# Talk:Interstate 91

I've created a table of the exits in all three states.  Should it be included?  It's a bit long (you can check it out here), but it might be nice to have it on page, instead of linked.  Opinions?
If I don't hear anything in a few days, I'll add it to the page. --insiriusdenial 19:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You might want to look at the Exit list format in Interstate 84 (east), which is more like what other Interstate highway articles use. In any case, go ahead and include it. People will improve upon it once it's there. --Polaron | Talk 20:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

As noted in the article, there is a They Might Be Giants song that references Interstate 91, and also includes a reference to an overpass--it's implied within the song that the overpass is at Interstate 91. Does anyone here know if I-91 actually has any overpasses? Just curious. (I think I see one in the picture, but I'm not entirely sure.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.155.26.8 (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The image Image:Mass Pike shield.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I-91 addresses a particular topic. It is an interstate road, servicing those who formerly chose to drive US Rte 5. Like most interstates, it needed a major adjacent road to absorb traffic leaving I-91 and to provide traffic entering it.
It is not to provide a billboard (WP:BOOSTER) for adjacent tourist spots, nor to provide WP:SPAM for them. They have their own articles.
Also replaced were requests made years ago for material used in the article. These really are removable upon seeing them. No request need be made. All articles are stand-alone. No "toleration" by editors for uncited material is necessary. See WP:BURDEN. Student7 (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see WP:BOOSTER issues at work. The road junction list (RJL) reflects the official DOT signage along the highway, and that includes mentioning other cities and such in the notes column. It would be BOOSTERism if we were using uncited praise for those cities or attractions instead of neutrally noting their existence. After all, we are supposed to WP:BUILDTHEWEB by linking articles together.
As for the other stuff, I've copied the one part that's not WP:CRYSTAL material here so that maybe someone else can find the citations and restore it.
 In the 1970s there were plans to extend I-91 across the Long Island Sound from New Haven, Connecticut to Long Island in New York. The extension would continue south to the southern shore of the island perhaps along the route of the current William Floyd Parkway in central Suffolk County. It would also provide easier access to New York City via the Long Island Expressway, as well as to The Hamptons via Sunrise Highway (New York State Route 27). It would have been Similar to the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel with two tunnels and it would have been 2 miles longer, thus being the longest bridge/tunnel in the Western Hemisphere.
Confirmed and official proposals are not predictions, even if they didn't come to pass. Interstate 275 (Michigan) had a northern segment that was planned. That much is confirmed knowledge. That it wasn't built is also confirmed knowledge. If the I-91 extension across Long Island Sound was actually officially proposed, there will be sources for it, even if the extension was not built. It would still be an event in the history of the highway worth including, but as you note, it does need citations. It is your claim of WP:CRYSTAL that's erroneous though. Imzadi 1979 →  01:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I mentioned this in the edit summary, but will repeat it here: the "Also serves" phrases reflect the signs on I-91 in Vermont that are not part of the primary exit sign.  For example, for Exit 2, the primary exit sign is for Brattleboro and Bennington [1], but about 3/4 miles prior to this sign, another, smaller sign indicates Marlboro College and Wilmington [2].  There are also other signs such as [3] that I did not manage to find all on the Street View, but you get the idea.  Not totally sure if this should be in the Destinations column (I think not, as it is more difficult to verify such signs on Street View), so they end up on the Notes column.  Unfortunately almost every exit in Vermont has such signs.  Chinissai (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Some of these are paid signs, usually brown. Not quite in the gasoline/fast food category, but paid, anyway.
I think "also" sounds funny unless there is a really, really good reason for using the term. "Also, some of these are paid..." "Also, I think...." How does the inclusion of those terms help my wording here in any way? Something is either there or it isn't there. Using "also" doesn't seem to help in any way. Kind of like "Er..." when I can't think of what I want to say next, but still want the floor!  :) Student7 (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
The brown signs aren't "paid signs"; you might be thinking of the blue logo signs. Imzadi 1979 →  15:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I propose that we split this article by state, since no other page on the wikiproject follows an interstate by a single page (as long as it's in more than 2 states), and the page fails WP:LENGTH and WP:SPLIT. HeatIsCool (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Interstate 93 goes through three states and is one article, so the first part of this argument falls on its face.  Looking at statistics (from the page size widget), we can compare this article to some other Interstate articles:

You'll notice that except for I-91 and I-93, these are all Featured Articles.  I added some state-detail articles to this because the highways were of comparable lengths to all of I-91.  Where am I going with this?  Instead of focusing on the length of the article, we should be focusing on the quality.  I-91 can become a FA with the right effort, but I believe splitting the article into state-detail articles for the sake of splitting them would be detrimental to the project. –Fredddie™ 21:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I-91 is shorter than Interstate 80 in Pennsylvania and many other single-state stretches of longer Interstates; given the short length and the fact the New England states are small, with short stretches across each state, I think its reasonable for the entire length of the route to be covered in one well-written article. Dough4872 01:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
The status quo is appropriate for now. If this article were ever expanded far enough to warrant splitting (and we'd be talking about adding over 2,600 words to come close to the length of I-75 in MI), then we could be discussing splitting things up. Until then, it's very premature. Imzadi 1979 →  02:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
But I browsed through at least most of WikiProject U.S. Roads and there's no policy regarding this matter. Perhaps a policy need be added there? HeatIsCool (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
You should (re)read Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Notability#Sub_articles. –Fredddie™ 15:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Interstate 91. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://future.newsday.com/10/fgsound.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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: 5 June 2024).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Interstate 91. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/6aJzyxuKC?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ct.gov%2Fdot%2FLIB%2Fdot%2FDocuments%2Fdpolicy%2Fhwylog%2Fhwylog.pdf to http://www.ct.gov/dot/LIB/dot/Documents/dpolicy/hwylog/hwylog.pdf
Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6aJzyxuKC?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ct.gov%2Fdot%2FLIB%2Fdot%2FDocuments%2Fdpolicy%2Fhwylog%2Fhwylog.pdf to http://www.ct.gov/dot/LIB/dot/Documents/dpolicy/hwylog/hwylog.pdf
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 07:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Interstate 91. 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/20120213170823/http://www.acluvt.org/issues/border_patrol_stops.php to http://www.acluvt.org/issues/border_patrol_stops.php
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 18:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I am planning on Nominating this for a Good Article in the near future. All help is appreciated. AmericanAir88 (talk) 05:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

As of the moment, the article would fail a nomination without some extensive work.
The article relies on SPSs, which fail our verification policy. In short, you'll need to find citations to sources that aren't self-published road geek websites.
At the same time, you should have a basic pairing of citations for the geographic details in the three RD subsections. Generally, we cite to the official state map and a set of Google Maps driving directions (in satellite mode) to verify the routing and landscape/environment of a highway. Specific details about landmarks along a highway would need individual citation beyond the maps.
The basic facts of the history section all need citation(s) to non-SPSs.
The Springfield riverfront subsection should be condensed as too detailed in comparison to the rest of the historical timeline from the history section. At the same time, since it's now the only subsection of the future section, the subheading should be removed.
The junction at MM 17.952 in the VT section of the exit list table needs a location, either one of the adjacent locations needs to span into that row of the table, a different location needs to be added, or it should be set to |location=none to provide a blank cell there.
Note 5 needs a full slate of citation information, and as noted above, the SPSs (Steve Anderson, Interstate Guide, Kurumi) need replacement and additional SPSs from AARoads, etc, should not be (re-)introduced as sources. They can be added to the external links section, however.
Imzadi 1979 →  07:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
@Imzadi1979: Thank you so much for this. I will work hard on fixing these. AmericanAir88 (talk) 03:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
@Imzadi1979: It has been several months and within these months have been several improvements. These past few weeks have seen an increase in reliable references, prose readability, and viable information. Can I finally ask it time for me to nominate the article for GA? Anything else that needs to be done? AmericanAir88 (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Since seeing this pass GAN, a few things have been bothering me in general, but it's not quite enough to push for a reassessment. AmericanAir88, I hope you can address some of these issues, especially if you plan to pursue A-Class or FA status for this one.

The Massachusetts section of the Route description is somewhat short on details and written in WP:PROSELINE, which is hard to read.
Most of the Route description, for that matter, lacks geographic context and reads like a Google Maps instruction rather than a real description of the land that the highway passes through. I would highly recommend looking at topographic maps and add small things like whether the highway climbs or descends from a hill, passes through a cut, or if it meanders around a feature.
The AADT counts aren't formatted well and should explicitly state whether each statistic is the highest or lowest count, or why they matter in general; also it's Canadian border, not Border.
The history section lacks the pre-Interstate history of the corridor or much of the construction history, which for a highway of this length should be well recorded through newspaper articles.
The third-to-last paragraph of the History section lacks a citation. Also, we should be using intersecting highways or town names instead of exit numbers when referring to locales, especially in the context of past events (since exit numbers can change).
I highly doubt that a new border checkpoint and a single interchange rebuild are all that happened on I-91 in the past 20 years.
The Future section has an "As of" statement dated to 2011. There has to have been progress since then.
I would also suggest that the reviewer Mgasparin take a closer look at similar GAs and FAs when reviewing, especially for an unfamiliar subject. Interstate 82 is one of my GAs that covers a similar situation (a short-ish multi-state freeway) that should be a decent template to work off of. SounderBruce 00:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The exit numbers listed in the table for Connecticut are incorrect. The highway has not been renumbered, and the old ones are still posted. The "new" numbers are not proposed til about 2027. I have no issue with listing the "new" numbers, provided they are labeled as "future" or "proposed" (and the "old" column listed as the current exits). The proposed numbers are likely to be tweaked, so it is premature to list them until they are finalized and installed. –Zfish118⋉talk 17:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)