Talk:Interstate 77 in West Virginia

message: I propose to merge West Virginia Turnpike into Interstate 77 in West Virginia. All of the WV Turnpike is concurrent with I-77, and the "Tolls" and "History" section of this article are both nearly empty. Needforspeed888 (talk) 13:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Support per nom. Imzadi 1979 →  14:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

text: Oppose: Isn't the entirety of the turnpike also I-64? Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

text: Needforspeed888 (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Merging I-77 and the West Virginia Turnpike information is very confusing. Reading through, I couldn't tell if I was reading about I-77 or just the Turnpike. I feel like paragraphs were just copied without regard from one page to the other. 
The Turnpike (West Virginia Parkways Authority) is its own state division from I-77 (taken care of and managed by WVDOH). 
Topics like the bonds make me feel like the bonds covered the entire stretch of I-77 within West Virginia when, in fact, only supports the West Virginia Turnpike road projects, not WVDOH projects on Interstate 77.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nesargent (talk • contribs) 18:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing 

message: This is just an article about the Turnpike. Where's the history about the stretch between Parkersburg and Charleston? What about the section of US 21 it replaced? What about US 21 at *all*? DarkAudit (talk) 05:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the history of the actual interstate? 

message: The merger between West Virginia Turnpike and this article should be reverted and the two articles split into their own pages. In addition to the two comments above this section indicating that the merge is confusing, the West Virginia Turnpike is its own distinct entity from I-77 in West Virginia. Sure, the I-77 designation overlaps the Turnpike today, but the history of I-77 in West Virginia is not the same as the history of the West Virginia Turnpike, since the Pike was built long before the Interstate Highway System. The West Virginia Turnpike needs its own article to discuss its construction and history pre-Interstate era, and also how it ended up being grandfathered into the Interstate Highway System despite having tolls and still several substandard curves and other features. Merging and redirecting this would be like merging and redirecting the Pennsylvania Turnpike into I-76 in Pennsylvania, since, save for the relatively short I-276 Delaware Extension, all of the mainline PA Turnpike uses I-76 in PA. But the PA Turnpike is a complete distinct entity from I-76 in PA, the latter of which also includes the Schuykill Expressway. It therefore has its own article. So should this. 2601:187:4581:7F50:50B4:B22F:A194:DC28 (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. this also applies to the Maine Turnpike and probably some others as well, but one thing at a time. 2601:187:4581:7F50:50B4:B22F:A194:DC28 (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: "needs to be discussed separately". Why? The article is not "extremely confusing" as you put it, it's one road. If anything, more turnpikes should be merged, not less, due to their concurrencies.  Cards84664 17:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

text: We could divide the history into two subsections: one about the turnpike and one about the free section. This would be similar in nature to the history of Delaware Route 1 (a Good Article), which has one subsection for the free portion south of Dover and one for the Korean War Veterans Memorial Highway. Needforspeed888 (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

text: With the Kansas Turnpike example in particular, I-35 in Kansas did in fact redirect to the Kansas Turnpike for several years, until such time that the Kansas Turnpike article became so large (on its way to being a featured article) that it made more sense to split the pages simply because the Kansas Turnpike page was "too full". The Kansas Turnpike also carries four different interstate designations along its route, so if all of the Interstates it overlapped redirected there, the majority of Interstate mileage in Kansas would be merged to one page. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: By IP's logic, shouldn't Interstate 335 (Kansas) get its own article? –Fredddie™ 19:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because I-335 in Kansas doesn't have a non-Turnpike section. The entire length of I-335 in Kansas is part of the Kansas Turnpike. Here, in this case, the entire length of I-77 in West Virginia is not part of the West Virginia Turnpike, which is why there should be separate articles. 2601:187:4581:7F50:1555:1F6:23A:AF0A (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I-335 doesn't have a non-turnpike section, just as the West Virginia Turnpike doesn't have a "non-I-77 section". So your proposal would in fact be analogous to giving I-335 its own article. Needforspeed888 (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

text: No, we understand your methodology, but we feel it's flawed. For example 2, I agree with your end result because there are parts of I-95 in NJ that aren't the mainline of the New Jersey Turnpike. That makes it more analogous to the Ohio Turnpike and I-76, I-80 and I-90. I also agree with you on the end result for example 3, but not because they are wholly concurrent with each other; the fact that one is wholly concurrent with the other is sufficient. I-90 could extend 20 feet past the end of the turnpike, and I would still support merging because all of the turnpike is I-90.As for example 1, we don't need two separate articles. I-95 in ME will need to cover all of the route description of the Maine Turnpike to be complete because the latter is completely overlapped by the former. Ditto the exit list table: a complete table for I-95 will need to include all of the turnpike exits. (Sorry, but it's very lazy to put a "see <other article>" row in a table and call it a day.) The history section for I-95 should cover the history of the ROW it currently occupies, in addition to the history of the ROW it previously occupied. With that level of redundancy, there isn't anything left that's overly unique to warrant separate articles. On that basis, we don't need separate I-95 in ME and Maine Turnpike articles.Also, watch your off-wiki postings. Canvassing is a major no-no. Imzadi 1979 →  22:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

text: I disagree with the first example you provided. If a particular concurrency looks like this ("|" represents termini):
|-----------------------------Route X---------------------------------|
|---------------Route Y--------------|
then we only need one article: Route X. If necessary, the history can discuss Route Y separately from the rest of Route X (see Interstate 476 or Delaware Route 1 for examples), but I do not believe such a scenario requires separate articles for Route X and Route Y. Needforspeed888 (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert merge 

message: There are similar issues to this one scattered around. Here's a handful of what I've found:
* Maine Turnpike needs to have its own article for the same reasons as the WV Turnpike – the Maine Turnpike and I-95 in Maine are NOT the same thing.
* Interstate 95 in New Jersey, under the criteria by which this merge occurred, should redirect to New Jersey Turnpike, since all of I-95 in NJ is part of the NJTP. But then you loose the history about the cancelled Somerset Freeway.
* Delaware Turnpike is basically the exact same issue as here – all of the Turnpike is part of I-95, but not all of I-95 in Delaware is the Turnpike, and the Turnpike should be discussed separately from the free mileage of the Interstate.
* Tri-State Tollway should be its own article, not a disambiguation page, with Interstate 294 redirecting there, but I-94 and I-80 in Illinois both have non-tolled sections that should be discussed separately.
* Chicago Skyway should also be its own article, since the Skyway is a separate entity from the remainder of I-90 in Illinois, and up until recently wasn't even continuously signed as I-90. The article for I-90 in Illinois should actually be three-way split into its three distinct segments: Skyway, Kennedy Expressway, and Addams Tollway.
I will say for reference that Connecticut Turnpike, New York State Thruway, and Kansas Turnpike are perfect examples of what these articles should look like, with a separate article on the Turnpike and separate articles for the various Interstate highway components, which also cover their free sections. 2601:187:4581:7F50:50B4:B22F:A194:DC28 (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: With the Kansas Turnpike example in particular, I-35 in Kansas did in fact redirect to the Kansas Turnpike for several years, until such time that the Kansas Turnpike article became so large (on its way to being a featured article) that it made more sense to split the pages simply because the Kansas Turnpike page was "too full". The Kansas Turnpike also carries four different interstate designations along its route, so if all of the Interstates it overlapped redirected there, the majority of Interstate mileage in Kansas would be merged to one page. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: By IP's logic, shouldn't Interstate 335 (Kansas) get its own article? –Fredddie™ 19:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because I-335 in Kansas doesn't have a non-Turnpike section. The entire length of I-335 in Kansas is part of the Kansas Turnpike. Here, in this case, the entire length of I-77 in West Virginia is not part of the West Virginia Turnpike, which is why there should be separate articles. 2601:187:4581:7F50:1555:1F6:23A:AF0A (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I-335 doesn't have a non-turnpike section, just as the West Virginia Turnpike doesn't have a "non-I-77 section". So your proposal would in fact be analogous to giving I-335 its own article. Needforspeed888 (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar issues elsewhere 

message: Perhaps I'm not making my thinking and methodology clear, since people still seem to be kind of circling around my point but not actually hitting my point. Let me try to make this clearer.
* Example 1: Interstate 95 in Maine vs. Maine Turnpike
**Is all of the Maine Turnpike part of Interstate 95? → Yes (post-2004)
**Is all of I-95 in ME the Maine Turnpike? → No
**Ideal Result: 2 articles
* Example 2: Interstate 95 in New Jersey vs. New Jersey Turnpike
**Is all of the New Jersey Turnpike part of Interstate 95? → No
**Is all of I-95 in NJ the New Jersey Turnpike? → Yes
**Ideal Result: 2 articles
* Example 3: Interstate 90 in Massachusetts vs. Massachusetts Turnpike
**Is all of the Massachusetts Turnpike part of Interstate 90? → Yes
**Is all of I-90 in MA the Mass Pike? → Yes
**Ideal Result: 1 article
In essence, my thinking is that if the answer to both Is all of Turnpike X part of Interstate Y? and Is all of Interstate Y in state Z part of Turnpike X? is "Yes", then only one article is needed. If the answer to either or both questions is "No", at least two sections, preferably two articles, are needed. 2601:187:4581:7F50:1555:1F6:23A:AF0A (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we understand your methodology, but we feel it's flawed. For example 2, I agree with your end result because there are parts of I-95 in NJ that aren't the mainline of the New Jersey Turnpike. That makes it more analogous to the Ohio Turnpike and I-76, I-80 and I-90. I also agree with you on the end result for example 3, but not because they are wholly concurrent with each other; the fact that one is wholly concurrent with the other is sufficient. I-90 could extend 20 feet past the end of the turnpike, and I would still support merging because all of the turnpike is I-90.As for example 1, we don't need two separate articles. I-95 in ME will need to cover all of the route description of the Maine Turnpike to be complete because the latter is completely overlapped by the former. Ditto the exit list table: a complete table for I-95 will need to include all of the turnpike exits. (Sorry, but it's very lazy to put a "see <other article>" row in a table and call it a day.) The history section for I-95 should cover the history of the ROW it currently occupies, in addition to the history of the ROW it previously occupied. With that level of redundancy, there isn't anything left that's overly unique to warrant separate articles. On that basis, we don't need separate I-95 in ME and Maine Turnpike articles.Also, watch your off-wiki postings. Canvassing is a major no-no. Imzadi 1979 →  22:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

text: I disagree with the first example you provided. If a particular concurrency looks like this ("|" represents termini):
|-----------------------------Route X---------------------------------|
|---------------Route Y--------------|
then we only need one article: Route X. If necessary, the history can discuss Route Y separately from the rest of Route X (see Interstate 476 or Delaware Route 1 for examples), but I do not believe such a scenario requires separate articles for Route X and Route Y. Needforspeed888 (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempt to clarify 

message: It seems that the majority of others are against me. Fine. I hereby withdraw this proposal. However, I do support the suggestion made above about splitting the history into two separate sections. I believe that the history of the West Virginia Turnpike (and all of its subsections) should be separated from the history of I-77 north of Charleston. Perhaps this should become the standard elsewhere too where similar situations exist. 2601:187:4581:7F50:58C8:7D7D:4F01:CA18 (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Withdrawn 

message: OK, it says that traffic outgrew the 2-lane turnpike, and Interstate standards needed to be brought to that road.  Somewhere (not here?), I recall reading of the problem of drivers who were familiar with other turnpike, which were already divided highways. Carlm0404 (talk) 04:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  drivers of other turnpikes using the 2-lane turnpike