Talk:List of Interstate Highways/Archive 1

Archive 1

older entries

Dumb question: how can Hawaii have interstates if all islands form only one state?

Because they were funded with federal money from the interstate highway program.

Is listing two tables really necessary? I'd like propose removing the listing of Interstates by state and keeping just the listing by number. Also, I propose that in the listing by number, the descriptive right-hand column be changed to show starting and terminating points and mileage instead of states the Interstate passes through. For example...

Interstate 90 - 3112.82 miles - Seattle, Washington to Boston, Massachusettes

Interstate 86 (Eastern) - 185 miles - Erie, Pennsylvania (I-90) to Elmira, New York (NY-17).

Toolie 18:48, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I suppose I'm going to go ahead with it, and if there's a problem with it we can revert back to its original. I don't think there's much harm, as I'm not really removing any links or information. Toolie 00:08, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the addition of I-238 to the list... the list which it as added is of primary interstates, which 238 is not. Anyone else agree it should be removed? I already have it mentioned in the top paragraph. Toolie 22:07, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

IMHO, Interstate 238 is an *essential* part of the "Primary Interstate" list. It is such an unusual situation -- there's no I-38, and if there were it wouldn't be anywhere close to the Bay Area -- that it must be considered separately.

Also, some road-minded Wikipedians are creating individual pages for the 3di's. I can't complain, though my personal preference would be to keep the info with the parent route. Just keep in mind that not all 3di info is on the 2di's page.

As for the list by state... well, I put that in, and I really liked it. After all, this is the topic "List of Interstates", so I would expect to see one or more Lists. Contrast with Interstate highway, where I would expect to see a detailed discussion of what an Interstate Highway is.

And by the way... great work! --Robertb-dc 22:30, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Could a List of Interstates by State page be created? The information was very useful but I thought it was a bit cluttered with everything else... or would it be best to reinclude it on this page? Toolie 04:47, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

True or false??

True or false: this article belongs at List of 1 and 2-digit interstates. 66.245.99.122 23:36, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Er, false. Nearly all 3-digit components of the Interstate system are within a single state and are only "Inter-state" highways in the sense that they connect with the primary Interstate roads and share similar features (e.g., controlled-access). Yes, I'm sure there are a few exceptions that cross state lines, but even in those cases, the 3-digit highways are limited to a specific metropolitan area. older≠wiser 00:19, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

False on the false. An 'Interstate Highway' is a road of the Interstate Highway System, not a road that crosses a state line. --SPUI (talk) 05:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Eh, the list does include 3DIs though, so it should stay here. --SPUI (talk) 05:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Article name

To be consistent with other articles like Category:U.S. Interstate Highway system shouldn't this article be renamed to List of U.S. Interstate Highways? Vegaswikian 19:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The way I understand it, the U.S. is just there for disambiguation, and isn't really necessary. --SPUI (talk) 11:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Planned/future 2di Interstates

How should the future Interstates be accomodated? There are currently proposals out for:

• I-3 (questionable number for a new Knoxville-Savannah corridor, I-18 would be better).
• I-7 (central Oregon, US-97 corridor, may connect Medford or Klamath Falls).
• I-9 (CA-99, former US 99, from Sacramento/Redding to Bakersfield/Wheeler Ridge)
• I-11 (Phoenix to Las Vegas, Reno and beyond, may connect Alturas and Medford).
• I-14 (Deep South corridor between I-10 and I-20).
• I-21 and I-23 (to connect with I-10 in Arizona/New Mexico and Mexican Route 2).
• I-31 and I-33 (two proposed freeways in Kansas/Oklahoma).
• I-41 (US-41 renumbering in Wisconsin and upper Michigan).
• I-54 (US-71 from Fort Smith, Arkansas to Texarkana, Texas).
• I-67 (actually 4 plans of which a maximum 2 will work).
• I-92 (central New England, from Boston to Hartford).
• Combination of possible numbers for the I-69 corridor since that number violates the numbering scheme (including I-37, I-39 (S), I-47, I-51 or 53, I-61 or 63, I-67 or I-69, and "I-101" may be given an odd-number marker).

Most of these are speculation with no official source. The rest (like I-3 and I-14) are given in the new highway bill, but only for long-range studies. The former have no place here; the latter might, though they might fit best in an article about the new highway bill.

I-92 was actually planned at one time, so that could be added. User:K1vsr has a lot of info he's found about it. --SPUI (talk) 16:22, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Personally I think these can be included in the main list as proposed additions. I have frequently wondered what possible expansions might be. Never found them and would have never thought to look here. Also as a comment on the above list. By definition, a proposed I-3 would have to be west of I-5 since the odd roads run north south and the low numbers are west of the higher numbers. In fact, if I can figure out a solution for the naming on the first and last entries, I may put that data in the main article. Vegaswikian 19:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I updated the listings of proposed interstate highways and designated route numbers, in case the highway proposals are approved by an act of US congress. To date, 66 are in use, but not 33 of them under the number 101 (will there ever be a I-13 or I-100 for instance?) and lemme add that I-66 extensions are under way in West Virginia.

The "13" and "666" numbers will never be used, due to possibly offending certain religious groups and the one famous case of U.S. Route 666 renamed as US Highway 491 in the Four Corners area of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah by complaints of the local Navajo or Na-Dene people in the area.

Some states like California were able to accept federal interstate highway commission over former state freeways (i.e. I-110, I-210, I-605, I-710 and I-905) as much the former US highways were given new markers under the state highway commission. + 71.102.3.86 (talk) 13:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I-64

Why does I-64 only go to St. Louis when US 60 goes all the way to AZ? - signed by anon IP

Same logic goes to I-66 only found in Virginia and US route 66 is from Chicago to Los Angeles, the former western entry of US routes 60 and San Diego is with US route 64. They are designated/marked differently in separate highway systems by the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Oddly enough, we have three separate number designations for interstates in the non-contigous state of Alaska, the island state of Hawaii and commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The highway routes are funded by federal transportation funding to be designated as an interstate. + 71.102.3.86 (talk) 13:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Changes to the table

I (YBG) have just made a number of changes to the table which are too numerous to describe in the revision note.

• Reduce line breaks in information-rich middle column wider
  • Make 1st & 3rd columns narrower by adding forced line breaks in header
  • Make 1st column narrower by changing "Interstate-#" to "I-#"
  • Squeeze "Associated routes" lists by changing divider from " | " to ", "
    I think the bar looks better visually, but it takes up more space and causes the longer lists to risk spilling over onto a 2nd column. A bar with no spaces takes even less space, but I'm not sure it is visually appealing.
• Make first column always a single line of text
  • Remove explicit hard break in 1st column
• Make middle column always two lines of text
  • Add explicit Associated routes: none

With these changes, most table rows have two lines of text in the middle column.

• However, the longest route descriptions (I-5, I-29, I-81, I-89) still wrap onto a 2nd line.
• This could be avoided by changing "(Canadian border)" to "(Canada)" and "(Mexican border)" to "(Mexico)", but I'm not sure this would scan correctly

In addition, I changed the per-table-cell "Style:background=lightgreen" into a per-table-row style. I still have concerns that the first column does not correctly sort single-digit interstates. If anyone has any ideas about this or suggestions about my other edits, your comments (and bold edits) are most certainly welcome. Thanks. YBG (talk) 03:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

After-the-fact links added above YBG (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the sorting and changed Mexican border to Mexico and Canadian border to Canada without changing the underlying link targets. YBG (talk) 06:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Major Errors

The reference given and the articles simply do not not add up. Interstate 74 is said to be 12 miles in the table but the article shows it to be over 400 miles, as well as the reference. Another interstate in NC is shown to be 13 miles in the table and 33 in the article. PLEASE FIX IT!

There are two I-74 entries in the table, East and West. Pmsyyz (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Article title and scope

The list in this article has, at least in the recent past, been basically a list of primary interstate highways, i.e., 1- and 2- digit highways. Within each primary interstate are listed the auxillary interstates associated with the primary route; many of these links are to disambiguation pages because the 3-digit numbers are reused from state to state.

In the past week, the same IP has introduced 3-digit numbers into the main list

• first by adding a large number of x05 routes in 17 edits which I reverted here;
• then by adding I-H201 here which I reverted here;
• and lastly by adding I-105 in Oregon in 2 edits, which has not been reverted.

Included in these good faith edits (and reverts) is the helpful removal of trailing 0's to the right of the decimal point. But as there is a separate list of auxiliary Interstate Highways, I think I-105 should be removed, but I hesitate to boldly revert it even though I would still be within WP:3RR.

Perhaps the title or lead could be improved to clarify that this list only includes 3-digit routes under the "associated routes" listing. Otherwise, this list would need to be expanded to include all 200+ 3-digit interstates.

If I am missing something here, please let me know. Otherwise, I think it would be best to remove I-105 from the list. YBG (talk) 06:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Reverted, warned IP on talk page. Let me know if this happens again. --Rschen7754 07:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Pairs of numbers duplicated

The lead states that

Five pairs of numbers are duplicated throughout the system; the corresponding highways are separated by large distances which prevent confusion. Below, these are differentiated from each other by "West" and "East".

The paired numbers are 74, 76, 84, 86, and 88; each is represented by two table rows, one marked 'West', the other, 'East'.

Most of these have very large gaps between the different segments, with a gap of many states wide: I-76 (Nebraska to Ohio), I-84 (Utah to Pennsylvania), I-86 (Idaho to Pennsylvania), and I-88 (Illinois to New York). I don't believe anyone has ever considered connecting these branches together -- though I suppose I-88 is not completely impossible. This is also reflected by the fact that there are separate 'East' and 'West' WP articles in each of these cases.

But I-74 is a completely different situation. There is only one article in WP, and it deals directly with the issue of filling in the gaps and the reasons why this may be difficult or impossible. Someone at some time at least considered these to be two parts of one highway separated by a gap, as opposed to two separate highways that happen to have the same number.

So I am wondering if the table in this article ought to be revised to reflect this. In other words, if the two branches are included in the same WP article, then perhaps there should only be one row in the table. I'm not 100% convinced of this, but if we did do this, then the entries for I-74 should be modified as shown here:

Interstate	Route, States Served & Associated routes (* not signposted as interstates) (sort by number of states served)	Length (mi.)
currently two rows:
I-74	West Bettendorf, Iowa (I-80) to Cincinnati, Ohio (I-75) 4 States Served: IA, IL, IN, OH Associated route: I-474	428.81
I-74	East Cana, Virginia (I-77) to Mount Airy, North Carolina (US 52) 2 States Served: VA, NC. Planned in 1 more: WV Associated routes: none	12.10
proposed to be combined into one row:
I-74	Bettendorf, Iowa (I-80) to Cincinnati, Ohio and Cana, Virginia (I-77) to Mount Airy, North Carolina (US 52) 6 States Served: IA, IL, IN, OH, VA, NC. Planned in 1 more: WV Associated route: I-474	440.91

Anyone else have any opinion about this? YBG (talk) 07:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't I-74 begin in Davenport,IA because I saw it begin in the shaded area where Davenport is at I-80 in a magazine about traveling to the Quad Cities (Don't worry, it's a 2013 issue). By the way, can anyone help me with the text in this comment because it seems to go off the page? Thanks. Timbo303 16:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Interstates 3, 14, and maybe others

Can Interstate 3, Interstate 14, and any other proposed interstate highways be added to the page? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 03:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

"The act included the proposed corridors for the planned I-14 (specifically as the 14th Amendment Highway), and I-3 (as the 3rd Infantry Division Highway). The legislation did not provide the official numbering, nor did it provide funding for the highways." Based on that, no, it really it isn't appropriate unless/untill they actually start using those numbers. Imzadi 1979 → 04:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• I did convert the tables over to the templates, and now we need to fill in years as needed. For most of them, it will be 1957, of course, but not all.
• Additionally, I-11 and I-41 need to be added as proposed numbers, and I-22 needs to be updated to reflect its proposed status.

Imzadi 1979 → 08:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Green highlight

Am I imagining it or did there used to be green highlight for the x5 and x0 numbered routes? Is there any interest in having that again? YBG (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

You're not imagining it, but WP:USRD/STDS/L doesn't use such a coloration in lists, and this list was converted to use the {{routelist row}} template preferred by that guideline. I don't think there is any interest in modifying the templates to highlight them again. Imzadi 1979 → 01:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. As mine is only a mild preference, I'm content to leave it as is. I do appreciate using a standard row template, though it seems there is something wrong with the formed and removed elements, as nothing shows despite that some routes seem to have a that info showing when I view the text in edit mode. YBG (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Future Interstates

Should we add future intrastate highways to this list? Kevon kevono (talk) 04:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC) (What the hell is UTC?) 21:51 (PT)

Long-term, yes, but we'd need to establish inclusion criteria to add only confirmed and notable proposals. Random musings from roadgeeks, or even random proposals from local-only interests wouldn't rise to that level. In any case, once the appropriate entries were merged over, the other list article could be retired, and that's a good thing, IMHO. Imzadi 1979 → 05:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Interstate 6 ?

Not exists ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 13:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jerome Potts: please see the thread you started at Talk:Interstate Highway System#Why no Interstate 6 ? for the answers. Imzadi 1979 → 17:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Interstate Highways. 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/20140330090745/http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwdplng/mapping/trafficmaps/trafficdata_reports_cen/2010_ATVR_FINAL_All_Posted.pdf to http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwdplng/mapping/trafficmaps/trafficdata_reports_cen/2010_ATVR_FINAL_All_Posted.pdf

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) 08:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Interstate Highways. 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/20140417104824/http://www.dot.alaska.gov/stwdplng/mapping/trafficmaps/trafficdata_reports_nor/NRVolumeRpt2008-10.pdf to http://www.dot.alaska.gov/stwdplng/mapping/trafficmaps/trafficdata_reports_nor/NRVolumeRpt2008-10.pdf

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) 18:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 15 March 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page not moved. Consensus is that the title is correct for the content as it lists all of the interstate highways. (closed by page mover) -- Dane ^talk 02:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

---

List of Interstate Highways → List of primary Interstate Highways – The exclusion of three-digit and suffixed Interstates makes the title of this list incorrect; it is very reasonable to assume that a person that clicks on "List of Interstate Highways" is expecting a full listing and not just the one- and two-digit highways provided here. Keeping consistent with "List of auxiliary Interstate Highways" and "List of suffixed Interstate Highways", renaming this article to "List of primary Interstate Highways" would be the most accurate description of these contents and make navigation more straightforward. WikiRedactor (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. —  AjaxSmack  23:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support; the proposed title more accurately describes the subject of the article. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• ​​What will happen to the "List of Interstate Highways" link if this move is conducted? Redirect? DAB page? —  AjaxSmack  15:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @AjaxSmack: A dab page would be most appropriate; if the current title was to redirect here post-move anyway, there would be no benefit to move it in the first place. WikiRedactor (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I agree but I've seen other options given at other proposals. Thanks. I'm not crazy about the move as I consider the primary Interstate Highways the real Interstates; the auxiliaries are spurs and loops of those. This move will just be more hassle for readers not in the know about the nomenclature of the system. —  AjaxSmack  01:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I was inclined to oppose, and since User:AjaxSmack has expressed similar concerns, I will do so now. All of the interstate highways are listed on the page, in the right column, as auxiliaries to the main interstates. There is not as much information on them as on the primary highways, but they are present. So I see no real problem with this remaining as a parent article to the other lists mentioned in the nomination. Dekimasuよ! 18:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Every interstate is linked on this page; organized by parent route. It is a complete list, you can get to every interstate highway from this page. The title is correct as written. --Jayron32 19:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose—per Jayron and Dekimasu. This title is sufficient. Imzadi 1979 → 19:47, 28 March 2018 (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 skipped numbers?

Somebody could explain even briefly why numbers are skipped in this list? If there were "candidate" routes that were not funded eventually, that is still worth a mention I believe. MarmotteiNoZ 03:43, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@MarmotteNZ: numbers are skipped because they weren't used in the grid. The highways weren't numbered sequentially from creation, but rather by location. See Interstate Highway System#Numbering system for more details. Imzadi 1979 → 04:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Did I-31 Really exist?

The Article that I-31 redirects to doesn't say of anything about of it Existing, if it did, is there a reliable source to prove? Qutlook (talk) 02:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

CORRECTION: What I meant to say was was it ever "Signed" so when I say "Exist" I mean "Signed" Qutlook (talk) 02:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I15 goes further look on google

Check 96.241.227.191 (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Chart Edits

Two things:

First, I think it would be helpful to add a column with a given highway's spurs, such as I-283 and I-495. (Also, on the same topic, I might have missed this but what if a highway has more than 9 spurs?)

Second, do we need a "removed" column if none of them ever have been removed?

- AAEexecutive (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

1. We already have that column. What exactly are you proposing?
2. The list uses standardized list templates that are used on dozens of pages. Personally, I don't think it's broken, so it doesn't need fixing. –Fredddie™ 18:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Breakout Associated Routes to its own column

Looking at the table, it's plain to see that the notes section contains a consistent entry called "Associated Routes" with either none or the other interstates related to it following. It would probably help the page to break that out into its own column in the table. This would save some space by avoiding the iteration of the "Associated Routes:" in each note section while also allowing the table to be sorted on that column. I do not have table expertise, but I'm certain someone out there does. -- Srwalden (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Bumping thread. –Fredddie™ 23:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC) –Fredddie™ 23:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Title doesn't match content

The title, "List of Interstate Highways" doesn't match that contents, which is only a list of "primary Interstate Highways". My attempt to clarify this confusion was reverted. Perhaps I should have make a bolder suggestion, to move the article to a new title better matching the contents? Or would someone like to propose a different solution?

I note that the lede, describing primary and auxiliary highways, does not state that this article only addresses and lists one of those two categories. Based on that title and description one should expect both to be in the following table(s). Ccrrccrr (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Clarifying topic

The title, "List of Interstate Highways" doesn't match thed contents, which is only a list of "primary Interstate Highways". My attempt to clarify this confusion was reverted twice, and my attempt to discuss the issue on the talk page was ignored and archived. I hope that other editors will engage in a sincere discussion here rather than descending into an edit war.

As I suggested before perhaps it's best to move the article to a new title better matching the contents?

My latest edit has awkward wording of a section heading because I wanted to follow the rule that the last editor used meticulously, even though it's not a great solution. Ccrrccrr (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

We don't need to word things in Wikipedia's voice that way. Verbiage in the format of "this article is" or "this list is" has been long deprecated in our articles.

We also don't need three links to the auxiliary list in the lead. That count doesn't include the link to the auxiliary list at the bottom of the infobox. As for the body, the previous wording was more concise and better. Imzadi 1979 → 22:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979: Can you propose a different solution to the problem I've identified if you don't like my wording? I don't like my latest wording either, these problems remain:

1. The title of the article is "List of Interstate highways", but the contents is a more limited list. It's essential to clarify that. Linking to a different list, while hiding the fact that the link is to a different list does not accomplish that objection.
2. The content about numbering systems doesn't match that title either.
3. The section heading "Continental United States" doesn't match the contents, even when informed by the article title. It is not a comprehensive "list of interstate highways" in the "continental united states"

I'd love to work together to find a solution but when it gets reverted to the same problematic version, that doesn't feel collaborative. I'm not simply reverting to my preferred version but am trying to take your concerns into consideration. Do you understand the concerns I'm raising? And what do you think of changing the title? Ccrrccrr (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, check out Wikipedia:SALLEAD. Key points are:

1. The article should have a lead that "summarizes [the list's] content ... and makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected, unless inclusion criteria are unambiguously clear from the article title."

2. "Even when the selection criteria might seem obvious to some, an explicit standard is often helpful to [...] readers."

I should also note that I am not in favor of a large number of links to the aux. list. I just thought it was more respectful to add what I thought was important without deleting your links. Ccrrccrr (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

If your assertion is that every article titled "List of X" represents a 'complete and unabridged list of X' at Wikipedia, you'd find that is plainly not true. For sufficiently small sets of X, it may be true, for example, the List of presidents of the United States is complete at less than 50 entries, a manageable size. The List of people from Texas is, by necessity, not a complete list of such people. While the "list of interstate highways" lies between those extremes, it is still large enough that breaking it into two different lists, primary and auxiliary, seems reasonable. The lead of the list plainly states right now "There are 70 primary Interstate Highways in the Interstate Highway System, a network of freeways in the United States." in the first sentence, and has a link to the list of the List of auxiliary Interstate Highways in the second sentence. I'm not sure there's a more efficient way to do what you seem to want to do. It both explains the criteria for the list, and has a link to the related list, all in the first few lines of text. Seems perfectly adequate to the purpose. --Jayron32 16:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Oh, sorry if I gave you the wrong impression. I absolutely do not think that the title needs to precisely define the scope! The guidance I cited makes it very clear that that should not be required, and in fact the motivation for the key points I quoted is the fact that the title often can't do it all.

Nor am I wanting to change the scope to include aux. Interstates, although if someone wanted to do that I would not object.

My primary goal is very specifically what is requested in the quoted points from Wikipedia:SALLEAD: a "direct" statement of the criteria for inclusion. When the current lead says "There are 70 primary Interstate Highways" that does not directly say that the contents of the list is those 70. You might think that's obvious, but the guidance is to be explicit and that's not explicit. I think that the context of numbering systems could lead a reader to think that the distinction is being made for the purpose of explaining the numbering systems, rather than for explaining the contents of the list. Furthermore, the current link to the list of aux Interstates doesn't make it clear that there's a separate list. Normally an internal Wikipedia link should be expected to be an article about the topic described by the link text, so one should expect to find at that link something like a discussion of the role and history of the aux. Interstates.

What is the harm in being clear? Are you worried that the lead will become too long? If so, wouldn't it be better to trim of of the stuff that doesn't specifically address what the guidance asks for in the lead?

Since you doubt it can be done well, here's an attempt to try again. Please pick it apart and tell me what is wrong with it.

There are 70 primary Interstate Highways in the Interstate Highway System, a network of freeways in the United States, listed below. For their associated auxiliary Interstate Highways, see the List of auxiliary Interstate Highways.

The primary highways are assigned one- or two-digit route numbers, whereas the auxiliary Interstate Highways receive three-digit route numbers. Typically, odd-numbered Interstates run south-north, with lower numbers in the west and higher numbers in the east; even-numbered Interstates run west-east, with lower numbers in the south and higher numbers in the north. Highways whose route numbers are divisible by 5 usually represent major coast-to-coast or border-to-border routes (ex. I-10 travels from Santa Monica, California, to Jacksonville, Florida, traveling from the Pacific to Atlantic oceans). Additionally, auxiliary highways have a numbering system in which a different number prefixes the number of its parent highway. Five route numbers are duplicated in the system, though the corresponding highways are separated by state lines which prevents confusion.

Below, the main list of primary Interstate Highways in the contiguous United States is followed by sections for Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico.

I would actually prefer to replace the long paragraph on numbering with a link to Interstate_Highway_System#Numbering_system but I don't have strong feelings about that, as long as the statement of the contents of the list comes first and is clearly separated from the discussion of numbering. Ccrrccrr (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Some options for wording of the first paragraph of the lead. First, the first sentence:

1. There are 70 primary Interstate Highways in the Interstate Highway System, a network of freeways in the United States, (as) listed below. [As above]
2. This is a list of primary Interstate Highways in the Interstate Highway System, a network of freeways in the United States. [Following the example set by at least two lists linked from Wikipedia:SALLEAD, namely List of people from the Isle of Wight and List of Finns]
3. The 70 primary Interstate Highways in the Interstate Highway System, a network of freeways in the United States, are listed below.
4. The primary Interstate Highways in the Interstate Highway System, a network of freeways in the United States, are listed below.

Among those, I like #2 best. It follows the guidance at Wikipedia:SALLEAD both in terms of being directly stating what's in the list, and in terms of closely following several lists cited there as proper examples. I don't like #3, because it uses indirection to convey the number rather than stating it. #4 is a revision of #3 to solve that problem; with it or #2, the number would be worked in somewhere later. My overall preference is 2, 4, 1 or worst, 3. #1 could be phrased with or without the "as".

For the second sentence, options include:

1. For their associated auxiliary Interstate Highways, see the list of auxiliary Interstate Highways. [As above]
2. Associated auxiliary Interstate Highways are in a separate list.
3. See the list of auxiliary Interstate Highways for additional highways in the system.

I like either either of 2 or 3 better than 1. I believe that despite concerns about encyclopedic voice expressed above, both are consistent with the guidance in Wikipedia:SRTA. I like number 2 best, but with only a weak preference between 2 and 3.

I welcome input on other ways to phrase these, or further discussion of how to achieve the primary goals of the lead other than in two sentences like these. Ccrrccrr (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Option 2 is a non-starter. If implemented, that text would be changed in order to get this list through FLC in the future. The "this is a list of X" wording has been deprecated for a long time in quality list writing. For similar reasons, I dislike 3 and 4 as being to self-referential in Wikipedia's voice, and I would even remove the "(as) listed below" portion of option 1.

As for the second sentence, all three options are fatal for being self-referential in Wikipedia's voice. Should be take this to FLC, which should be a goal, the sentence would need to be changed if any of those options were implemented.

In short, the existing two sentence define the scope of the list and point elsewhere for the list of auxiliaries. We can spill lots of words here, but good crisp writing is an important consideration. Imzadi 1979 → 20:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that good crisp writing is important. I would like to see the lead both shorter and clearer. Let's work together toward that!

Your feedback on my suggestions is helpful towards that.

If you say #2 is off the table, it's probably a moot point, but just for my understanding, I've offered evidence that "this is a list of X" wording is actually recommended. Can you support your assertion that it's deprecated? Are there discussions of FLC nominations that you think I should read to gain an understanding of the thinking among the people involved there? Similarly, how can I understand your objection with respect to the second sentence, when my attempts to find guidance on lists and on self-referential language seem to me to support what I've suggested there?

Neither of us like #4 much so it seems like #3 is the most likely candidate. You say it's too self-referential. But Wikipedia:SRTA.does not actually recommend against this type of wording--it gives lots of acceptable examples that are similar.

Number 1, without the "as listed below" is essentially the same as what's there now, and I find that unacceptable, not meeting the criteria I cited before, also noted at Wikipedia:FLCR, so it doesn't seem likely to result in a compromise we are both OK with. It's also poor quality writing, even as an regular encyclopedia page, with the excessive indirection.

Yes, someone reading between the lines and clicking on links can eventually figure out from the existing first two sentences what the scopes of the lists are. But going about it that way is directly in conflict with explicit guidance on lists. It's not crisp clear wording. It's oblique, obscure and indirect. We can do better! Ccrrccrr (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

It turns out that this article has been taken to FCL. It was rejected, and the feedback received prominently included the lack of clarify about the scope, from two different reviewers. If going back there a goal, we really should take that feedback seriously.

I don't aspire to a long, complicated definition in the title, and I think there are other solutions, but it really only requires adding one word to the title. Some of the suggestions there used longer titles. Ccrrccrr (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposed new lead

Attempting to follow Wikipedia:SALLEAD and Wikipedia:SRTA, while also attending to the concerns raised in the feedback received from the previous FLC nomination and the concerns raised by @Imzadi1979:, here's what I suggest for the lead. I acknowledge that those six sources of guidance are in conflict and am trying to find a good compromise. Note that because of concerns about keeping it concise, I have done some copy editing on the text past the first two sentences to make it less wordy and more direct. The result is that the complete lead is only 5 words longer than the original.

The primary Interstate Highways in the Interstate Highway System, a network of freeways in the United States, are listed below. Associated auxiliary Interstate Highways are in a separate list.

There are 70 primary Interstate Highways, which are assigned one- or two-digit route numbers, whereas the auxiliary Interstate Highways have three-digit route numbers. Typically, odd-numbered Interstates run south-north, with lower numbers in the west and higher numbers in the east; even-numbered Interstates run west-east, with lower numbers in the south and higher numbers in the north. Highways with route numbers divisible by 5 are usually major coast-to-coast or border-to-border routes (ex. I-10 travels from Santa Monica, California, to Jacksonville, Florida, extending between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans). Auxiliary highways have an added digit prefixing the two-digit number of the parent highway. Five route numbers are duplicated in the system; the corresponding highways are separated by state lines, reducing potential confusion.

The main list, documenting the primary Interstate Highways in the contiguous United States, is followed by sections for Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico.

The other option I see is the change the title. Again, there's no consensus: @Jayron32: argues that it's not necessary, and I agree, but the FLC reviews recommended it and a nomination to Wikipedia:Requested_moves would result in a broader discussion of the issue. If a real problem with the above proposal is identified and no good solution can be found, that would be my next step. Ccrrccrr (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Last sentence in lead

@Imzadi1979:: The sentence you removed at the end of the lead has been there since 2012; it used to be followed by a second sentence further clarifying the scope until your 21:33, August 5, 2013 edit which removed that second sentence with no explanation.

If my edits made you look more closely and notice a longstanding problem, that's good, but given that the removed sentence was addressing the issue I've raised in this discussion, I think it would be good to seek consensus here. If we can't reach consensus on a way to address the issue, can we at least refrain from degrading the clarity? Ccrrccrr (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Per the discussion on Imzadi1979's talk page, they thought I was introducing new material even though I was not. To avoid any confusion or controversy about what is the status quo vs. my edits, I've restored their own version from April 5th. Ccrrccrr (talk) 12:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979: Your latest comment on this was, on your talk page, "I don't see any issue with the text as it has been. Any text can be massaged and polished, but adding more self-referential and redundant wordings doesn't achieve that goal." I'm only reverting that sentence to "the text as it has been". That doesn't mean we can't move forward, but we should work out a mutually agreeable solution here, leaving the text as it has been, at least for the controversial parts, until we do.

The edit summary of your latest revert referred to a "prose ToC." The text of the historic version of that sentence contains information that is not in the ToC. I'd be happy with a solution that modifies headings to ensure that information is conveyed by them, but you've blocked those. If we can't find a way to agree on improvements we should at least leave it as it's been for a decade, and not move in the opposite direction to solving the problem I've identified.

If we can't agree about priorities, we should follow Wikipedia:SALLEAD and Wikipedia:SRTA, and any other guidance you wish to cite. The original sentence there very weakly helps meets the first of those, and is well within the guidance at Wikipedia:SRTA. Your edit does not satisfy the first and implements a hypercorrection with respect to self reference, going beyond what is recommended at Wikipedia:SRTA.

My priority is direct clear language. As you said eloquently above, "good crisp writing is an important consideration." Using "signed" and "unsigned" as a excuse to mention the different section headings is still a prose ToC, it's a just a partially hidden one, that hints at the contents while leaving the reader guessing about what the contents really are. Good crisp writing doesn't tease the reader like that. Ccrrccrr (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Summary of the issue and request for discussion

The article title doesn't clearly and completely specify the list criteria. That's OK per WP:LISTNAME, but in that case, it's essential for the lead to clarify the scope, per both WP:LISTNAME and WP:SALLEAD, and to do so directly — per WP:SALLEAD, the lead should include

direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected, unless inclusion criteria are unambiguously clear from the article title.

Specifically, the list includes only primary Interstate Highways, and omits "auxiliary" Interstates. As that's not in the title, the lead must directly make a statement about the scope. The current lead contains no direct statement about that scope. It mentions the distinction between primary and auxiliary Interstates, but only in the context of describing their numbering systems, not making any statement about the scope of the list, certainly not a direct one.

Arguments given against proposals above to fix this have been as follows, listed with rebuttals:

• Objections to language that would be self referential. However, to make a direct statement about criteria for a list, it is inherently necessary to refer to the list. That might seem like we have a problem with conflicting guidelines, but WP:SRTA is "Self references to avoid", not "Self references should never be used".

• Objections to length. To overcome this objection, I've worked on copy edits to the lead, opening up space for the required but omitted short, direct statement of criteria. If there is a real problem with length, further trimming of material that is not required by WP:SALLEAD, and arguably misplaced there, is quite feasible.

• Objections to duplicating the ToC in the text. But the ToC now is missing the same essential word that the title is missing, "primary". Furthermore, WP:SALLED suggests that "The lead section can also be used to explain the structure of embedded lists in the article body when no better location suggests itself." Editing the headings such that the ToC would contain the missing information would be something I am open to.

It seems clear to me that a fix is needed. It was also clear to reviewers when this article was nominated to become a featured list. The objections to fixing it have been refuted in the bullets above. I've proposed a fix that follows all guidelines I have found. I'm open to other fixes, including a title change, but we should not leave the article as is, contrary to guidelines, without a good basis for doing so. Are there remaining objections to proceeding as has been discussed, and on what basis? Or are there other suggestions for ways to fix the problem? Ccrrccrr (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Support renaming to List of primary Interstate Highways per above. Cards84664 16:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Possible I-42 shield changed to Future-42 shield

I-42 is, of course. designated, but not yet signed. If I'm not mistaken, there are still only "future corridor" signs for it. I was wondering if we should change the I-42 shield in the list to the Future-42 shield, if its possible, until it is officially signed. Thoughts? ChessEric 18:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd remove the entiry until "real" signage exists. Usually newspapers cover new highway dedications, so we should be able to find a source for it if/when it happens. Dave (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Former Interstates

There is a different color for interstates that are no longer designated for that number. Does it count for the older I-86 that went from Connecticut to Massachusetts, I-37 in Illinois, and I-82 in Pennsylvania? TomMasterReal^TALK 02:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

There was I-37 in Illinois? That's news to me. LOL! Anyway, it does count. ChessEric 16:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Maybe, I searched some former interstate highways on Wikipedia, and there was an I-37 in Illinois, but its now I-155, and apparently they wanted to make it I-37, but changed it to I-155. TomMasterReal^TALK 17:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

On second thought (now that I've read the about the situation), I don't think Illinois I-37 should be added. the I-37 numbering was just the original suggestion; the numbering was deferred and changed to I-155. This really doesn't count as a former interstate. ChessEric 01:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree 100% ChessEric. It doesn't seem to actually be an Interstate, it seems to only be the original number planned for I-155. TomMasterReal^TALK 02:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Name switch

Should this article be changed to List of Primary Interstates Highways? I am a pretty bad roadgeek, and have not seen past archives, however, the auxiliary highways are on a different page, which could confuse people looking for all interstates, including the 3 digits. TomMasterReal^TALK 16:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

That's possible, although that might be better brought on the main roads project talk page. ChessEric 21:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)