Wikipedia

Talk:Interstate 295 (Delaware–Pennsylvania)/Archive 1

< Talk:Interstate 295 (Delaware–Pennsylvania)
Latest comment: 5 years ago by 2600:387:5:807:0:0:0:C3 in topic Why not just have new pages for all 3 sections
Archive 1

Requested move

Latest comment: 19 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

The Interstate highway that the article speaks of currently exists not only in New Jersey, but for a stretch in Deleware to connect it to I-95. There are also plans to extend I-295 into Pennsylvania along the current route of I-95 to the planned I-276 interchange. --Engleman 01:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Shouldn't this article be titled Interstate 295 (Delaware-New Jersey-Pennsylvania)? (I know it's not in Pennsylvania yet, but doesn't Delaware deserve to be listed?) --Engleman 03:03, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Put it up for a move at Wikipedia:Requested moves. --Boothy443 | comhrá 03:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I support this move per wp above. --Rschen7754 04:41, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

The move is complete; I'm checking for double-redirects now. --Chris 02:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Would NJ Route 73 be considered acceptable on the Interstate 295 info box?

GA failed

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As of [1], the article during this review, I failed this article for Good Article status. This is a good encyclopaedic article, well-written and well-sourced, but I cannot pass this for GA because:

  1. The Exit list section that comprises more than half of the article is a heavy list. Per WP:MOS, list, numbered and bulleted items should be written in textual form. WP:WIAGA also states that list is not covered by the GA system.
  2. The Future development section is not yet an encyclopaedic fact. Information in this section may change in the future, so accuracy of the factual data is still questionable.

I suggest to drop the Future development section and expand the article. The Exit list should be separated into WP:LIST article, which can be further submitted to WP:FLC. Just provide some descriptions of the exits, probably prominent or major exits, and then point the reader to go for complete exit list article of this intersection. As always, if editors disagree about this review, you may submit this article to WP:GA/R. — Indon (reply) — 14:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

A good article review and peer review have been opened for this article. -- NORTH talk 00:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Passage of GA by Consensus

Latest comment: 17 years ago21 comments8 people in discussion

Interstate 295 (Delaware-New Jersey)

result: Pass as GA 3-0 (original nominator's vote doesn't count)

I disagree with the failure. The two objections were that the exit list should be separated into a new article (!) and that the "future developments" section is somehow not encyclopedic. Here is my rebuttal:

  • Just as articles about rail lines list stations, it makes sense to list exits in the article. I see only a few lists that are separated from the article:
  • There used to be others, like I-95 exit list, but there are now separate articles for each state that I-95 passes through, and so the list has been moved into those articles. The only others here that cover a single state are I-96 and Highway 401. The exit list for Highway 401 is 35 KB, so it was kept in AFD. The I-96 list is similarly 33 KB. But the I-295 exit list does not give such a message when placed in a user subpage, and the entire article is only 32 KB. Therefore, I don't think it is useful to split off the exit list of I-295 (and many other similar articles).
  • The future developments are things that have been officially talked about for a long time, and are well-cited.

--NE2 18:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I was the reviewer. Looking at your lists of exits, aren't they evidences that lists should be separated into WP:LIST articles? Having more than 50% of the total space in this article, it seems that the Exit List section is better to be separated. You said: the exit list is only 32KB? Please look at WP:SIZE, 32KB is the upper limit for a considerably good size of WP article. What do you mean by placing in a user subpage? And about future developments, they are indeed well-cited, but I don't recall any future projects, future plans or future events in an encyclopaedia book. However, I might have a second thought about the future developments section, as long as editors warn readers with {{future}} template. — Indon (reply) — 19:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Please read my statements more carefully; I was saying that the exit lists that are split are over 30 KB. Here the entire article, including the text, is only 32 KB.
"Encyclopedia books" generally do not include future plans because they are books, and cannot be updated. Wikipedia is not paper. O-Bahn Busway, a featured article, includes future plans (at the end of O-Bahn Busway#History), and MTR, another featured article, has a whole "the future" section. --NE2 20:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
You're right about the future section. It is allowed, but the article still suffers with the "list problem". Either split (less than 32KB size is not a problem for a list article) or treat the whole article as a list article. WP:LIST does not merely contain list, but also some textual sections. However, both split and treat options still hold for the GA failed decision that GA does not cover list, per WP:WIAGA. — Indon (reply) — 22:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
This is an article that contains a list, not a list that contains an article. Or are articles like Northeast Corridor actually lists? --NE2 23:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
If Northeast Corridor is nominated for GA/FA, then I'm sure somebody would suggest to separate the listy part into list article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indon (talk • contribs)
Let's wait and see if someone else comments, and I can decide whether to continue to ignore the GA process. --NE2 12:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't the large table in the article count as a table or chart rather than just a list only? Homestarmy 13:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, if it does not cover more than half of the article space. The section itself is named as Exit List. I suggest to make a description (1-2 paragraphs) about prominent exits from this highway and use {{details}} or {{see also}} template to point readers to the complete Exit List article. Would the article then too short? Well, you can Accidents or Maintenance sections, for example. — Indon (reply) — 14:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I dunno, just because a table is big in comparison to the rest of the article, I don't see how it stops being a table. It looks like it falls under WP:TABLE, where they can be used as lists of information.... Homestarmy 16:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm still confused as to why the list should be split out. It seems wholly unnecessary, especially since whenever exit lists are brought to AfD - or when discussion is held on WikiProject pages - consensus is always to merge them with the main highway article. To quote WP:LIST: "Embedded lists are either included in the article or appended to the end of articles. They present information or aid in navigation to related articles." Perhaps if Indon would explain exactly what the "list problem" is, rather than linking to shortcuts, I might be less confused.

It's true that good article criteria does not cover lists, but as has been oft repeated, this is not a list, but an article that otherwise (as far as I can tell) meets the criteria and happens to contain a list "appended to the end of the article" to "present information". -- NORTH talk 18:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I am going to listen opinions here. If consensus says the article is not WP:LIST, then I concur GA for the article. The rest of the article is excellent. — Indon (reply) — 19:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you for keeping an open mind. -- NORTH talk 23:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Perhaps my understanding about WP:LIST and Wikipedia:Embedded lists are wrong. Anybody else? — Indon (reply) — 09:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The way I see it, everyone who's commented here is correct at least in part. It would make sense to split the exit list into a separate article (as you said), but only if the article or the exit list itself were long, which it's not (as NE2 said). WP:LIST allows for lists to be included at the end of articles as "embedded lists" (as I said), but apparently according to Wikipedia:Embedded Lists, the exit list isn't the type of list it's talking about. Which brings me to what Homestarmy said. Are we sure this is a list at all? Just because it's called an exit list doesn't make it the same sort of animal as List of AM stations in Las Vegas. I think WP:TABLE covers much more closely what we're talking about here, which under #When tables are appropriate says "lists of information" "best presented in row-and-column format" – a perfect description of what an exit "list" actually is. -- NORTH talk 18:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

After reading WP:WIAGA, I have a couple more thoughts to add on the "list" issue. As Indon pointed out, GA status does not apply to list articles. But this is not a list article – to beat a dead horse, it's an article that contains a list to add additional information in a neat and organized fashion. So let's look at the actual criteria at WP:WIAGA

  • Is it well-written? (IMHO, yes.)
  • Is it factually accurate and verifiable? (Yes, everything should be referenced well enough to meet this criteria.)
  • Is it broad in its coverage? (Yes, covers past, present, and future.)
  • Does it follow the neutral point of view policy? (IMHO, yes.)
  • Is it stable? (Yes. There are some reverts here and there, but certainly nothing that was in danger of becoming "an ongoing edit war".)
  • Does it contain images, where possible, to illustrate the topic? (Other than the shield images, there is only one, but it has a "succinct and descriptive caption", and "a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status."

-- NORTH talk 22:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

In regards to the exit lists, the project standards fully back exit lists. If there is a problem with that, it should be addressed there. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Support GA. After some thinking, it seems to me that this most likely is a table, and since there's nothing in the criteria about WP:TABLE, (and because its not that bad to just IAR it or something) I don't think its length is really a big problem. The article is quite good in most other ways even if the long table looks a bit odd. Homestarmy 23:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Support GA (as original nominator) per Homestarmy and my most recent comment above. -- NORTH talk 18:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Support GA It's a table, folks. - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 01:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Support GA Per NORTH and Aerobird. V60 VTalk - VDemolitions 01:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the consensus to pass. Diez2 13:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Interstate 295 (Delaware-New Jersey)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This review is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps, a project devoted to re-reviewing Good Articles listed before August 26, 2007.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  
    Could be better, no offense but the article reads like a brochure. But it is acceptable nonetheless, I didn't really see anything I needed to change (e.g, typos, wordiness).
    B. MoS compliance:  
    Introduction is too short, see WP:LEAD for more info. The intro should be a summary of the entire article.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:  
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  
    Large areas of uncited information.
    C. No original research:  
    Uncited statements may contain original research.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    B. Focused:  
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  
    This one could be improved if it just had a little work done on it. I'm willing to put this one on hold. Article will be placed on hold until issues can be addressed. If an editor does not express interest in addressing these issues within seven days, the article will be delisted. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 02:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I will get around to fixing this article. Dough4872 (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Affirmative. Seven more days. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 22:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I have finished making the requested improvements to the article. Dough4872 (talk) 23:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Seven days? More like seven minutes. Article kept. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 00:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Interstate 295 (Delaware–New Jersey)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interstate 295 (Delaware–New Jersey). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 06:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interstate 295 (Delaware–New Jersey). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 17:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

New section for future I-295 between U.S. 1 and I-276

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I just added a new hidden section for the future New Jersey-Pennsylvania segment. The gist is taken from Interstate 95 in New Jersey and Interstate 95 in Pennsylvania, except everything is reversed because the new segment is being described from compass north to compass south. Basically it's the opposite of what's in the I-95 article, but continuing in the same direction from the rest of this article since that new segment's northern end will be to the south of the U.S. 1 interchange. If there are mistakes, feel free to correct. epicgenius (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Exit List

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Since I-295 is now signed as both a north-south and east-west highway, shouldn't the exit list be reversed? The reason I ask is this is how the list on the Interstate 676 article is currently sorted as, so it'd be nice to keep the consistency. Thoughts welcome. MikeM2011 (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd argue that since the VAST majority of the route currently follows the current direction, and in fact even if you signed the section in DE as east-west, which would make sense, it would still be further west than the PA section (making DE the true western terminus)... it should be left as-is. Famartin (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Please retitle the article to include "Delaware-New Jersey-Pennsylvania".

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Otherwise, you imply that this I-295 misses New Jersey. Also, I have just driven the newly-re-signed road (i.e. changed from I-95 to I-295). The New Jersey mileposts continue to increase "northbound" from US 1 just north of Trenton as the road bends west toward Pennsylvania. In Pennsylvania, it is signed westbound from the state line to the future interchange with Pennsylvania Turnpike, with the mileposts decreasing from 10 to 0. I also observed, going off and back on at the 1st interchange in Pennsylvania, that at the entrances there I-295 is posted westbound and southbound. So presumably I'd see those directions if approaching entrances at 1st NJ interchange. Carlm0404 (talk) 02:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:USSH, we use the terminal states only. The exception to this is Interstate 275 (Ohio–Indiana–Kentucky) around Cincinnati because it's a full beltway without termini. Imzadi 1979 → 02:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I couldn't immediately find where in WP:USSH the guideline is which has you using only "Delaware-Pennsylvania" (the terminal states only) in lieu of "Delaware-New Jersey-Pennsylvania" for this I-295; please get back to me on this (email is carlm0404@gmail.com if you want to send me email). Notice that I am referring to a THREE-digit interstate, and three-digit interstate numbers can be re-used from state to state (I-295 is used again in Queens borough in NYC to north, and in Maryland-DC to the south); not specifying New Jersey could suggest to a stranger that there is no I-295 there. I see "I-495 Capital Beltway", in lieu of use of "Maryland-Virginia-DC", for the I-495 beltway in the Washington DC area. <-- (the Woodrow Wilson Bridge does cut through the far southern tip of DC, even though this is only over water, and that article accounts for this) Is there any other case of a single route (3-digit interstate) that exists in THREE states? Carlm0404 (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
@Carlm0404: in the table, it gives "Interstate X (State)[c]" as an example of an article title for both primary (aka two-digit) and auxiliary (aka three-digit) Interstates. Footnote c below says: "The state name must be added where the route number is repeated in multiple locations. If the segments cover multiple states, use only the terminal state names separated by an en dash (–). In these cases, 'Interstate X' should be used as a disambiguation page." As I noted, the one I-275 is an exception because it is a full beltway that lacks termini. The same would apply to I-495 in the DC metro area. Imzadi 1979 → 00:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Some Changes 😃

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I changed a few words. 🤪 CamdenFreeway295 (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Exits 26 N/S

I know that's going to be rebuilt, but as it stands now I see TWO entries for exit 26N. The junction of I-295 with I-76/NJ 42 is a complete interchange EXCEPT for the missing movements: from I-295 N-bound to NJ 42 S-bound, and from NJ 42 N-bound to I-295 S-bound. Said rebuilding includes furnishing those missing movements.

GA Review

Latest comment: 5 years ago15 comments3 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Interstate 295 (Delaware–New Jersey)/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Rschen7754 (talk · contribs) 16:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


To address the previous review, it was a 30-second sweep to catch self-published sources, so I don't think it prevents me from doing this review.
  • Sources 5 and 11 are deadlinks.
  • I can't tell what source 42 is.
  • The lead seems a bit slanted towards the history, when the RD is longer than the history.
  • In the first paragraph you overuse "the route".
  • In the second paragraph you overuse "portion".
Route description
  • "large interchange" - be more specific or cut it out entirely
  • "heads east-southeast industrial areas" - something missing
  • Later on, overuse of "development" and "interchange"
  • "As part of the Interstate Highway System, the entire length of I-295 is a part of the National Highway System." - perhaps this should go in an introduction to the RD, like Interstate 8 has it.
History
  • Please check to make sure that you don't start consecutive sentences with the same words.
Future
  • The northern portion of I-295 will be affected by the Pennsylvania Turnpike/Interstate 95 Interchange Project in Bristol Township, Pennsylvania. - I feel this sentence is bland and says almost nothing.

Should be a pass after this is resolved, but please go through and check for other overused words and extraneous details. --Rschen7754 18:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I have replied above. Dough4872 13:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


You don't have to include the bounds,you know 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:36 (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 6 October 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago10 comments8 people in discussion
The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


Interstate 295 (Delaware–Pennsylvania) → Interstate 295 (Delaware-Pennsylvania-New Jersey) – Consistency with the other highway, Interstate 275, that has 3 digits and enters 3 states. (A very important note that is aimed at anyone who says Oppose for a reason related to determining the kind of dash should be used in the article title, please note that that is NOT the subject of this requested move and please leave it out of the discussion. Georgia guy (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose—per WP:USSH. Footnote c on the naming of auxiliary Interstate Highways states: "The state name must be added where the route number is repeated in multiple locations. If the segments cover multiple states, use only the terminal state names separated by an en dash (–). In these cases, "Interstate X" should be used as a disambiguation page." The proffered example has no termini as it is a fully circular beltway, so it's the exception not the rule. Imzadi 1979 → 00:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

    As a side note, if we overlook the naming convention's direction to use terminal states only, the proposed name is faulty because it uses hyphens instead of dashes, and it puts the states out of geographic order. These faults only add to the reasons to reject the proposal. Imzadi 1979 → 00:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose– Current title follows guideline set forth at WP:USSH, which says to use terminal states only. There's no way for I-275 around Cincinnati to follow this rule since it doesn't have terminal states. I-295 however does have terminal states, Delaware and Pennsylvania. Therefore the title should remain the same. Needforspeed888 (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Support-You are right.I would oppose if it was in the case of I-76,where Ohio and New Jersey have no border so it must go through Pennsylvania.But as Delaware and Pennsylvania have a border,more significant than the DE-NJ border,I think it can do more good than bad throwing in New Jersey.I mean with the recent 2018 expansion,it could become a Philidelphia Beltway.Maybe make it DE-NJ-PA though because the Delaware-New Jersey-Pennsylvania is a very long title,but I do agree.That is the only reason I agree though47.16.99.72 (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - While the title may follow the guideline, its a guideline, and lets face it, it was a guideline not created with this case in mind (which didn't exist at the time). It makes much more sense to mention New Jersey in the title than ONLY DE and PA. Remember, this is intended for public viewing, and the public in general associates I-295 with NJ more than the other two (especially not with PA, even though it does now enter PA). Are there any other cases where a route with multiple occurrences (requiring state identification) is mostly in a single state but briefly crosses into two different states at the ends? And also follows USSH? Famartin (talk) 03:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per Imzadi1979. WP:USSH says to use the terminal states only. Dough4872 03:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose- I switched sides, knowing my plan to make 3 states in seperate articles will be forted with this change.12:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.24.150.11 (talk)
  • Extremely Weak Support-I am starting to think that it can be done with NJ in the title, but I do think it will be way too long unless it is DE-NJ-PA. I drove across all of I-295 in Delaware and part of it in New Jersey until it split from the NJ Turnpike in Pennsville. Not terrible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.99.72 (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Imzadi1979 150.250.5.30 (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
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.

Why not just have new pages for all 3 sections

Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

Sorry about the other one.The road is in three states,the minimum requirement?I-78 gets it,so why can’t this.I know it is auxilary,but still,can someone make it happen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.99.72 (talk) 12:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Generally, we only split route articles if the information is too much to cover in one article. This is mainly for Interstate and US routes that travel across multiple states such as Interstate 95 and U.S. Route 1. This is not the case with I-295 as one article can handle the information fine. Dough4872 16:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Dough4872,the rule is three states,three articles.There are exceptions,such as I-59 and I-24,but that is a general rule that even applies to I-78. There was a failed proposal to make it into one article. Looking at the talk page,the info is so fascinating that maybe it would work out. 47.16.99.72 (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Three states is a general rule not a formal rule. If a road that runs through three or more states can adequately be covered in one article, then there is no need for subarticles. For example, U.S. Route 8 passes through three states yet it is covered in one featured article. Also I should note that the I-78 merge proposal failed because, while the length of the route could easily be covered in one article, the New York section has a lot of historical information about unbuilt alignments. But back to the point, there is no need for I-295 to be split into subarticles as this one article can handle all the information. Dough4872 01:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
As another point, the three-state rule has traditionally never been applied to auxiliary Interstate Highways. Imzadi 1979 → 02:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


@Dough4872, US 8 barely exists in Minnesota and Michigan. Also, what about that recent extension in New York. I've even seen some two-state interstates have separate pages17:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.24.150.11 (talk)

Most of I-295 is New Jersey with the Delaware and Pennsylvania sections much shorter. Also as Imzadi1979 noted, we do not do subarticles for auxiliary Interstate highways. Dough4872 01:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Well,isn't here a wonderful place to start @Dough4872?Also,it applies to auxilary US Routes(like US 220,441,278)2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:73 (talk)

This page is well confined; it doesn't need to be split at this time. Needforspeed888 (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
By looking at your role in the failed proposal to make I-78 one article you were on the make it one article side.It seems fine but really is not and also you barely mentioned 2018 expansion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.99.72 (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Eh.I don’t care.2600:387:5:807:0:0:0:C3 (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interstate_295_(Delaware–Pennsylvania)/Archive_1&oldid=1182739636"