Template talk:Interstates/Archive 1

Archive 1

86 95

That "95" in every article is very confusing. How about replacing it with a blank shield in the template? 68.81.231.127 07:59, 20 December 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to do exactly that. Thanks for the idea. --SPUI 18:29, 20 December 2004 (UTC)

Interstate 22

I added Interstate 22 since it's on track for completion in 2006. I don't know what the feelings are about including interstates that are incomplete, however. -- Cleduc 06:10, 10 January 2005 (UTC)

No real feeling either way - the number has been written into law, so we should expect it to be signed in the future. The issue is not completeness, though, but existence (for example, 73 is not complete and maybe never will be, but has signed sections). I'd say in this case to include it - it seems to be pretty well known by that number and on track to being signed. Something like I-7 for CA 99 shouldn't be included, even if it's been considered by Caltrans, until the number is officially adopted by AASHTO or written into law. --SPUI 06:21, 10 January 2005 (UTC)

Interstate H-201

Added H-201 to the unsigned portion of the template. Snickerdo 03:58, 7 April 2005 (UTC)

My mistake, H-201 is signed. Impressive! Snickerdo 03:58, 7 April 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, I feel like a fool. H-201 removed. Snickerdo 03:59, 7 April 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism?

When I checked this page from my watchlist I noticed that "A1A" was added to the bottom of the template. Since this is the second nonsense edit that has been added (see I-192 above) I sent a {{subst:test-n|Template:Interstates}} to the user, User:67.78.15.138. (It is an IP address as well. ) --Rschen7754 16:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Formatting

I just reformatted this template to make it properly toccolours-compliant [1]. User:SPUI reverted my edit with the comment "rv to centered version", referring to the cell contents being centered (which only shows up in a handful of browsers) [2].

Most tables and templates in Wikipedia don't have their contents centered, but it wouldn't be too difficult to add that back in to this one. After a brief conversation on his Talk: page, I suggested I bring it here, to gain consensus either way. Opinions anyone? — OwenBlacker 21:40, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Restore centering

Enter a new line here containing # ~~~:

1. I just think the centering looks better. --SPUI (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Leave cells not centered

Enter a new line here containing # ~~~:

1. OwenBlacker

Comments

Add your comments here:

Interstate 192?

Is there an Interstate 192? Is it primary? That's what this template said until I reverted it... an IP address did the change. --Rschen7754

There is no Interstate 192 or Interstate 92 for that matter. The article should be VFD for being BS.Gateman1997 17:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Is there even an article on I-192? All I saw was the link on the template. I thought I-192 was bogus so I fixed it. Could that be vandalism?--~~

Probably was.Gateman1997 18:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Broken link and misalignment

Noticed a few broken links within the Hawaii interstates. H-3 and 201 were not taking me to those pages. Corrected those links (one of the brackets was missing from the H3 link) and not sure what was up with 201 but it works now). Also the alignment seemed to be off. Some of the E/W interstates had (for example): 84E and others had 84(W). Don't know how it was intended to look, but to save space and make it more linear, I removed the parentheses. -wilicali00 PS, I just realized I probably should have brought this up before making any adjustments. I apologize if I caused any problems.

The problem with this is that then we get Interstate 76E. There were Interstates with lettered sufixes at one time, so I reverted it. For the first part I assume you;re talking about the Hawaii template? By the way thanks for coming back to sign your entry (you can do it with --~~~~ as well. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

238

In my opinion, I-238 does not belong in the list of "primary" Interstates. It functions as an I-x80, not as a 2di, even if it couldn't be numbered as such. Certainly not a "primary" route and never will be. CrazyC83 00:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The idea is that all others are reachable by going to the 2DI pages, which link to 3DIs. No 2DI page links to 238 in the way that others link to their children. --SPUI (talk) 03:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Not to mention 238 is considered a primary by the federal gov't.Gateman1997 16:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • That is complete falsehood, I-238 is considered Auxillary by the Federal Goverment http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/routefinder/table2.htm. -- Please remove it from the box and put it on the I-80 auxillary routes where it belongs. KelleyCook 14:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Pink background.

Key needed? Rich Farmbrough. 17:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I looked for a while to try to figure out what the pink background meant.

A legend would just make it bigger. It should be pretty obvious that the pink ones end in 0 and 5, and the Interstate Highway System article explains that those are the most major ones. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Why can't we use the hide/unhide features of NavFrame for the legend? Kinda like how Template:SonicGames has theirs? --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 22:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• New Idea, how about 4-8 get background color X, 10-19 get background color Y; 20-29 X; 30-39 Y etc. This would eliminate the function/number debate, the need for a "pink" key and as well as make it even easier to look up a number. KelleyCook 18:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Vote: definition of primary interstates

There is an apparent disagreement on the definition of the primary interstate highways per the prior section on this page. The template appears to highlight the primary interstates with a pink background. There are two methods of determining primary interstates:

• Number: a primary interstate is a primary interstate because the FHWA and AASHTO selected a number ending in 5 or 0.
• Function: a primary interstate is a primary interstate because of its actual function and use.

I would like to call a vote on this. Vote here:

• I vote Function for a few reasons. 1. If all we are doing is highlighting numbers that end in 0 or 5, we aren't providing any useful information except to people who haven't passed 2nd grade math. 2. If I-45 is a primary interstate, then why not I-44 and I-37? I-37 has a similar function (connects major Texas cities), and I-44 is much longer and more significant than I-45. 3. It is weird to call a minor intrastate Interstate a primary. Nova SS 21:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Number. That's the legal definition. Otherwise we get into debates about whether 64 is major, etc. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Number per Rschen7754. æle ✆ 02:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Number per Rschen7754. ...Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 17:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Number or otherwise we'll have like 100 individual debates. It's far easier to go by a simple rule. --Chris 00:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Number if we use function, then people who really like a certain interstate will just campaign for that one. Numbers are more official than personal opinions. Station Attendant 23:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Number, however I propose that ALL 2dis are MAJOR routes. For instance Route 8 is major yet it doesn't fit the existing listing. I'm sure others can point out other similarly "major" routes that are not 5 or 0 ending. I93 in New England is another prime example.Gateman1997 08:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Function, because the 0/5 rule doesn't officially exist. KelleyCook 14:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Number, but I'd really rather have neither (get rid of the background entirely). Function is incredibly subjective, and no definition of function can possibly pass the NPOV policy (is it a matter of length? traffic? major metro areas served? this arbitrary listing, or a version thereof? And with any of those methods, how many should we have?), but Number is arbitrary and meaningless, for reasons discussed above. I-20 and I-40 laugh at I-30. Morgan Wick 04:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Function, especially if we are calling these highways "major", like the template still says. However I agree with the person above me and say neither. Splent 22:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Number per legal definition. Andros 1337 18:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Precisely what "legal definition" are you referring to? KelleyCook 19:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    • There is no legislation regarding Interstate numbering. AASHTO isn't an official government body. However, they make the rules regarding numbering of highways and they've decided to give 0/5 numbers to routes they decided were major...Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 07:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Obviously, as shown by the majorness I-45 and I-30 as opposed to, say I-94, that "decision" was much more of a general guideline than a rule. Assuming of course that decision was ever made, there is no mention of 0/5 are major on their (or for that matter, FHWA's) website. As such "major in pink" is an unsupported statement which of course is against Wikipedia's guidelines.KelleyCook 13:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Remember, though, a lot of AASHTO's revenue comes through selling manuals through their bookstore, so I don't think that they have that information just lying around on their website. The 0/5 rule is confirmed in other sources, for example The Roads that Built America by Dan McNichol. We can't decide which interstates are major ourselves, as that would violate both WP:NOR and WP:NPOV as I understand it...Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 20:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
          • OK, so we can choose a "POV" system, a defective system (which equates relatively minor routes like I-45 with undeniably major routes like I-10), or no system at all. I choose the POV system first and no system at all second. Either is preferable to a demonstrably defective system. Nova SS 20:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. What about highlights as a navigational aid? It's harder to find a certain number without the 0s and 5s highlighted. And by the way: "In both plans [U.S. and Interstate], numbers ending in zero are used for transcontinental and other major multi-State routes." [3] æle ✆ 2006-05-24t20:35z
  • Also, "[n]umbers divisible by 5 are intended to be major among the primary routes, carrying traffic long distances" (Interstate Highway System#Primary routes). We can at least be self-consistent. Of course there are exceptions. There are always exceptions. Interstate 99 is west of Interstate 81. æle ✆ 2006-05-24t20:39z

Please vote: New Proposal

No. It's not what we've agreed on. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. POV. This version states that every interstate with the first digit being an odd number is a major interstate. Interstates such as 5 (main city: LA) and 85 (main city: Atlanta) are more significant than 99. Let's stick to the official definition. Andros 1337 19:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• • No it doesn't, as it takes out the P.O.V as you might note that the contentious phrase "major in pink" was deleted. Pink or Blue are just colors to help you quickly find the number you are looking ... it could be Purple and Orange for all I care. Though clearly shades of red, white and blue would be the obvious choices because on the interstate shield.

Organization? (revised)

It'd probably be easier to navigate through the list if it was presented like this (imagine table markup and links):

I understand that there are quite a few non-numbers, but it makes routes easier to find and looks less cluttered. æle ✆ 16:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The template is small because of space concerns. Big templates with red links tend to be inefficient. The way the template is is a good trade-off between space and convenience. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Me too, but for a different reason. Some interstates in this format (such as 30 and 85) are not major interstates. Vishwin60 02:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Another template idea

Making it more like the US highway one:

Needs formatting fixes, but I think the idea is obvious.

Whoa, way too big and there are some interstates that are not major, such as 30 and 85. Vishwin60 02:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

30 and 85 are major interstates per AASHTO. Read a few sections above where a discussion ensued about this very subject. And yes, this template is way to huge. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 02:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

We shouldn't be determining which is major based purely on length. While I-45 and I-30 are subjective, I-85 is definately a major interstate. It passes through many major cities in the SE United States. IMO I-85 is more of a major interstate than I-25 (the only two major cities I-25 passes through are Albuquerque and Denver). Andros 1337 20:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I added the current template to Requests for protection. Andros 1337 20:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Too big, too much wasted space, etc. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Redesign attempt 2

Main Interstate Highways (major in pink) H1 H2 H3 4 5 8 10 12 15 16 17 19 20 22 24 25 26 27 29 30 35 37 238 39 40 43 44 45 49 55 57 59 64 65 66 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 93 94 95 96 97 99 Unsigned A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 PRI-1 PRI-2 PRI-3 Lists Main - Auxiliary - Suffixed - Business - Proposed - Unsigned Gaps - Intrastate - Interstate standards - Replaced Main Interstate Highways (major in pink) H1 H2 H3 4 5 8 10 12 15 16 17 19 20 22 24 25 26 27 29 30 35 37 238 39 40 43 44 45 49 55 57 59 64 65 W 66 E 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 W 76 E 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 W 84 E 85 W 86 E 87 W 88 E 89 90 91 93 94 95 96 97 99 Unsigned A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 PRI-1 PRI-2 PRI-3 Lists Main - Auxiliary - Suffixed - Business - Proposed - Unsigned Gaps - Intrastate - Interstate standards - Replaced

Comments on either? æ² ✆ 2006‑12‑08t06:14z

I don't like either. The left one links to disambiguation pages, and the right one is rather wide, as well as not clearly indicating where to click for the western routes (it took me about 15 seconds to realize it wasn't saying 83W 84E 85W 86E). --NE2 10:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Attempt 2.2

I tried to address the W/E problem in this revision. The wideness issue isn't likely to go away any time soon; it's a limitation of the numeric grid. I don't believe it's excessively wide, however. æ² ✆ 2006‑12‑09t17:35z

In all honesty what is the problem with the current template? It is fine how it is right now. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I simply think a grid is better-organized and easier to use. æ² ✆ 2006‑12‑10t05:23z

The current template is a grid... Many have tried to get the template revised, but few have succeeded. The current setup holds consensus. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, yes, the current template is a grid, but all of the numbers are simply smushed together. This version organizes each Interstate in columns by last digit as well. By the way, "[m]any have tried to get the template revised, but few have succeeded" does not mean that the template could not benefit from changes. æ² ✆ 2006‑12‑10t23:57z

IMHO, trying to get the template revised is a waste of time since most people prefer how it is. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I happen to enjoy "wasting my time". ;) æ² ✆ 2006‑12‑11t20:22z

Puerto Rican Interstates

I noticed that the unsigned Puerto Rican interstate highways are labeled "PRI-1," "PRI-2," and "PRI-3" on the template. However, in their articles, they seem to be referred to more often as "PR-1," "PR-2," and "PR-3." The sign graphics also don't contain the letter "I" (though I don't know how accurate those are considering that these are supposedly unsigned roads). I don't know enough about the issue to say which way is correct, but a consistent labeling would be nice to have. Could someone with some Interstate expertise look into this? Etphonehome 18:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I-45 is not a "main" interstate

I do not feel that I-45 is not a "main" interstate. Its only purpose is to connect Dallas and Houston, TX, and it is no more significant than other limited-purpose interstates.

As a case in point, I-44 is a much longer interstate that connects more cities and passes through more states. Despite this, I-44 is not designated as a "main" interstate.

"Main" interstates should be designated as such because of factors including, but not limited to, their length and routing. Let's not get hung up on numbering, which is an artifical designation.

Novasource 23:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

As always, there are exceptions. That doesn't mean we have to make the navigation box more confusing than it should be. æle ✆ 23:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts. I actually think it would simplify it by having fewer highlighted boxes. The only complexity would be for the authors, and I'm sure we can handle that. I'd rather be more accurate even at a coast of a tad more authoring complexity. Novasource 03:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I-45 is certainly one of the major Interstates. We should color them as defined by the nunmbering system, not some arbitrary length criterion. AASHTO could have easily chosen several other numbers for I-45, but they didn't, because they felt it was long enough to be a major one. Though I do wonder if it would have been I-35E if the D/FW split hadn't been included. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

What the bureaucrats and politicians say something is does not always hold up to a litmus test. Case in point, compare their pick for a "maximum safe speed" with reality.

A "primary" interstate needs to be definied by real factors like its actual use, location, purpose, etc. I-45 is no more primary than I-37. If you call I-45 a primary, then I-37 also needs to be a primary. Both connect major Texas cities, both presumably carry lots of port cargo, etc.

I have put I-45 back to a non-primary status. Please don't revert until there is a consensus here.

Nova SS 20:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

"Primary" Interstate highways are determined solely by numbering, just as "primary" U.S. Routes are. U.S. Route 91 is only 120 miles long, and yet it's considered "primary". æle ✆ 21:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and the coloring helps in using the template: since it's not as neat as, say {{U.S. Routes}}, the colored primary routes help people to find Interstates with numbers near their own. æle ✆ 21:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I've searched all over AAHSTO and the FWHA websites and I can't find one reference to the "0/5" rule making one a primary interstate. I-45, I-30, and I-85 are significantly smaller and less economically important than say I-69 and I-94, for example. I severely disagree with some of the smaller roads being on the major junctions list. KelleyCook 14:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure why length is the only criteria for whether an interstate is major or not. I-45 directly connects the 4th and 6th largest metro areas in the U.S. I-37 connects the 3rd and 7th largest metro areas in the state (29th and 114th overall). I-45 also carries a lot more traffic than either I-37 or I-44. --Holderca1 13:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Compress template?

I organized the lists and categorized them into three rows. I think it looks much more spiffy that way, and someone can possibly compress the template a little in width. I don't know about you all, but I'm thinking that the template is a little too wide. Artisol2345 (not Aristotle) [talk to me or follow me] 23:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Considering that the unconnected auxillaries list is about to be deleted, that should fix the problem. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you are going to delete the "unconnected" auxiliary list, what about the "other" list that I put in? Are you going to delete that one too? Artisol2345 (not Aristotle) [talk to me or follow me] 03:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Never mind about my preceding comment. Now I understand what you said. Artisol2345 (not Aristotle) [talk to me or follow me] 03:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The addition of "Lists" made it too wide; I fixed it. --NE2 10:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Added back the lists removed by User:NE2. I'm sure it's fine by now.

-- Artisol2345

23:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

multiples of 5 in pink

Having read down through this page, I can understand why "major in pink" was changed to "multiples of 5 in pink". I had come here to ask why, because it looks really stupid. Perhaps a better solution would be to subsection the Interstate Highway System#Primary routes section, with one sub-subsection called, say, "Major arteries" containing the (existing, cited) sentence "Numbers divisible by 5 are intended to be major arteries among the primary routes, carrying traffic long distances." Then "major in pink" could be restored to the template, with a link to that sub-subsection to forestall arguments like those above. jnestorius^(talk) 00:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Grid dimensions

Hi. Is the number of columns and rows in the grid significant? Sorry for any ignorance. Sardanaphalus (talk) 04:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Improved version of template

I propose a new version of the template.

Each of the alternatives I have created below accomplishes the following:

• Converts the current template to a Template:Navbox-class template for standardization with other templates on the articles that use this template. Among others this standardization includes
  • autocollapse function, which recognizes the presence of other Navbox-class templates in an article and functions accordingly. The default is to collapse when there are two or more Navbox templates, but this can be overridden on an individual-article basis; for example, to force the template to be expanded on a page you would specify the "state" parameter as "uncollapsed" like this: {{Interstates|state=uncollapsed}}. For more info see Template:Navbox#Setup parameters.
  • width of the template is standard in Navbox-class templates, so multiple Navboxes used in the same article look neatly stacked
• Attempts to clarify what exactly is linked from the template.
  • The old template was titled "Main Interstate Highways" but aside from the specific routes linked most of the articles also applied to auxiliary routes. The new title makes clear that this is a navigation template about the entire Interstate system. Obviously the articles for specific auxiliary routes cannot be linked from this template so a note is added that those articles are accessible from the parent primary route, while for the articles that are not about specific routes, it is made clear that most of them apply to the entire Interstate system.
  • The "Lists" section of the old template was also potentially confusing, for example, "Standards" does not refer to a list but to the article about Interstate highway standards. The "Primary" and "Auxiliary" sections consist mainly of lists of routes, except that "Gaps" is not a list of routes. I have moved the applicable articles into a "Lists of routes" section to clarify what is included in the section. Within that section, "All primary" intuitively means "List of all primary Interstate routes", "Suffixed" means "List of suffixed Interstate routes", etc.
  • The remaining articles are moved to a misc. section, with a more complete title given to clarify what article the link is for.
• Because there are no articles about Interstates A-1, A-2, etc. or PR-1, PR-2, etc. the links to those specific routes are replaced with the articles "Interstates in Alaska" and "Interstates in Puerto Rico".
• For I-76, 84, 86, or 88, the disambiguation page is linked to assist those looking for those routes if they don't know whether they're looking for the eastern or western route. I considered using the states in the template instead of east/west, i.e. "76 (CO/NE), 76 (OH/PA/NJ)", but in templates 1 and 2 that would have made the list longer than necessary. Template 3 shows what that method of disambiguation would look like.
• The current template has grid formatting but does not organize the routes by number. Each of the templates below either organizes the routes by number or removes the grid formatting. If the routes are not organized by number there is no purpose in trying to align the numbers vertically and there is no need to come to agreement on such things as how wide each table cell should be, how many columns should there be, etc.
• A link to the US roads Portal is added. The current US Routes template already has a Portal link, but the Portal covers the Interstate System as well as the US Route system.

Template 1 is my preferred version, due to its similar format to my US Routes template.

The differences in each template are discussed below.

Alternative 1

• This version is designed to be similar to my new US routes template.
• The grid format of the route list is maintained, and the routes are actually organized by number as in the US routes template.
• Disambiguation pages for I-76, 84, 86, 88 are linked in the grid. The links to disambiguated routes are under the heading "Different routes with same number".

Alternative 2

• This version is designed to maintain a "Navbox with columns"-type format, while removing the grid of route numbers.
• Instead of links like "(west)" and "(east)" for specific I-76, 84, 86, 88, the states with those routes are listed, to assist those who know what route number they are looking for but don't know if the "west" or "east" route is the one they're looking for.

Alternative 3

• This version is designed to be an ordinary "Navbox" format similar to many other navigation templates on Wikipedia.
• The ordinary "Navbox" format allows for longer link titles without affecting any column widths.

--l a t i s h r e d o n e (previously User:All in) 03:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

New Streamlined Template

Main Interstate Highways (multiples of 5 in pink)
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99
(238)		H-1		H-2		H-3
Unsigned			A-1		A-2		A-3		A-4		PRI-1		PRI-2		PRI-3
Lists		Primary			Main - Intrastate - Suffixed - Future - Gaps
		Auxiliary			Main - Future - Unsigned
		Other			Standards - Business - Bypassed

{{pp-semi-template}}

Yes, I accidentally saved it as this, before I came to my senses and realized I should discuss such a large change. What I did was I aligned numbers to 20 per row, put blanks for non-existing Interstates so that the numbers line up, and linked to disambig pages for the divided east-west Interstates (76, 84, etc) for the sake of the template being cleaner. If anyone knows how to center the title or has any other improvements, please leave comments. Thanks. --Angelsfreeek (talk) 04:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point. Maybe it could be converted to be collapsible. Otherwise, the template is fine as is. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is that the numbers are organized on an evenly spaced grid, rather than the numbers being listed one after another with unexplained jumps, i.e. 49 - 55 - 57 - 59 - 64. With my template, one can at least draw the conclusion that no highway by that number exists, and if the occasion comes up that there's a new 1 or 2-digit Interstate, then it can take its place on the template without displacing all the numbers to the right of it. --Angelsfreeek (talk) 05:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

1) They can still determine that no highway by the number exists with the current version. 2) There won't be for a while, and people don't memorize the position of their favorite interstate on the template. 3) Your version is way more bulky. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

--(template updated) It all depends on what is more important, form or function. Personally, I prefer function. --Angelsfreeek (talk) 06:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If it ain't broke, why fix it? That's my question. The version you have above is ugly. It doesn't add any function either. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's one for, one against. Anyone else want to voice their opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelsfreeek (talk • contribs) 07:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem necessary. --NE2 08:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this is a solution looking for a problem. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I kind of like it, but it was done this way before, and we dropped it for the current version. It does take up a lot more space.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 13:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If there was a change to be made, I'd prefer "Alternative 1" in the section above. --Son (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Template to show all "3dis"?

Is there a template that will show all of the "3dis" (3-digit Interstate Highways)? Allen (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

No, there isn't. The reason is that this template was used to navigate between the national articles for the primary Interstates, while any navigation templates for the auxiliary Interstates have all been organized by parent-child relationships between a primary and its related auxiliaries. There's never been a need to link all of the various 3dIs together, probably over size concerns. (Besides, we have the list article to list them all.) Imzadi 1979 → 00:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I-66W

I recently (maybe a month ago) added Interstate 66 (west) (as per I-76 E&W, I-84 E&W, etc) to the template, however, it was removed for no apparent reason, save for the comment "nope" on the edit summary. My guess was that it was because parts of the route are still being built (though portions of it are apparently signed). However, I noticed that I-22 is on the template, and that has not even been signed yet, let alone finished. Why the discrepancy?--L1A1 FAL (talk) 23:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I-66 doesn't exist yet except in Virginia and the District of Columbia. Imzadi 1979 → 23:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Add I-238 to Template

Here's a way we could include all the Interstates on the same template:

This template's initial visibility currently defaults to autocollapse, meaning that if there is another collapsible item on the page (a navbox, sidebar, or table with the collapsible attribute), it is hidden apart from its title bar; if not, it is fully visible.

To change this template's initial visibility, the |state= parameter may be used:

• {{Interstates|state=collapsed}} will show the template collapsed, i.e. hidden apart from its title bar.
• {{Interstates|state=expanded}} will show the template expanded, i.e. fully visible.

134.114.108.115 (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

To ensure that the I-238 page is duly accessible, please reformat the current template to look like this.

134.114.108.115 (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

You'll need to open a discussion to obtain consensus for this sort of change. I've disabled the request for now. On a second note, I'm not really in favor of the proposed change at this time. Imzadi 1979 → 02:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - The articles on this template have always been primarily focused on the "major" "national" routes, with lists available for other aspects of the Interstate system. I-238 is an auxiliary interstate, and, IMHO, calling that one out specifically while leaving all the others to their list gives that one highway undue weight in the navbox. -- LJ ↗ 02:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Highlighting Interstate 45

Because Interstate 45 is so short, I strongly disagree with highlighting it. It makes no real sense to call it a "major Interstate". Georgia guy (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

See # I-45 is not a "main" interstate and #Restore "major" interstates above. Sources say it's major, and it's not up to us to second guess that definition. Imzadi 1979 → 01:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Those are the same link. Georgia guy (talk) 01:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia just highlighted everything that's a multiple of 5 and 10. I agree; along with I-30 and I-85. As I-85 isn't short (about 600 mi.), it isn't border to border and is more of a diagonal route. Kevon kevono (Talk) 20:39, 10 April 2016 (PT) —Preceding undated comment added 03:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Restore "major" interstates

I have restored the "major" interstates on this template. This is the legal definition. "Multiples of 5" seems to look stupid IMO. By AASHTO definition, all interstates that are a multiple of 5 are considered major, regardless of length. For example, I-85 is shorter than I-25, but I-85 is more major as it is buisier and passes through more major cities than I-25. ANDROS¹³³⁷ 18:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Interstate 45 doesn't leave Texas. How does that qualify as a "major Interstate highway" as this designation is normally for roads running cross-country like Interstate 5 (Tijuana - Vancouver)? 66.102.83.61 (talk) 01:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Because it is a multiple of 5, as per the AASHTO definition. --Rs chen 7754 03:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

AASHTO's definition says these numbers should go to cross-country routes, not intrastate highways. 45 is an error - not sure how this got assigned, but it breaks AASHTO's defined pattern quite clearly, even if they did let it past for reasons unknown. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Which isn't for us to question. We have to follow the sources, and until the sources say otherwise, the template stays as is in this regard. Imzadi 1979 → 15:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

We might as well put Interstate 50 and 60 on this. I disagree with this request. Kevon kevono talk 20:43 10 April 2016 —Preceding undated comment added 03:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2017

Shouldn't I-94 be highlighted as a major highway. Chicago (main highway, loop 294), Minneapolis and St. Paul (main highway, loop 494, spurs 394 & 694), Milwaukee (main highway, spur 794), Detroit and Madison (main highway concurrent with 90 but no different than when 40 run into all those other major highways).

• 94 184.14.30.230 (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

•  Not done Longstanding consensus has been to only highlight those routes ending on 0 or 5, per AASHTO. --Rschen7754 21:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)