Talk:Interstate 11
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Interstate 11 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images) FENS · JSTOR · NYT |
.svg){kind=small} | This article is rated C-class on the AARoads Wiki's content assessment scale. It falls under the following topics: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | This article was imported from the English Wikipedia with the last revision as of June 18, 2023.
The following editors on the English Wikipedia contributed to this article: SPUI, Conk 9, Mhking, NE2, Scepbot, MojaveNC, Dough4872, DrilBot, Ljthefro, Master son, Cydebot, TwinsMetsFan, Moabdave, DanTD, Spartaz, Phyllis1753, PennySpender1983, Panchitaville, Lkramar, Huntington, MuzikJunky, Pepper, Hijotee, Giggett, CrazyC83, Admrboltz, Yobot, Joe Schmedley, Helpful Pixie Bot, Imzadi1979, VegasHombre, Tinton5, TomBrodshaw, GoingBatty, FooeyDooey837, Morriswa, Dwight666, Hanslaetz, Titoxd, UsefulWikipedia, Chaensaw, United States Man, Delldot, Raquel Baranow, Gatomasgordo, Chris the speller, Avra Valley Coalition, Fredddie, Zzyzx11, TucsonTransit, C16sh, Jrs847, Hawkwind0, Safehaven86, Shereth, Jasper Deng, AnomieBOT, Geopgeop, EricaLhern, Oiyarbepsy, Jlin, SporkBot, Mcarling, EBGamingWiki, Imzadi1979 (public), KylieTastic, Presidentman, Abrahamic Faiths, Imunizer, Rschen7754, Kevon kevono, Nobaddude, Aaron of Mpls, Jghiggins50, GreenC bot, Tren Ligero GDL, Cards84664, Guitarist1850, Yamaguchi先生, OrdinaryScarlett, Fnlayson, ActivBowser9177, John from Idegon, Blanding Cassatt, Donbraffitt, YeahImaBoss, InternetArchiveBot, SkipperRipper, Matthieueagan, Mkbngr, Famartin, Toohool, CoolAngrybirdsrio4, GusterPosey, Julietdeltalima, Keith D, Plastikspork, A1b2c3d4e5f6 123456789, Mapsax, Mikemoroney, Dolfinz1972, NJRobbie, Treekeysea, Bumm13, Stormy Chamber, Dgorsline, Pinguinn, LittleWink, Monkbot, Mild Bill Hiccup, RussBot, Pf1127, Rontrigger, Kozuch, Brogo13, Jaywubba1887, Elvatomasvato, BrownHairedGirl, NASCARfan0548, Mdewman6, BSNCJL, Materialscientist, Ryan8374, Dannyphx, Ionmars10, KevinML, Jewel15, I-82-I, AussieLegend, Greggens, Citation bot, Hanif Al Husaini, Geomodelrailroader, Tom.Reding, Cwater1, Johnandbob, Mr Larrington, Titan877, Rlink2, JonRidinger, Jlamroadgeek, 27 is the best number, WeHoDavid, Milladrive, ChessEric, Melodia, Jeffe77, Znns, and 177 anonymous editors. |
Interstate 515 still exists
According to the "State Maintained Highways of Nevada" released by NDOT in January 2024, I-515 still exist and this article is incorrect. Please fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBNSFTracker (talk • contribs)
- AASHTO has approved the renumbering of I-515 to I-11. While NDOT is leaving 515 signage in place for right now (and apparently carrying it as such on internal documents), they clearly plan to change this—recently-installed signage on I-15 shows it as I-11 and not I-515, and signage plans for projects in the pipeline show I-11 shields covered with temporary removable patches. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY], Las Vegas, NV, 21:37, 10 March 2024 (EDT)
- We can argue all day long which guideline to follow SMBOOK, FWHA, AASHTO or field signage, when they disagree. I slightly lean to field signage, which means I slightly agree the elimination of I-515 was premature. But I also don't care enough to fight over it. This is far from the first instance where the field signage and official docs don't agree, and in 5 years it will all be moot. As for "please fix this", a better approach is to check the edit history, find out who updated the article to remove I-515 (it wasn't me, again I agree it was premature) and discuss with them why you feel this was premature, maybe you can reach a compromise with them. Dave (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2024 (EDT)
- Well, I can save you both the time; it was me. The problem with reverting is that the I-11 and I-515 articles before merging were trainwrecks that had a lot of redundant and outdated content in them. When I did the merge I was able to clean up a lot of that. Given that NDOT is sort of tiptoeing into resigning I-515 (again, from I-15 southbound, the signage already says I-11/US-93/US-95), cleaning up the split articles would be a whole lot of effort that would just have to get reverted again as soon as the rest of the signs swap over. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:34, 11 March 2024 (EDT)
- Personally I'm ok with the merging, as it's only a matter of time before the two designations are merged. However, as I-515 signage still exists in the field, I think it's pre-mature to refer to it in the past tense. I don't see the need to undo anything, but maybe change the I-515 infobox to say -Present and add a sentence that while the changeover from I-515 to I-11 is inevitable I-515 is still signed through Las Vegas Valley? With that said there is a larger issue that needs to be discussed, when a State DOT log, AASHTO log, FWHA log and field signage disagree (which happens a lot) which one takes precedence? Neither AARW nor enwiki is consistent. With unsigned designations we almost always at least mention them, even though they only exist in the logs. However, in cases (especially California) where the state DOT log doesn't match reality, we usually use reality, only mentioning the streets and highways code definition in brief. I'm frankly ok with that, but it does merit a discussion.Dave (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2024 (EDT)
- Well, I can save you both the time; it was me. The problem with reverting is that the I-11 and I-515 articles before merging were trainwrecks that had a lot of redundant and outdated content in them. When I did the merge I was able to clean up a lot of that. Given that NDOT is sort of tiptoeing into resigning I-515 (again, from I-15 southbound, the signage already says I-11/US-93/US-95), cleaning up the split articles would be a whole lot of effort that would just have to get reverted again as soon as the rest of the signs swap over. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:34, 11 March 2024 (EDT)
- We can argue all day long which guideline to follow SMBOOK, FWHA, AASHTO or field signage, when they disagree. I slightly lean to field signage, which means I slightly agree the elimination of I-515 was premature. But I also don't care enough to fight over it. This is far from the first instance where the field signage and official docs don't agree, and in 5 years it will all be moot. As for "please fix this", a better approach is to check the edit history, find out who updated the article to remove I-515 (it wasn't me, again I agree it was premature) and discuss with them why you feel this was premature, maybe you can reach a compromise with them. Dave (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2024 (EDT)
- Ignoring all the timing issues, I'm not sure why the I-515 page needed to be merged in to the I-11 page, rather than edited to reflect its former status, with additional detail added to the I-11 page due to the extension. Is it one of those wikipedia notability hoop-jumping things (renumbered highways are not notable enough for anything beyond a redirect to the new number) carrying over to here? Si404 (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2024 (EDT)
- No, it's just that with all of 515 becoming part of 11, there wouldn't be anything that applied to 515 that does not also apply to that segment of 11. The two articles would necessarily have a lot of content duplicated between one another, and thus present an unnecessary maintenance liability. As Eric S. Raymond writes (referring to code, but the same principle applies to text):
Repetition leads to inconsistency and code that is subtly broken, because you changed only some repetitions when you needed to change all of them. Often, it also means that you haven't properly thought through the organization of your code. [...] Any time you see duplicate code, that's a danger sign. Complexity is a cost; don't pay it twice.
- Thus the merge. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:37, 12 March 2024 (EDT)
- You could argue it either way. However, one argument for merging is if someone is working on re-writing the article anyways, they are not likely going to want to re-write it knowing it will be obsolete in a few months. They would likely want to re-write it so that it will be valid for at least the medium term. Dave (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2024 (EDT)
- I can understand the cutting down on duplication argument Scott makes (though I think it's overdone), but this issue of not re-writing it if its going to be obsolete is the case either way - the obsolescence comes from the renumbering, not how we here implement it. Si404 (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2024 (EDT)
Mind you that I'm all I'm asking for is that this article reflect that as of January 2024, NDOT still acknowledges the existence of I-515. TheBNSFTracker (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2024 (EDT)
It looks like NDOT is now carrying the route as I-11 internally—see [1], which shows everything up to NV 157 as part of I-11 and no mention of I-515 at all. Would anyone have any objections to me reverting to the merged version, or would you all prefer we wait until signage catches up more? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:01, 1 May 2024 (EDT)
- The SMBook that is online is still the January 2024 edition, and has not been updated. However, if there has been any mid year updates it's been a while, and almost certainly will not be updated until January 2025. If field signage changeover is indeed in progress, we should follow that. I think it's safe to say the 2025 SMBook will have it as I-11. Dave (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2024 (EDT)
- Apparently all reference to 515 has been scrubbed from southbound I-15—I think that should be sufficient to establish that the 515 designation is on the way out in the real world and not just on paper, so I am going to re-merge the articles. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:16, 18 May 2024 (EDT)