I am open to the existence of such a list, this is where I would disagree with Imzadi. However, in a practical sense I think Imzadi is right. Until we could find an agreeable threshold of notability, the list of Interstate Highway accidents would become so bloated that it would be unmanagable. It would also be a "crap magnet" of people adding "hey you forgot about this one car rollover in the Arizona desert on I-40 in 1989". So probably better to decide that threshold first before creating such a list to avoid that magnet. That's my $.02.Dave (talk) 07:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Seems like "more than 10 fatalities in a single incident" is a suitably high threshold. If that proves too unmanageable we could always raise it. Einsof (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I didn't hear an objection to this proposed threshold, and Imzadi1979 never substantiated the putative editorial consensus underlying Special:Diff/1185816757 (explicitly, that at some point in the past it was decided that unless incidents have had a lasting impact on the design of a roadway, we do NOT include them in the history of the individual highways). In any case, this article is not about individual highways, so one has to wonder about the relevance of such a discussion anyway. I added an updated table with references. Einsof (talk) 01:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Einsof: let me reiterate/restate my previous comments a different way: my threshold is no table as I consider it unnecessary. There is no injury/fatality count that I would consider as appropriate to mention unless it resulted in specific changes to the Interstate Highway standards. Imzadi 1979 → 05:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

It's simply excessive to list every incident on a nationwide system regardless of their lasting impact. Imagine if every car crash with a fatality was listed in a state's article. No one would think to do that, so why add it here? SounderBruce 03:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

You've misunderstood. The table does not list every incident on the system. It only lists incidents with more than 10 fatalities. Furthermore, each incident in that table either has its own article or a substantial subsection of an article, so they obviously meet our notability criteria (conversely: if you think any of these incidents don't meet our notability criteria, feel free to put them up at WP:AFD). Einsof (talk) 04:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

There are some state level articles that mention accidents, Interstate 70 in Colorado comes to mind. While I'm doing this blind deliberately, I'm guessing U.S. Route 466 would have the accident where James Dean died. However, I agree there's just too many to list at the system level. The more I think about this the more I come back to my original comment. Notable accidents should be on the individual articles for the highways, or segments of highways. To have a list on the article of the Interstate Highway System, there's just too many. I understand there is a equivalent list for Amtrak, but again, that's because Amtrak accidents are relatively rare. They are rare enough that when there is one, it makes national news.Dave (talk) 05:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Concur with User:Moabdave, User:SounderBruce, and User:Imzadi1979 on this one and disagree with User:Einsof. The appropriate place for listing truly notable car crashes on Interstate Highways is in the articles for the relevant Interstate Highways and the locale (city, town, or CDP) where the crash actually occurred. A table of incidents on Interstate Highways with 10 or more fatalities in this article is analogous to listing all large-scale plane crashes in the United States in Aviation in the United States or all large-scale ship collisions on rivers in Inland waterways of the United States. Which, of course, we don't do. See WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Reverting incorrect edit by User:Kehkou on 19 October 2023

I just reverted this incorrect edit on 19 October 2023, which was not supported by a source as required by WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NOT.

I skim articles in most major American English news publications every week and have done so for over 25 years. I have never seen "the Interstate" used to refer to the system as a whole. Unless someone can produce one or more sources verifying that unusual usage, it should stay out of the article. --- Coolcaesar (talk) 18:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@Coolcaesar Thank you for your edit (too old and busy to go source hunting all the time, reversion is easier). Incidentally, on this side of the country, "the Interstate" is indeed quite popularly used to refer to any or all parts of the system (i.e., as a whole); in fact, you are the first and only person I have witnessed to object to this colloquialism, online or otherwise. At any rate, it may serve better to omit it from the lead and include this info elsewhere in the article if/as appropriate. Happy editing! Kehkou (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)