Template:Did you know nominations/List of Interstate Highways in Michigan
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by v/r - TP 22:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
List of Interstate Highways in Michigan
edit
... that the newest Interstate Highway in Michigan is Interstate 73 (marker pictured), but it has never been built?
- Reviewed: Centennial Broadcasting
- Comment: 2545 B of readable prose after expansion, 0 B before (only contained tables, infobox and references pre-expansion)
5x expanded by Imzadi1979 (talk). Self nominated at 03:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC).
This article is an expansion of an article that had previously only consisted of tables. It is new enough and long enough but the image is not included in the article and therefore cannot be used at DYK. I don't think the hook is acceptable as you cannot really call a road that has not been built a new road. How about (if you add the image to the article): Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
ALT1 ... that Interstate 73 (marker pictured), though designated in 1991 and 1995 as part of the Interstate Highways in Michigan, has never been built?- @Cwmhiraeth: actually, the image is in the article in the table in the "Proposed Interstate Highways" section. I disagree that you can't call it the newest designation, since it is. No other Interstate designation applied to Michigan is newer. (All of the extant designations were approved in 1959, and all of the other proposed numbers were denied or changed in the late 1950s or 1960s.) I think you're confusing the designation (the name, legally assigned to the current corridor in Michigan by §1105(c)(5) of the National Highway Designation Act of 1995) with a physical road. I prefer the original hook. Imzadi 1979 → 11:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I disagree on both counts. You state "No other Interstate designation applied to Michigan is newer" and I don't dispute this, but its not what it says in the hook. I know nothing about interstate highways but I do know that the word "new" implies that something exists and is not merely designated. The image is not suitable for use because it is a non-clickable logo and there is no information on its copyright status. If you were to include it in the top right corner of the page, like Highway 94, that would be acceptable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth: which "Highway 94"? Do you mean "Interstate 94"? As for copyright status, all Interstate Highway shields are public domain as works of the Federal Highway Administration published in in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which can be confirmed by clicking on the image as it appears here. There should be no need to explicitly repeat the I-73 shield in the infobox when the five markers chosen there (in numerical order) were picked to show the original 1957 and the current (1971/73) designs of the existing mainline and business route markers (plus the one-off marker for the Capitol Loop). The image is in use in the article, but because of its size, per WP:ALT, it has had
|alt=|link=used because it is of a more decorative nature. - As for the hook, "Interstate 73" is the newest Interstate Highway designation in the state, and the necessary upgrades to US 127 and US 223 in Michigan have not been built to allow the designation to be signed. The state will have to build a new freeway to replace US 223, build another section of freeway to connect that to the southern end of the US 127 freeway near Jackson, and build a freeway along US 127 to connect the ends of freeway at St. Johns and Ithaca.
The hook is accurate as written. Imzadi 1979 → 23:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth:. Imzadi 1979 → 06:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth: which "Highway 94"? Do you mean "Interstate 94"? As for copyright status, all Interstate Highway shields are public domain as works of the Federal Highway Administration published in in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which can be confirmed by clicking on the image as it appears here. There should be no need to explicitly repeat the I-73 shield in the infobox when the five markers chosen there (in numerical order) were picked to show the original 1957 and the current (1971/73) designs of the existing mainline and business route markers (plus the one-off marker for the Capitol Loop). The image is in use in the article, but because of its size, per WP:ALT, it has had
- Well, I disagree on both counts. You state "No other Interstate designation applied to Michigan is newer" and I don't dispute this, but its not what it says in the hook. I know nothing about interstate highways but I do know that the word "new" implies that something exists and is not merely designated. The image is not suitable for use because it is a non-clickable logo and there is no information on its copyright status. If you were to include it in the top right corner of the page, like Highway 94, that would be acceptable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I think it would be better if someone else reviews this article and hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The original hook will not fly: I-73 does not exist as a highway in Michigan, and until it does, the enabling legislation is not worth the paper it's printed on or the money that's authorized, of which there's precious little. I've struck it. As WP:CRYSTAL says, Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.
In this case, there's no guarantee that I-73 will ever be built, and to call it "the newest Interstate Highway in Michigan" means that it exists now in the state. It doesn't, and that's a couple of decades after the federal legislation. I'm also wondering why the intro says the last highway was completed in 1989 if the history gives a final segment date of 1992. The marker is indeed in the article; I'm not sure of the rules when a smaller-sized version is used in the article but a larger one is used for DYK, and whether the article's needs to be wikilinked. I know that the opposite—cropped versions of article images—is allowed for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- ALT2: ... that the newest Interstate Highway designation in Michigan is Interstate 73 (marker pictured), but it has never been built?
- @BlueMoonset: does adding the explicit word "designation" clear up the ambiguity? It is still the newest designation, and a lobbyist group (the National I-73/I-74/I-75 Corridor Association) as well as the local economic development corporation are lobbying for it. As for your opinions of the legislation: the designation still exists until it is modified or repealed. As for the lead of the article, the typo has been fixed. Imzadi 1979 → 20:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- I think adding "designation" in the bold article link doesn't work well. It's about interstate highways, not just their designations. Proposing the following rewording, which also retains the fact that the article is about highways, not just one:
- ALT3: ... that the most recently designated of the Interstate Highways in Michigan is Interstate 73 (marker pictured), but it has never been built? —BlueMoonset (talk) 05:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: isn't that a wordier way of saying the same thing in ALT 2? Imzadi 1979 → 06:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Lest it seem pedantic, but some sections of roadways in Michigan that bear Interstate designations pre-date those designations. I-96 in places was built as a US 16 freeway, the southern section of I-75 was the US 24A freeway, and I-94 was built in places as M-112, US 112 or US 12 before the I-94 designation was confirmed and added to the roads. Imzadi 1979 → 06:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- ALT3: ... that the most recently designated of the Interstate Highways in Michigan is Interstate 73 (marker pictured), but it has never been built? —BlueMoonset (talk) 05:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- No, it isn't merely a wordier way; while the ALT3 hook is taking about the designation, it makes clear that the article is about the highways themselves, a more interesting subject. (ALT2 also doesn't read smoothly with "designation" where it is.) I'm not entirely sure why you've mentioned the "pedantic" issue at all, as it seems irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Renumbering pre-existing roads happens all the time, and it didn't just happen early in the existence of interstates. But this is the opposite situation: designation prior to the road's existence (if it is ever even built). BlueMoonset (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- I no longer care; this list has received two reviews at ACR in the time this DYK has taken to complete. Imzadi 1979 → 00:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- Let me rephrase, I'm getting to a point where this DYK nomination has dragged on for far too long, and at some point I will just walk away out of frustration. Just pick some hook, run it and move in already. Imzadi 1979 → 00:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- No, it isn't merely a wordier way; while the ALT3 hook is taking about the designation, it makes clear that the article is about the highways themselves, a more interesting subject. (ALT2 also doesn't read smoothly with "designation" where it is.) I'm not entirely sure why you've mentioned the "pedantic" issue at all, as it seems irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Renumbering pre-existing roads happens all the time, and it didn't just happen early in the existence of interstates. But this is the opposite situation: designation prior to the road's existence (if it is ever even built). BlueMoonset (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- New reviewer needed to check ALT3 (I can't since I proposed it). Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- ALT3 is wordy and unnecessary. The reviewers are confusing their own sense of what terms mean with verified facts. It is also crystal ball on their part to make the assumption that the corridor will never be built.
on ALT2 as it makes it clear that the designation is the newest, but the road was never built. The proposed hook makes no indication of plans to build the road, which only then would require verification that there was some legitimate proposal in place. I do not understand the logic presented by the previous two reviewers but can only assume in good faith that it is a misunderstanding of terms. - Floydian τ ¢ 21:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)w
