Talk:Interstate 80 Business (West Wendover, Nevada–Wendover, Utah)

Assessment

The route description is a single sentence and needs to be expanded before this article should merit consideration for B-class. -- Kéiryn (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

BL-80

I have emailed UDOT, and am waiting for a response, but I can find no legal source that states that this is also BL-80. Yes, there are pictures and fan websites, etc, but as far as Utah Code and from what I can find on UDOTs website, I can find no legal definition.

I also emailed NDOT, because I was going to create a combined Wendover Blvd BL-80 article for both states, but I could not find a legal source stating it was a BL, and they said they cant even find the paperwork that would have needed to be sent to get the definition. As far as Nevada state law is concerned, Wendover Blvd between the state line and Alt-93 is just Local collector route #3003. They are attempting to contact AASHTO, but they aren't getting anywhere fast. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 15:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Interstate 80 Business (West Wendover, NV–Wendover, UT)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   A few minor prose issues. I'll go do a quick copy edit to clear them up here.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I would like to see photographer/author credits for the photos added to the references, but this is a minor detail.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Barring the very minor prose issues which would be easier for me to fix than to list here, the article is very good. I rate it as a pass. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 20 January 2020

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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Interstate 80 Business (West Wendover, Nevada–Wendover, Utah) → Interstate 80 Business (Wendover Boulevard) – Looking at WP:USSH, the guideline for naming business routes such as this one, is "Interstate X Business (City, State)". However, the guideline doesn’t mention what to do if the route covers more than one city and state, such as this route. As such, I think "Interstate 80 Business (Wendover Boulevard)" would make a better title for this page. 24.228.135.248 (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose The naming convention for special routes uses the city as a disambiguator. In cases where a route spans multiple jurisdictions, the format previously employed by WP:USRD articles is to use the cities of the two termini to disambiguate (listed west-to-east or south-to-north). See also: U.S. Route 287 Business (Mansfield–Fort Worth, Texas), U.S. Route 40 Alternate (Hagerstown–Frederick, Maryland) (a GA), M-28 Business (Ishpeming–Negaunee, Michigan) (an FA), and U.S. Route 40 Alternate (Keysers Ridge–Cumberland, Maryland) (another FA). This article title already follows this established convention, and the proposed move would go against this. FWIW, I believe this format was derived from the guidance given to Interstate Highways articles where a route repeats in multiple locations and spans multiple states—see WP:USSH, footnote c attached to "Interstate X (State)" naming conventions. -- LJ ↗ 21:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - The standard naming convention for road articles is to use place names as a disambiguator as opposed to road names. Dough4872 22:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per established naming conventions listed above. Wendover Boulevard is a street name, not a city...and I also note that part of the route runs on Florence Way. Highway 89 (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, a simple title like Wendover Boulevard would be better than the proposed one if the street name is in fact the more WP:COMMONNAME used in that area instead of I-80 Business. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: Not the entire length of I-80 Bus. is on Wendover Boulevard. If we went through with this, we might have to rename all examples, including U.S. Route 25 Business (Augusta, Georgia–North Augusta, South Carolina). Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per USSH and the fact that not all of the route has that street name. Needforspeed888 (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support alternatives later like (Nevada - Utah) or something. If the whole of the route had the same alternate name, that'd work, but it don't. Red Slash 18:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per arguments above, and as the person who got this article to FA status. Wendover Blvd would be OK if this covered all of Wendover Blvd, but it does not. One could also argue that Wendover Blvd ends at Frontage Road in Wendover, UT, however the BL covers the ramps to/from I-80 north of Frontage Road. --AdmrBoltz 18:50, 26 January 2020 (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.

Route color

Does anyone think that this route should be highlighted in green? Cause that seems to be the color that a lot of Interstate Business routes are. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 05:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

The standard practice across Wikipedia (not just road articles) is if a highlighted object in a map is used to illustrate location, to use the color red. If two colors are required, typically the secondary color is blue. I'm not sure how that came to be, nor if it is formally codified or just tradition. However, it's fairly standardized across Wikipedia. Regardless, Green is not a safe color choice to highlight objects on a map, given red-green colorblindness is the most common type and almost all maps already use red for lines in the map.Dave (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Probably delist from FA status

I feel like this article should undergo FAR. There's a {{primary}} tag at the top, and there's two {{citation needed}} tags in the history section which should be grossly obvious for a delist. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@NoobThreePointOh: no, it's not. The tag at the top isn't appropriate as the article doesn't overly rely on primary sources. It may use a lot of first-party sources, but some editors conflate that issue.

As for the two citation needed tags, one took about 30 seconds to replace with a source. The other may take a little longer, but it isn't impossible to replace. Since any FAR would take a minimum of two weeks to conduct, I expect that the tag could be replaced in that time frame. In short, no, it's not "grossly obvious" for a delist. Imzadi 1979 → 22:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm truly sorry about opening this thread. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 23:48, 24 August 2024 (UTC)