# Talk:Interstate 5 in Washington

Prose that reflects actions taken in the past, such as the Columbia River Crossing program, should be in the History section. Unless and until that or a similar project is resurrected, it should stay there. Additionally, including "future plans" as part of "History" is inherently an oxymoron. --Chaswmsday (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Planned events in the future (but are not yet confirmed) do not belong in the entirely optional Future section, per WP:USRD/STDS. As written, the section references past events (the planning of the bridge, the 2015 transportation package) and are more strongly associated with them than with their planned completion date (which is will inevitably change, as seen locally with Bertha). SounderBruce 03:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:USRD/STDS#Future, any reliably-sourced concrete future plans should appear under the Future section. Under your edit to Washington State Route 510, you claim that the section there is "far too short to stand on its own merits". A remedy *is* provided when the optional *Services* section is short; no such guidance exists in the standard for the Future section. Within *this* article, which contains a much longer Future section, your edit summary states, "reverting addition of separate Future section per my talk page comments; it's premature and pointless". As you've retained the prose in question, you clearly don't consider the *content* to be either premature or pointless, but the section containing that prose somehow is? Yet in your referenced talk page comments, you advance an entirely different argument: you appear to claim that *planning* for the future strictly constitutes past events; if this reading of the standards held true, then there could **never** be a Future section. These differing objections all sound too much like IDONTLIKEIT-ism. --Chaswmsday (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I added this small section on the BLM protest death, linking to a longer description:

On July 4, 2020, two Black Lives Matter protesters were hit by a car when the Interstate was closed, one being killed.
It was reverted by SounderBruce, saying "Not notable enough for this section, which is expected to cover events that have long-lasting impacts". I cannot find where this is stated, Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Standards says nothing relevant and the talk page archives are also no help. This isn't a routine car crash and the section is not outsized, so why censor it? Fences&Windows 11:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Fences and windows: I think this is a matter of WP:PROPORTION. This is an isolated incident in relation to the subject of the article. Even a single sentence is unbalanced coverage given that, yes, this event has not had and will not have any lasting impact to I-5. Imzadi 1979 →  13:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
As Imzadi said above, it's about the proportional share of the page dedicated to single events. There have been many deadlier incidents on I-5 in its 50-year history and listing them all would make this article far too long to read. Only events with a documented lasting impact should be listed, and this can be done at a slower pace as things unfold. SounderBruce 03:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

This webpage from the Seattle City Clerk claims that 40,000 people were displaced by the construction of I-5, which seems a bit high. Can't find newspaper sources to back up the claimed number. SounderBruce 05:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
@SounderBruce: Hey there, I noticed this sign while driving the other day and got curious about it. I contacted WSDOT about the sign and got this response: "Sounds like we added that shield indicating a business loop a few years ago when we had another project that had all of southbound I-5 in that area closed/re-routed into the collector-distributor lanes. It was meant to let people know that even though they were exiting the mainline of I-5, they were still on the interstate (they weren't exiting into the city) and should stay on it to continue on I-5. We decided to keep it up until the Revive I-5 project ends in that area in a couple years." Do you think this is notable for inclusion somewhere in this article? Looking forward to when we can meet up at Allegro. Best,  ❯❯❯ Mccunicano☕️ 20:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't think signage mistakes are worth mentioning, especially if they're short term. Heck, the whole Revive I-5 project isn't particularly notable by itself. SounderBruce 05:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey everyone!
Not in my realm of expertise, but there is a large project meant for a stretch between Centralia and Chehalis. Something about widening, bridge work, meters, and roundabouts.
In case it warrants inclusion under the Future projects and proposals, here you go.
Happy editing!
Shortiefourten (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

 Shortiefourten (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Is there any reference for the highest elevation on Interstate 5 in Washington state?  When I researched it, I found it to be in Whatcom County, near Lake Samish. --  Denelson83  04:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)