Talk:Interstate 91

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Exit List

message: 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)
thread_title: Song

message: 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)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Mass Pike shield.png

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello, The Vermont section of this article is very long and accounts for a majority of the sourcing and information in the article. I propose that a split occurs so that an article called Interstate 91 in Vermont is created. Thank you.
I am tagging  and  AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's compare the current state of this article to two other articles, U.S. Route 8 and Interstate 75 in Michigan. In the former, we also have one article covering a highway that runs through 3 states where one state dominates the length, although it's less extreme in the disparities in lengths with I-91 than US 8. Because the VT section of I-91 is a majority of the length, we'd expect that section to account for the "majority of the sourcing and information in the article". Compared to I-75, the entirety of I-91 is shorter than the Michigan section of I-75. The overall RD here compares similarly to I-75 in MI's at first glance, so I wouldn't call it "very long" at all in any respect. The length of this article doesn't warrant a split based upon page size considerations at this time, so the proposal should not be adopted. Imzadi 1979 →  20:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If the route description is re-written with a goal of 50 miles per paragraph, Connecticut and Massachusetts would each have a paragraph, and Vermont would have three and a half paragraphs.  This is perfectly OK and wouldn't violate WP:UNDUE.  I don't think splitting out Vermont is a viable solution at all. –Fredddie™ 22:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the statistics table above in #Split into individual states is still accurate, and the discussion there applies to the current situation three years later. I commented above without realizing we'd already had this discussion. Imzadi 1979 →  22:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split proposed 

message: 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. , 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  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)
thread_title:  Article issues 

message: 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)
thread_title: Exit Numbers in CT