Talk:Interstate 759

U.S. Roads: Interstates / Alabama Mid‑importance

	U.S. roads portal This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Topics	Interstate Highways
Locations	Alabama
	This article has a map. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.
	This article has a junction list compliant with the Manual of Style on road junction lists.
	This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.

Alabama

This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlabamaWikipedia:WikiProject AlabamaTemplate:WikiProject AlabamaAlabama articles

On 12 August 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Interstate 759 and State Route 759 (Alabama). The result of the discussion was not moved.

Merge target[edit]

Resolved

– Merged. –Fredddie ™ 23:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think SR 759 can be reasonably merged into this article. It's a mile-long continuation of the same number. Any thoughts? –Fredddie ™ 21:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support The History section states there are plans to extend I-759 east, presumably along SR 759, to reach US 278. SR 759 appears to be a temporary designation until that happens. V C 22:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Makes sense. Dough 48 72 01:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and VC. – T M F 12:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Admrboltz (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interstate 759. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727134739/http://aldotgis.dot.state.al.us/milepostinternet/default.aspx to http://aldotgis.dot.state.al.us/milepostinternet/default.aspx

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) 07:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interstate 759. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071023041225/http://southeastroads.com/i-759_al.html to http://www.southeastroads.com/i-759_al.html

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) 17:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 August 2023[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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 08:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 759 → Interstate 759 and State Route 759 (Alabama) – Both I-759 and SR 759 are covered in this article, but the article title is only for I-759. There should either be a separate section for it (like Arkansas Highway 530 is a section in the Interstate 530 article) or both routes should be in the title (like the Interstate 110 and State Route 110 (California) article) ChessEric 20:34, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I think it's fine to just have the primary interstate route as the title. Interstate 540 (North Carolina) does the same thing. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think the extra mile or so of roadway justifies the un-WP:CONCISE title, especially since the signing for that small stretch is liable to revert to the current title name in the future anyway, WP:CRYSTAL notwithstanding. StonyBrook _babble 15:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per StonyBrook —⁠PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 18:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate option[edit]

Is there a way to put both shields in the infobox? This was actually the other option I was thinking of, but forgot to mention. ChessEric 18:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There should be. Looking at how the I-540 article does it, it appears a new custom road type is specified in Module:Road data/strings/USA/NC ("INC" – Interstate/state route). So, if this becomes the preferred option, it seems like it should be pretty simple to do something similar for Alabama and display both shields.

I agree it would be a good idea to display the AL 759 shield in the infobox, particularly since the map shows both distinct routes, so it's a bit confusing to just have the Interstate shield. I suppose it's possible that displaying both shields could raise some confusion as to whether the routes are concurrent, although the map and lead seem to clear that up. —⁠PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 18:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Interstate 540 (North Carolina), I agree with this. StonyBrook _babble 21:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I had tried to do that, but it wouldn't let me; I assume it's because there has been no reason to do that for any other Alabama routes. ChessEric 02:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see no harm in adding the info to the lede at least. I don't usually edit these kinds of articles, so I don't know how to help with the IB. StonyBrook _babble 03:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since this seems to be uncontroversial regardless of the outcome of the RM, I have implemented this in the module and on the article. —⁠PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 00:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.