Talk:Interstate 76 (Ohio–New Jersey)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1776?[edit]

I see a description of the location of Interstate 76 that tried to show why it wasn't named for the year 1776 was reverted back out. I thought that the information was pretty useful and showed why the planners didn't really have any choice in selecting a number. How about sticking with the original wording of no evidence and adding the info on I-74 and I-78?. --Beirne 11:56, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Done. --SPUI (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why sequential infoboxes?[edit]

What's the point of the state infoboxes that have links to the next and previous highways in sequential order? Unlike similar boxes for political office-holders, numerically sequential infoboxes provide little in the way of a meaningful sequence. They are also largely redundant since categories serve the same purpose in a more concise way. --Beirne 18:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you. Have a look at the discussions at Wikipedia talk:US Interstate Highways WikiProject and Template talk:Routeboxint. I'm still personally against them altogether. (Why would anyone want to browse highways in numerical order?) --Chris 01:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But the browse state highways thing in {{Routeboxint}} is more compact. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The {{Routeboxint}} is fine. Replacing the {{ohsr box}} and the other state boxes with that is a good idea. --Beirne 13:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I went ahead and added a {{Routeboxint}} and deleted the state highway boxes. The routeboxint still needs exit numbers and perhaps some major state highways. --Beirne 15:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we adding this huge infobox, taking up several screens worth of the right side of the article, when all the information should be in the article text anyway? --SPUI (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Take it up with the Wikipedia talk:US Interstate Highways WikiProject. It provides a convenient graphical overview of the Interstate in a nice-looking format. Also, it is more useful than devoting space to three boxes that merely tell which highways come before and after in numberic order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beirne (talk • contribs) 03:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm against the whole browse highway thing altogether (whether on seperate little ones for each state or on a single infobox). But I do think the infobox in general is useful. However, SPUI does have a good point that these infoboxes are rather big. Perhaps the junctions part should be moved into the body of the article (preferably in a standardised format). --Chris 03:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The navigation boxes also provide links to the main route list, which the infobox does not. They can also be useful for someone looking at the highways in a state one by one (something I might do when bored). As for the junctions, how about the exit lists in Interstate 80 in New Jersey and Interstate 95 in New Jersey for a standard format? The Interstates are easy to pick out, and all other exits are also displayed. --SPUI (talk) 03:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly wish I had that much free time that I could just look at every highway in a state. As for those formats, they seem good, but it would be better to discuss this someplace like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways or Talk:Interstate Highway or Category talk:U.S. Interstate Highway system or Talk:List of Interstate Highways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engleman (talk • contribs) 04:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the link to the main route list, we could just link where it says CA on the browse state highways part to the list. I don't see why such a bulky box is needed. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to make a better infobox[edit]

(based on {{infobox rail}})

May I please ask why {{routeboxint}} does not work? It is much more informative than this one, it is based off the already proven {{routeboxca2}} (which other projects such as WA, NH, and TX have stolen from), and has consensus (see Template_talk:Routeboxint.) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's too informative. Any images of the road are pushed down way too far. --SPUI (talk) 06:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What images of the road? --Beirne 12:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Photos, maps, etc. --SPUI (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just put the image on the top left then. It's not a hard edit.Gateman1997 01:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not, but it doesn't really look all that great to have stuff on both the left and the right, and have the body squished in-between. --Chris 03:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If there is any hope of this being standardized, would it not be better to discuss in a central location such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways or Talk:Interstate Highway or Category talk:U.S. Interstate Highway system or Talk:List of Interstate Highways. Or perhaps even just modify Template:Routeboxint and talk abut it there. By the way, I thought having templates in parameters didn't work; is that a new feature?--Chris 00:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really interesting in it being standardized, just as an alternate to the huge bloat that I can keep reverting to. I believe that is a new feature; it wasn't working when I was working on the NYC Subway stuff a while back. --SPUI (talk) 01:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What huge bloat are you are you trying to get rid of? --Beirne 02:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The several screens worth of junctions in the current infobox. --SPUI (talk) 02:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's bloat and the box listing every single exit isn't? --Beirne 03:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The bloat in the infobox gets in the way of the article; any images (and section edit links) are pushed down. On the other hand, the full exit list can simply be skipped past. --SPUI (talk) 05:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox does not get in the way of the article, everything still appears to the left. The full-width exit list, though, does get in the way and pushes everything below it far out of view, requiring a lot of scrolling to get to what is below. Also, listing every exit is not scalable. It takes a lot of scrolling to get past it in this article, but imagine if it were done on one of the cross-country routes. It would be intolerable. Since most people will be more interested in the textual information and pictures than details on every exit on the Interstate, I have restored the routeboxint and moved the exit list after all of the textual information. Notice how the routeboxint does not push anything down. The text and images fill the space to the left of it. --Beirne 12:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For cross-country routes, they can be split like Interstate 80 in New Jersey. --SPUI (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since the exit list is part of the body of the article, it can be skipped very eaisly by simply clicking on the next entry in the table of contents. Besides, if one uses page down, scrolling can be very fast. In extreme cases, it can perhaps be split (ex: Interstate 90/Exit list), and in non-extreme cases, the exit list can be made the last thing in the article. I personally am not thrilled about all-inclusive interchange lists (I'm not against them, either; I think they do have useful information, but you won't find me writing one.), but I also think that only the very most major junctions ought to be listed in an infobox. (ex: It would be rediculous to list all of the Interstates that I-90 intersects in an infobox.) What is this about them not being scalable? Isn't everything scalable?--Chris 02:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that I'm not necessarily at the table of contents and don't feel like scrolling. I have since dealt with the issue by moving down near the end of the document, although splitting it into its own article is also a good idea. --Beirne 02:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I figured out the source of some of the difference in our views. I use the Firefox browser, which nicely fills the space to the left of the routeboxint with the text and images from the main body of the document. I just showed the article to someone who uses IE, though, and found that the image was placed just below the routeintbox, with a large gap in the text. This will take more research. --Beirne 17:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm using K-meleon, which uses the same rendering engine as Firefox. The infobox is just way too big, and the image is pushed down below the infobox. --SPUI (talk) 17:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I myself, am also a firefox user, and find it too big. --Chris 02:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My point with Firefox isn't that it reduces the size, but that it doesn't push the images below the routebox, at least not in the current versions. --Beirne 02:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? If they're not pushed down, then where do they go? --Chris 02:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The picture in the I-76 article was up to the left of the routebox and to the right of the text when the routeboxint was in place. This was the case with both Firefox 1.5 at work and Camino on my Mac at home. --Beirne 02:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so you must have a wide resolution moniter. --Chris 03:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, yes. That may explain the difference with different versions of Firefox. --Beirne 04:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I support using routeboxint here, as it provides more information and is more consistant. Triona 06:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio history[edit]

SPUI is adding a lot of good stuff to this page, but I'm not sure about the paragraph on Ohio history. It says that I-80N went through downtown Cleveland. I'm not sure which highway this is because the only main interstate that goes east-west through downtown Cleveland is I-90. The other main east-west interstate in that area is I-480, which barely touches the south end of Cleveland. Also I-80N is described as following Route 14 from Edinburg. There is no freeway along there. I'm guessing that these were all planned routes rather than actual ones but that should probably be clarified. --Beirne 21:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; these are planned routes - most Interstates were only planned at that time. This 1961 map shows the routes, as does this 1962 map. --SPUI (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it may be safe to just say that 80N was cosigned on the surface road with Ohio Route 14, now that I see that that is what's on the map. I'm not sure about the Cleveland part, though.
Following your roadfan links and looking around, I see the details are even more complicated than you said. Based on the 1961/1962 maps at [1] and [2], though, it looks like I-80N was supposed to go south of downtown Cleveland but well above what is now I-480. The current I-480 was then known as part of I-271. --Beirne 01:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever happened there, that's a topic for the I-80N/I-480 article or maybe the I-80 article rather than this one. I believe the summary here is correct, but you may want to verify it. --SPUI (talk) 05:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mileage table and 3di template[edit]

Please post comments on the revert war that is ensuing right here. Also Do not break 3RR. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)`[reply]

I'd like an explanation of what these actually add to the article, not just the fact that they are "Wikiproject standards". --SPUI (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the mileage table and 3di template that had been deleted several days ago. Understanding the benefits that standard formats have for people reading articles on the same type of topic, I wanted to adhere to the Interstate Project standards so I resolved those two deficiencies. --Beirne 01:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The 3di template allows you to access the spurs of I-76. The other primary Intersttae articles have these too. The mileage table is there to give the mileage information that isn't included anywhere else in the article. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The links right above the 3di template allow access to the spurs. The mileage is all in the first paragraph, and is even more precise there. I'd accept keeping the lengths, but as a standardized table (class=wikitable). Maybe it can be to the side in the description, like an infobox but separate? --SPUI (talk) 02:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The mileage is only in the first paragraph because you deleted the table and put the distances in the text. You otherwise actually make some fair points, though. Why aren't you bringing them up on the Interstate Project page rather than here? --Beirne 02:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I completely rewrote the article, and the distances, which I did not get from the table (as they are different, except for New Jersey, which I changed a long time ago), were simply part of that rewrite. As for the discussion, I object to pretty much every "standard" proposed by the project, for the reason that it just simply makes sense. I was expecting others to also realize that, and don't really know where to start on a discussion. --SPUI (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think you now have a few topics to start with on the project page, in particular the three boxes you don't like. I'm guessing discussing them there will be a lot more productive than trying to change things Interstate by Interstate. --Beirne 02:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm surprised that no one's reverted back to {{routeboxint}} yet. --SPUI (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm letting the 7-day call for deletion process run its course, then we'll see what to do. --Beirne 02:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also it would be pointless to revert to that and then have you revert it back. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, one objection I've seen to certain things is that it would just be too big for very long Interstates. (I don't understand why it's not considered a problem with {{routeboxint}} too.) I've already written Interstate 80 in New Jersey and Interstate 95 in New Jersey, each of which is long enough to "deserve" its own article. The same can be done for every state of these long Interstates. --SPUI (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a perfectly fair point and another good one to bring up on the project page. --Beirne 02:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Pasted this whole conversation here. Let's move the discussion. --SPUI (talk) 02:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

State lengths[edit]

We now have two sets of lengths for I-76 in the various states and they differ. The ones in the box are there from some time in the past and the ones in the first paragraph are new. Guessing that the Interstate-guide might be an arbiter I checked it and found that it differs from both on NH, matches the first paragraph on PA, and differs from both on OH. It has a source, the Interstate Route Log and Finders List, a publication of the federal Department of Transportation. Are those reasonable numbers to settle on? --Beirne 03:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I used the individual states' straight line diagrams for Ohio and New Jersey. They are more likely to be correct than the Feds. (I do discuss a few strange aspects of the official Ohio routing in the route description.) I'm not sure how meaningful such a precise number is for a freeway, given the various methods of calculating, but if there is to be one I feel it should be the state's number. --SPUI (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea on the mileage box[edit]

SPUI, good idea on the placement of the mileage box. Now it isn't dangling down below. --Beirne 18:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, but should we change all of them on each Interstate then? And should we title it "Mileages" or something? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've titled it. As for other Interstates, do what makes sense. In other words, single-state Interstates should not have them. --SPUI (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The box isn't in the standard location, but since this article has a much more detailed description section than most putting the box where it is puts it down about as far in terms of inches as it is in other articles. Before that it took a lot of scrolling to get to.
BTW, the 3di box really should go back until the standard is changed. I know it is redundant but people expect it there. --Beirne 00:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any evidence that people actually expect that box there? Or are you really saying "it's a standard, so let's follow it even when it makes no sense"? --SPUI (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I say they're more useful than the state route boxes, since the routes they allow easy navigation among actually have something to do with one-another. --Chris 00:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Those links are all already in the article, in a very similar format. --SPUI (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But we put the template there for consistency. I'd say get rid of the links. All the other primary Interstate articles are set up this way. Why have a California State Highway 17? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
People expect the 3di box there because it is a standard. Even if they don't read the standard itself, and I don't expect them to, they will get used to the layout when they see it in other articles. Having said that, I actually wouldn't mind if the 3di box was removed from the standard since it goes right under the list of spurs, but I'll follow up with that on the project page. So to rephrase your words into my own, I'm saying that this isn't the place to dispute the standard, the project page is. --Beirne 01:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not particularly for or against these, but I just want to say that I think lengths is a better name than mileages, as it is unit-neutral. also, should this thing get it's own template? --Chris 00:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck?[edit]

What is the business about the template at the bottom being deprecated? I mean, I was never for it, but I don't want the notice at the bottom of all these pages. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's thanks to this violation of WP:POINT. --SPUI (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Can someone please explain what's going on here? What is a "meta template"? --Chris 23:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're better off not knowing, unless you want to read all the stuff and figure it out. I'm serious. --SPUI (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the routeboxint[edit]

I put the routeboxint back on the I-76 page but the edit war has resumed. Even though I left SPUI's small infobox up on the page while the routeboxint was being considered for deletion, and the routebox is now smaller due to the legend being removed as well as my removing the 3-digit intersections, SPUI is back to reverting away the box. He replaces it with his small routebox that contains almost no information and the larger box at the bottom that does nothing but show the previous and next routes in each state in numerical order. I was willing to abide by the decision from the deletion process, and others should be too. As has been stated before, the place to try to change the standards of the Interstate project is on the project page, not on individual Interstate pages. --Beirne 19:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said before, everything in the huge infobox is already in the text. Anything gained by having it easier to see is lost by its size, and would be better presented in a map. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why the size is such a problem. I just tried an experiment and shrunk the window down to 567x702, which is smaller than most people need to size the window on a modern monitor. The text wraps around the box fine and is perfectly readable. Also, while the infobox does not fit in the window, each section of it does, along with the header for the section, making it a convenient overview. Also, the I-76 article has one of the shorter routeintboxes , so this is a strange page to have a dispute over the box in this article. Highways like I-80 have a much longer infobox. Not that that one should be removed, either. The place to discuss this is on the Interstate project page. Or a request for deletion of the template could be made. This was done and there was minimal support for deletion of the box and the deletion attempt failed by a large margin. The was agreement that it could be shrunk, though. That process lead to the 3-digit highways being removed and the legend being accessed by a link. It is the new shrunken version of the infobox that I am now restoring to the I-76 article. The infobox has been shown to be popular, by being placed on 44 Interstate highway articles. The benefit of a standard is that people can go to an article and quickly look for the main facts. Placing the routeboxint on Interstate pages is both an official as well as a defecto standard that improves the useability of the pages where it is placed. --Beirne 04:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The point of an infobox is not to provide a large amount of information; it is to give a few quick facts about the subject. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Compare the routebox with the infoboxes that shows up in the articles for New Jersey and the United States. The I-76 box is significantly smaller than both of them. Infoboxes don't have to be tiny. --Beirne 13:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Those also seem too big, but they actually have good information, not just a list of junctions that could be represented better by a map. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 21:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If your goal is to have a map instead of the routebox, why not bring it up in the Interstate Highways project where it could lead to changes across all Interstate articles? --Beirne 12:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This has turned into an Edit War - Please seek Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution and be aware of the 3-revert-rule Triona 06:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What, waste the time of the MedCom, ArbCom etc? I don't think so. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm for the infobox. Reminds me of something I've seen in the Brittannica. I like referring to other interstates and other important routes in the infobox because this is an HTML encyclopedia. The idea is that if you read and article and you come across something interesting (such as another route that catches your eye), you should be able to click the route and follow it--an association chain, I spend a lot of time delving through association chains--and it's fun. If lists of interchanges and control cities gets too long, we can abbreviate or reduce the list to fewer entries to make the lists more concise (see I-95 where only the big Interstates are linked in the box--maybe the control cities should be shortened). Another idea is to display the list of control cities in a smaller typeface, especially since there are a lot of long names for control cities (like Daytona Beach). And you need some kind of exception situation when you're dealing with a full loop (loops have no terminii--just a "reset" point). My argument is that the routeboxint provides useful information, especially in a hypertext environment. The alternatives are either too sparse, or (in the case of the full exit lists) too cluttered (the routeboxint reduces it to just the big interchanges). — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhosAsking (talk • contribs) 07:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view on the infobox[edit]

The big info box is too big, the small infobox is too small. I like the big info box up until the junction section, that part sucks. To be honest the photos are pretty low quality too. My advice, put the lengths in the infobox at the side under "states traversed", put the image to the left, and cut out the stuff below "INTERSTATE JUNCTIONS" - FrancisTyers 13:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's unfortunately the only photo I have of I-76. I missed the sign on I-95 south when I went through Philly. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 16:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The quality of the photo is a secondary issue. Anyone who wishes may take a better one and replace it. If it's not replaced by the next time I travel in those parts, I'll take one. --Chris 16:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my detailed analysis on the {{routeboxint}} infobox, only looking at the things that are not in {{infobox highway}}:

  • "Primary Interstate" is somewhat unnecessary, as it's a two-digit Interstate. The link to Interstate Highway System can take the reader to somewhere where that's discussed in more detail. Though I can see the use of it - I don't feel strongly about this line.
  • Major cities/towns is rather unnecessary, given that there's a section devoted to that, linked directly in the TOC.
  • Direction is covered in Extent, as are termini. The format in {{routeboxint}} fails on complete beltways.
  • States traversed is unnecessary, as the states are all in the length box.
  • Interstate junctions is bloody ugly. The information is all in the exit list, and a map of the route can serve the easy-to-see nature of the infobox while being more useful in general.
  • Browse state highways is better suited for the bottom of the article, where it can be avoided by those that don't care. In general this is very similar to a template like {{Interstates}}; it's just that listing all numbered routes in the state is too much.

I await comments here. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 16:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've only been to the US once and I don't drive. I have no idea what most of that means I was just giving you my opinion ;) And when I said below INTERSTATE JUNCTIONS, I mean cut that out, all the JUNCTIONS, everything below the heading, including the heading. I should have been more explicit. Keep the stuff _above_ the heading. - FrancisTyers 16:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I understand - I was analyzing why much above that is also unnecessary. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 16:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that information is in the article does not mean that it can't be in the infobox. Here is what Wikipedia:Infobox says: An infobox on Wikipedia is a consistently-formatted table which is present in articles with a common subject (An infobox is a generalization of a taxobox (from taxonomy) which summarizes information for an organism or group of organisms).
"Summarizes" implies that the information is in the article.
The infobox article also says:
If you want to redesign an Infobox, please take it up in the appropriate WikiProject. Thanks.
--Beirne 17:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't care one way or another, I was just giving an outside opinion. I'm sure other editors will take you up on your suggestion. - FrancisTyers 17:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
He did. Note that it should be a summarry. I think the routeboxint constitutes a rather lengthy summary. But as you said, this isn't the place. --Chris 17:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Mediation Cabal[edit]

Greetings from Mediation Cabalist, Steven McCrary, I hope this message finds you well.

  1. I have posted a response to request for mediation at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/29_12_2005_Interstate_76_(east), and respectfully request that you read and then respond to any relevant issue that I may have overlooked, as appropriate.
  2. I have issued a warning regarding violation of Wikipedia policy on edit wars. Please be aware of the policy.

Thanks and Happy New Year, Steven McCrary 15:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from the Mediation Cabal, Is it safe to assume that the issue brought up on the mediation cabal of Interstate 76 is over? Please respond so the case can be closed. Thanks, SteveMc 19:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After I implemented the second step of your resolution by restoring the routeboxint SPUI removed it again. I've had enough. --Beirne 02:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Beirne, there are policies in place in Wikipedia for dealing with Wikipedia:Edit war and Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Also, I suggest that you read the Wikipedia policies on POV. In any case, it may be necessary for you to follow the procedures specified in Wikipedia policies to stop the war. User rights can be suspended, the page can be blocked, etc. I suggest that you first place a warning on the violating user's talk page. If that is ignored, go to the next level, etc. Good luck. I will continue to monitor the page. I continue to suggest that the template recommended by the Wikiproject go on this page. I will call for an RfC. Thanks, SteveMc 03:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC[edit]

I placed a call for RfC at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Maths,_science,_and_technology#Technology_and_engineering on the infobox dispute. SteveMc 03:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC responses[edit]

Comment: Hi, I am responding to the RfC after reading through the talk pages and the project page, arbitration page, etc. First off, I just wanted to say that everyone has done a great job on the highway pages in general! I've used them before (I was interested in the naming conventions) and have always appreciated the hard work. It seems that there is concern that 1) the highway project page "consensus" should not apply to this page in particular and 2) the number of existing highway pages compared with the number still to be done does not indicate a consensus which should be supported. In my opinion, however, I do think that the appropriate place to argue for change is on the overall project page. It would be nice if the entire US highway system one day has complete coverage which is consistent. To that end, starting early on with a consensus or compromise template would be nice. I think that the longer infobox should stay in this particular article unless/until general consensus within the project page changes. Yes, individual users not part of the project are always helpful and are welcome to edit any page. However, project pages typically represent a core group of people with knowledge of more general needs on a topic and that should be respected in cases such as these, IMHO. InvictaHOG 05:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with that, and not just with this WikiProject. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other I-76?[edit]

This article contains no information on the other Interstate 76, which runs from Denver to a junction with I-80 in western Nebraska. While that article has its own page, this one ought to at least link to it, or there should be a disambiguation page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.105.206 (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there should be a disambiguation page, but these are two completely different highways, so no mention of the Colorado one is needed. I do believe that this I-76 got the 76 tag because it fit the grid and to honor the year 1776 in Pennsylvania, while the west one was to honor Colorado being admitted to the Union in 1876. Besides their connection to I-80, these two have nothing in common but the signs. Jgera5 05:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There should be links between those two I-76 Wikipedia pages because of the same route number. I'm sure there are no plans to ever link the actual routes. Carlm0404 (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a link at the very top of both pages. –Fredddie™ 18:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why these two have not been linked together into one continuous route? I would think it would violate AASHTO or something similar to have this continued disjointed existence.Rapierman (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Junctions List[edit]

I noticed that some highway intersections with 76 were removed from the junction list for the I-76 infobox. While I agree with some, such as I-176, I-83, and I-283 (just look at the size of the toll gate at each exit . . . it's rather small), I disagree with removing I-476. It's a major junction near Conshocken, which is 20 minutes from Philadelphia. I don't see how it is minor with the amount of traffic that goes through that junction. 76 intersects 476 on the Schuylkill Expressway. I'm not going to add it back because I don't want to start an edit war or anything like that; I'm just curious what is considered a major junction and what's considered a minor junction. I would also consider adding I-376 to the list, as it is the major route from the Turnpike to Pittsburgh (from the east).

Also, I-76 does not directly intersect I-81. You have to exit off I-81 at Middlesex and drive on US 11 for 1 mile to reach the Turnpike. --myselfalso 22:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3di's are usually not included in a junctions list, no matter how important because it's usually understood that the 3di intersects the parent route (with the exception of I-78 and its children). I would actually remove I-276 from the list, and replace I-80, since I-80 continues the Ohio Turnpike and is even a major route (ends in a 0). I-81...is a different story. It's a major route, and it needs clarification. I'll do that in a few moments. --MPD01605 (T / C) 23:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So suddenly there are 5 "major" interchanges in western PA and only one in the eastern half. Is somebody here a Steelers fan? I-276 is the NJ Turnpike connection, not to mention the eastern portion of the PA Turnpike. Any eastbound traffic that is headed north in NJ is going to take it. And take a look at a current map, I-476 is longer than some two digit routes.--J Clear 01:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it matter if it is a 3di or not? Shouldn't a major junction be defined by how heavily the interchange is used? Also, going by that standard, there are no major junction in the eastern part of Pennsylvania. Besides, I'm a Steelers fan, and I was calling for adding back I-476. I added I-276 initially as well. --myselfalso 05:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps list it as US11 interchange, with "to I-81" note.--J Clear 21:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not exit 247 which is the I-283 is a major intersection becuase of the Capital being Harrisburg and they have 8 tollgates ther are so major that that there is currently some constuction on the Harrisburg East exit that is expanding the number of toll booths which I a lot considering that lebanon-lancaster is 5 and Gettyburg Pike is 3 but not as many as Valley Forge or Carlisle which are larger. I strongly recomend that you add it to the major junctions. Natche24 03:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

We should choose junctions in part to give a list of major cities. So I-79 near Pittsburgh, I-81 or I-83 near Harrisburg, I-95 in Philly, and work from there. --SPUI (T - C) 18:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This interstate is too long to add 3di's to the list, not to mention that it's a given that I-76 intersects I-476 and I-276. I'm fine with the way it is now, although it seems the problem would be whether to have I-81 or I-83 on the list. I-81 is ten times longer than I-83, but I-83 does carry more traffic (84,000 on I-81 in Harrisburg, and 108,000 on I-83 in the same city). It's also a matter of how 'major' the road is: I-83 connects just the cities of Harrisburg and Baltimore, whereas I-81 connects Canada and Tennessee. However, since there are currently only 6 junctions on the list, why do we not add both I-81 and I-83, which would put the MJ list at 7, which is also as many as I-35 has, and I'm sure isn't the longest list. The article is long enough that another line in the infobox won't hurt it. --MPD01605 (T / C) 18:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I took your suggestion and added interstate 83 to the major intersection list which is now at 7 should interstate 99 also be included. In addition if you are traveling on interstate 76 it does not connect directly with interstate 95 in Philadelphia, PA if traveling east you have to take pa 291 or PA 611 and when you travel from the Walt Whitman Bridge there is a traffic light at front street before you can get on Interstate 95 this should listed in the notes. Natche24 03:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You've also got the 100,000/day section 400 of US 202 junction. Does that rate as major? Come to think of it, with the rebuild over the last 5 years, you'd have to add in the US 422 traffic which uses the same junction now. --J Clear 03:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Why on the I-476 page is I-76 listed as a major junction when I-76 is its parent route? And if I-76 should be included on that list, then why not visa versa? --myselfalso 01:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Rumor[edit]

I removed this "It has been suggested that the number was chosen because the United States Declaration of Independence was signed in Philadelphia in 1776, but there is no evidence of this. 76 was within the numbering system, lying between 70 and 80, and 74 and 78 were already taken," because rumors have no place in an encyclopedic entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Wereb (talk • contribs) 16:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree entirely. The removed text addresses actual "common knowledge" to state there is no supporting evidence found. It serves the purpose of preventing addition of that idea expressed as fact. I had always heard that 76 had been chosen because of the Declaration, so reading that there is no evidence found of this is useful. The wikipedia abounds with entries on fiction and folklore, and as long as they are clearly identified as such, and notable, they remain.--J Clear 12:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't common knowledge; it's a truck stop rumor and you didn't "clearly identify it as such." All you could say is that "it has been suggested." Lots of things have been suggested. If this is common knowledge, then you should cite a source for it or denying it. Sam 14:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is my perception that, right or wrong, it is a commonly held explaination. I'm from the Philly burbs, so you might expect that it could be more common around here. And I didn't hear it in a truckstop. :) I didn't add the text you removed, I was commenting on your deletion. It seems to have been originally added when SPUI split the I-76 article. "It is suggested" might be a little weak of a caveat, however there are entire biographies with only the word "character" in the introduction to indicate they are fictional. I'm not disputing that is was just a happy coincidence, and the concept could well have originated as a bacronym like idea from the '76 mania leading up to the bicentennial celebrations.
I think it needs to be mentioned because a) it is a fitting tribute, coincidence or not, b) to dissuade it from being reinserted later as a bold fact, c) the long analysis here, cited in older versions of the article, does admit it's possible, d) that someone at DoT took the time to write up the history of the number shows it is at least a FAQ.
Let me try this revision on you: "The renumbering of a Philadelphia Interstate to 76 in the years leading up the to the Bicentenial Celebration of the 1776 signing in Philadelphia of the Declaration of Independence gives rise to the question of the highway number being an intentional tribute to the Spirit of '76. USDoT research into federal documentation of the I-76 renumbering found no evidence of this being intentional[1]."
  1. ^ "Was I-76 Numbered to Honor Philadelphia for Independence Day, 1776?". Retrieved 2006-09-17.
    2. --J Clear 17:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Now you can cite a source. Go for it. Sam 23:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It was there before, but got lost along the way. Adding it back.... --J Clear 00:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    So 76 (replacing 80-S) happens to be a nice coincidence going to Philadelphia, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.52.3 (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    City Avenue or City Line Avenue?[edit]

    Depending on which map I look at, US1, as it approaches I-76, is labeled City Avenue or City Line Avenue or both. I have also heard it called either. Can someone who lives there or drives it, say what's on the actual street signs along the road separating MontCo from Phila.? Perhaps it changes as you move in and out of Bala. And if the exit signs on I-76 are different, that's worth noting too. I'm asking here because of a recent edit to this article, but the discussion belongs with the US1 article, I think.

    Please discuss at Talk:U.S. Route 1#City Avenue or City Line Avenue? (near Phila). --J Clear 17:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Split of exit list[edit]

    I moved the exit list to Exit list of Interstate 76 (east), since the page was 34 kb before the move.  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads 21:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It should have been moved to new state-detail articles instead of a new article. I-76 isn't exactly Highway 401. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. There are plenty of precedents about separate exit list articles. And generally, it's no. Except I-5 and Highway 401. I disagree with it, but since it's been made, we now need to work on the state articles post-haste. --MPD T / C 22:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides, just because a page is 34 kb doesn't mean its long. Remember the good article review for I-295? Consensus there was to keep the exit list where it was, and I think this one was fine as is. -- NORTH talk 23:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    long distance mileage signs[edit]

    I-76K?[edit]

    The paragraph about the interchange with I-80 mentions I-76K and I-80K. This is the only place I've ever seen the 'K' designation. Can someone provide a citation or say more about this? 131.183.160.56 (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure I know the answer, but you are apparently referring to the junction just west of Youngstown, where if you are E-bound, I-80 leaves the Ohio Turnpike and I-76 enters it (reversing the procedure if you are W-bound). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.52.3 (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't find "76K" in the text, but I have now located "76K" and "80K" on round shields on the SKETCH of that interchange in Ohio, provided in the same Wikipedia article we are discussing here. The text has "Officially I-76 transfers to the Turnpike at the overpass, with a similar change happening with Interstate 80 (east on the freeway to Youngstown and west on the Turnpike)" (the K seems to refer to the Ohio-Turnpike stretches of these 2 interstates). It goes on to say that the actual (driving) route to follow either I-76 or I-80 through this area is to go through that interchange. If you are E-bound on the Turnpike there, I-80 heads onto exit lane, and you go onto a VERY SHORT stretch just ahead of where E-bound I-76 traffic merges in. (Reverse the procedure W-bound, where I-76 traffic takes the exit, and VERY SHORTLY after that I-80 traffic merges in.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.52.3 (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    No change by me, but notice remark about US 422.[edit]

    I found this regarding the King of Prussia (PA) area:

    "Immediately after exiting the Turnpike, I-76 interchanges with the U.S. Route 202 and U.S. Route 422 freeways"

    If exiting I-76 at US 202 nowadays, you are IMMEDIATELY split off if you want to get to the US 422 freeway. This was part of traffic-pattern improvement in this area, to avoid the problem of having to get on US 202 first if you wanted to get from I-76 to US 422 or vice versa. If you approach this area on E-bound US 422 freeway, US 422 ends and your choices include a ramp which leads DIRECTLY to E-bound I-76 without having to enter US 202. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.52.3 (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    External links modified[edit]

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just modified 5 external links on Interstate 76 (Ohio–New Jersey). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

    This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

    • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

    Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment on unimplemented extension of I-76 to Atlantic City[edit]

    That stretch has NJ 42, then the ACE. See remark just before History section.

    That remark reminds me of extension of I-376 in the Pittsburgh area, and consequently I-279 and PA 60 were shortened. The intent was to provide an Interstate going to the Pittsburgh airport. Some people thought it was a new road when it actually was the same road with changes in route number and exit numbers.

    Speaking of changed interchange number, there have been 3 exit numbers for Pa. Tpk. / US 13 interchange. Carlm0404 (talk) 04:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Pink spur route[edit]

    Can someone please explain what is up with the pink spur route of I-76 in New Jersey on this map? NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interstate_76_(Ohio–New_Jersey)&oldid=1207729551"