Talk:Interstate 95 in Connecticut

message: Are the exit numbers in the table at the end of the article intended to be the currently configured exits or are they from the original plan for the route? The as-built configuration of the end of the route has Exit 92 at CT-2 and CT-49 (actually kind of a wacky exit; the reason I was reading the article was to see how it was listed) and 93 as the last exit before the state line at CT-216. Exits 94 and 95 don't exist. 76.19.100.234 (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I hadn't seen a response on the goal of the exit listing, I modified the end of the table to match the actual configuration of the highway. Wondering why this edit was reverted by Markvs88? 76.19.100.234 (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Guess this sort of blind, "revert and forget" editing is why this article is rated C-Class. Because I care, here's the Google Maps map of where the interstate crosses the CT-RI border: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/53281731/i95.png  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.100.234 (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean back on 17 December 2011? Because the removal of content with no edit summary is a red flag for vandalism. You could have also dropped a note on my talk page if you didn't understand why. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose you could also have used such an edit summary when reverting the change. Since apparently such an upstanding and decorated Wikipedian's responsibilities end at talking down to new contributors, I went ahead and put the exit list back to reflect reality. 76.19.100.234 (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exit Numbering in Eastern CT 

message: The exit list on the Interstate 95 in Connecticut article is creating a redlink for Madison, Connecticut. The link is only showing Madison,  for some reason. ----DanTD (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, and moved this query from the talk page here. (That talk page relates to how to update or improve the MOS standard, not individual articles, btw.) Imzadi 1979 →  02:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  I-95 in Connecticut redlink that shouldn't exist 

message: There is a news item in WINS website.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  milepost basis coming for exit numbers? 

message: Reading through the RD, it's about a third too long, at least. It's now a large wall of text. Perhaps if there were some photos present to help break up the text that would help. There is a lot of detail here that isn't needed. We don't need to discuss every interchange; that's the purpose of the exit list. We also don't need to repeat all of the access restrictions on the interchanges that are mentioned; again, that's the purpose of the exit list. (Also, the verb "interchanges" means "to switch" as in to switch places, not to meet at an interchange. That usage needs to be cleaned up.)
In short, the RD section now needs an edit with an eye to reducing the text length. Imzadi 1979 →  21:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Route description expansion 

message: Is there really a need for every single minor bend and turn to be mentioned? Along that line what is a reverse turn?  The only reverse turn I can find on Wiki or Google is a counter clockwise dance step or spin, or something to do with the connection of elements within complex compound.  Additionally is it really necessary, or overkill, to mention every change in the number of lanes, even when distances are relatively short?  Maybe something like this will make more sense at the beginning of a section.  "Throughout Middlesex and New London Counties the majority of the highway is 4 lanes, with the exception of a slow vehicle lane in Clinton, and on the bridges crossing the Connecticut and the Thames Rivers where additional lanes exist."
Also, does every little creek, half of which are never even noticed while driving the highway, need to be listed?  On this note I did add both a river and a reservoir, that are obvious when driving the highway, but were somehow missed.  Sometimes more is too much or overkill.
Finally, I noticed some errors in the description of specific travel directions, usually southbound, that I fixed.  I know that a highway is to be described from north to south (or in CT west to east), but when discussing a specific direction of travel, the language should be as if one is driving the direction specified.  Plmerry (talk) 02:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: What you're encountering is lazy writing. Feel free to fix it as needed. –Fredddie™ 18:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Route Description