Talk:East–West Highway (New England)

Redirect to Proposed Interstate Highways

Even though the I-92 was 'informal,' the highway itself was proposed as part of the Interstate highway network in 1944. None of this information is in the article you're redirecting this to, so just blanking this page and sticking a redirect in isn't going to be sufficient, since you're deleting valid information. Torc2 02:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Then place it somewhere that it should be. It shouldn't be here. --NE2 02:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Most of the highways on Proposed Interstate Highways have individual articles. There's no reason this one couldn't. Yhe article is fine where it is; if you want to link to it from Proposed Interstate Highways, go ahead. I don't know how you can say the page the article references is unreliable since the provides at least six different sources, including the Maine state government, Time magazine, and the Bangor Daily News. I've collected some of those and moved them onto the article page. Torc2 04:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Most of the highways on Proposed Interstate Highways have numerous news articles and official DOT plans that use those numbers. This doesn't. I have searched and have not found any reliable sources that use the number. The article should be at Northern New England East-West Highway, or East-West Highway (northern New England), or Maine East-West Highway, or East-West Highway (Maine). I'm not even sure that I-92 should redirect to it; nobody reliable has used the number for it. --NE2 05:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm moving this to East-West Highway (New England). I will also change the article for I-92 to a disambiguation link and listing this article and I-96 in Michigan. Proposed Interstate Highways seems to list only those highways that have been legislatively designated by the federal government as future Interstates, so redirecting I-92 there makes no sense as the original interstate plan was canceled and there has been no official designation of the resurrected proposal yet; the only other option would be to add a section on this highway to Proposed Interstate Highways and provide a link to this article, and the section would have to mention the informal reference to this as I-92 since there is plenty of evidence to suggest this is somewhat common usage in the area. People searching for "Interstate 92" don't want to be directed to a page that says absolutely nothing about that; they'll probably be at least more interested in being linked to a highway that was unofficially called that by Time Magazine.

I'm also reinserting the information about this being a proposed interstate highway, since this fact is clearly and reliably sourced by--only the designation was in question and article already clearly states that it hasn't formally been designated as such (but neither has I-14 or I-3, and I don't see any complaints about that). I'm also listing all this at WP:3O and would suggest leaving it alone until some consensus is reached. Torc2 23:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[1] is the Time article; it says nothing about I-92. --NE2 00:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

This seems to have external links which might be better described as references (at least some). I would say there is marginal demonstration of notability - on the fence. Why though is NE2 not proposing this for AfD rather than handling this individually? It might be nice to have some of the statements supported by in-line citations, but those are not specifically required. --Kevin Murray 23:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this is fine when it's not about I-92. --NE2 00:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No map?

I would be nice to see a map of the proposed highway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.192.253 (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on East–West Highway (New England). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110701133805/http://snowe.senate.gov:80/wsu06-25-04.htm to http://snowe.senate.gov/wsu06-25-04.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)