Talk:Interstate 164

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

Change[edit]

I changed the phrase "with the last four or so miles leading to U.S. Highway 41 signed east-west." It sounded a bit informal.

-than_02

Disputed[edit]

According to the AASHTO approval of the change, it still exists west of US 41. "The overall route length of I-164 is 21.39 miles. The segment of I-164 that is proposed to be eliminated, renamed and resigned as I-69 over an existing facility is approximately 20.70 miles long." --NE2 21:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded the article to clarify the a small part of I-164 still exists. However, its existence will likely be invisible to anyone traveling on it since as far as I know it is not signed as I-164. There are a number of segments of old routes like this that still exist only on highway department records. Indyguy (talk) 05:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger[edit]

I've thought about merging this article with I-69. We could move I-164 into I-69's history Section.

-EBGamingWiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by EBGamingWiki (talk • contribs) 14:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in the near future, but not in the way you've done it. There are all sorts of attribution-related issues to just copying and pasting text, EBGamingWiki, and I don't think you have the skill set at the moment to properly handle such a merger. Also, it should be open for a bit more discussion before you move forward unilaterally. Imzadi 1979 → 19:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anything we have to wait for to do it?? Is the highway still called Interstate 164?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understand that the stub end in Evansville, albeit unsigned, has not been renumbered or de-numbered yet. It might be unsigned, but I-164 still exists in much-truncated format in that case. Imzadi 1979 → 19:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the introduction to saying that it's mostly former, but I used the verb is to indicate the fact that it is partially current. Georgia guy (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; merge what you can, and delete this article, as it is, all that exists of the I164 is a half a mile stretch of nothing (Definitely not notable enough for its own article). Furthermore, the merger was completed in 2014, meaning that most of this article is outdated and factually incorrect.  InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere  21:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One examination it appears that nothing in this article is needed for the I-69 article, I'll propose article deletion.  InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere  21:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion is a bad option; any merger requires that the full page history of the resulting redirect be kept for page attribution purposes. Imzadi 1979 → 22:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A proper merger in this case is not necessary or recommended anyway, as the material in this article doesn't reflect the material that the other article needs... at al. All the mile markers at the exits are different now, meaning that the lower table is incorrect and out of date, and not suitable for a merger. The material in the 'history' section is already covered in the I69 article and the material in the 'route description' section is unsourced and needlessly detailed, especially for the I-96 article that necessarily has a much larger scope. that leaves us with nothing to merge at all. Although yeah I guess we should probably just turn it into a redirect.  InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere  22:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another consideration is that just because it is a former designation, we don't necessarily delete the article. Otherwise U.S. Route 16 in Michigan, U.S. Route 25 in Michigan, U.S. Route 27 in Michigan and U.S. Route 33 in Michigan should not exist, among hundreds of other examples, including U.S. Route 66. We can, and should, cover former highway designations up to the point they ceased to exist with a bit of an epilog for pertinent after-decommissing content. Imzadi 1979 → 22:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merger. Something that is once notable is always notable. And the designation and highway, even if it is unsigned, does still exist - and "being an Interstate Highway" confers sufficient notability for an article. Between the currently-existing stub route and the previously-existing "major" route there is more than enough here for an independent article on the subject. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Article has been updated to reflect the loss of length. Cards84664 (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The article should talk about I-164 in the past tense and at its full length. The claim that there is a sliver of I-164 remaining is dubious at best. The simplest explanation is that the Veterans Memorial Parkway segment of I-164 is no longer on the Interstate Highway System. –Fredddie™ 02:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 December 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. AjaxSmack makes the best arguments and no one has countered his assertions that the Virginia highway was never known as "Interstate 164" in reliable sources. Hence, the current title is unambiguous. Feel free to start a new RM if any evidence can be provided that the road in Virginia was ever known as I-164. Mergers are outside the scope of RM so no adjudication on that. Jenks24 (talk) 06:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Interstate 164 → Interstate 164 (Indiana) – Now neither this highway nor the Virginia highway is current-official-signed, so Interstate 164 is useful as a dis-ambiguation page. There are no more current-official-signed I-164's, but there are 2 advanced meanings, so a dis-ambiguation page would make sense. Georgia guy (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed the article for deletion. I-164 is no longer notable as a half mile stretch of nothing, except as a section within the I-69 article. it seems that there isn't anything in this article that is needed on the I69 article anyway.  InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere  21:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Insertcleverphrasehere: you're confusing two forms of article titling. For state-specific sections of a longer highway, we use the "<highway name> in <state>" format, like Interstate 75 in Michigan to denote that it is the Michigan-specific subarticle of Interstate 75. For highways with numbers repeated in multiple states, we append the parenthetical, like Interstate 275 (Michigan) vs. Interstate 275 (Florida), but if they're unique, we don't append any, like Interstate 496. Imzadi 1979 → 22:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I guess. seems like a fairly arbitrary rule especially given that Interstate 164 in Indiana is current redirect to this page as is Interstate 164 (Indiana), making the two conventions de-facto the same(?). In any case the most this article should exist as is a redirect to (I-69) IMO.  InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere  22:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
{{jct}} could only default to one scheme of article title until recently, and it assumed that the state name would be appended in parentheses for all Interstate article titles. The solution was to make sure that the redirects were in place so that links would work. Imzadi 1979 → 00:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning oppose: Was the Virginia I-164 ever signed as I-164 or was the number declined before it was signed? –Fredddie™ 21:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter much if it was, as it was clearly declined shortly afterwards. the result is that the Virginia I-164 doesnt exist.  InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere  23:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neither does Bigfoot or Blackstar (spacecraft), and yet... - The Bushranger One ping only 08:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
​​It was never signed as I-164. VDOT maps show it as "proposed" as early as 1976 but it was always as State Route 164. The West Norfolk Bridge was unsigned when completed and when the later sections were added, it was VA164 (see images here). Note that the assertion that the Virginia freeway was to be I-164 is unsourced and pages like this with extensive info and sourcing do not mention this. —  AjaxSmack  02:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support—my support for this proposal depends on the answer to Fredddie's question immediately above this comment. Imzadi 1979 → 22:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merging Interstate 164 into Interstate 69 in Indiana. It might help to turn I-164 to a dab page between the former route in Indiana and the declined route in Virginia. Dough4872 15:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move this (and then merge it) to make room for dab page 73.214.30.202 (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move and creation of dab between the two I-164s; Oppose merger of content to the I-69 page. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the proposed move or the creation of a dab page without some evidence that VA164 was ever intended to be I-164. Support a merge with Interstate 64 in Indiana. —  AjaxSmack  02:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interstate 164. 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) 06:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interstate_164&oldid=1201009727"