Talk:Interstate 95/Archive 1

message: This is way too long to be a stub. worthawholebean talkcontribs 19:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a stub because it does not meet the WikiProject standards. If you want you could change it to . --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) My RFA 04:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub?!?!?! 

message: I really like the idea of the state-by-state subpages. They should contain the road descriptions within the states, the exit lists, etc. that would be far too long on the main pages. They should be made for the other long Interstates as well. CrazyC83 04:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with this, but I'm willing for a compromise on I-95 since it is long. But here as is noted at TFD, we're opening a can of worms here. That means that short interstates might get split (like I-5) or I-495. Then we get splits between maintenances... we've got to be careful here. Therefore, we should only do Interstate 95 like this, and be judicious about splitting things off. Like... do we want to split the District of Columbia portion off, describing te 0.11 miles in the District? It's an extreme example but we need to think about stuff like that. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  04:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, if anything Interstate 95 in the District of Columbia should redirect to Interstate 395 (District of Columbia-Virginia), with maybe a disambiguation up top linking to Woodrow Wilson Bridge. As for further splits, like I-95 in New York being the Trans-Manhattan Expressway, Cross-Bronx Expressway, Bruckner Expressway and New England Thruway, those can have even more detailed articles, like we would do for a typical state highway. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I think it's best to only do this sort of thing in cases where the main article would exceed Wikipedia's recommended article length (I'm not really sure what it is, but I know there is one, because I get warned about it when editing large articles.) In this particular article, there is a ton of info from New Jersey, but not so much from others. I think it should be based on the amount of info on that state, not the length of highway in that state. For articles that are under the recommended max length, with all info included, there is no need to split it up. If someone wants to add info about a state, they can just add it to its section in the main article. If and only if that makes the main article too big, then it should be split. --Chris 17:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, look at Interstate 95#State by state, and then look at Jersey. Although Flordia's I-95 is longer than Jersey's, the NJ guys have written a ton more info about their Interstates. (As a matter of fact, there is no Florida state by state section at all.) As for the other states that have stuff, the New York section I wrote certianly doesn't deserve to have its own article. Now if me or someone else were to greatly expand that section, then we could think about creating Interstate 95 in New York. So I suggest improving your state's section, until it becomes too big. Then and only then should it be split. --Chris 17:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry - I'll get to Florida. I live here and can certainly write enough for a full article. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Agreed on length issues. The only Interstates that such would apply IMO should be 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 35, 40, 55, 65, 70, 75, 80, 81, 85, 90, 94 and 95. Definitely not for the intrastate Interstates or the shorter ones (such as 26, 57 or 89). BTW, the District of Columbia section of I-95 does not warrant a separate page; there is little to say other than it sits there, it was built in one shot by Maryland and Virginia and there are no interchanges or unique features there. CrazyC83 21:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, I-95 doesn't even touch land in DC. I'm not even sure that I-5 should be split; the only state that has worthwhile information there is California. But it should probably be on an individual basis, and should be extremely limited so things don't get out of hand. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  22:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. No need to split up those where only one state is significant, even if there's alot of info about it. --Chris 22:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  State-by-state 

message: I don't think it's appropriate to list at the bottom a box for "brows[ing] numbered routes" for a single state through which I-95 travels as if this article is one of a collection of stories about that state.
If you insist on having that sort of box, it should be listed under a Massachusetts section elsewhere in the article
Jkatzen 00:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, the box is for all of the states I-95 goes through, not just Massachusetts. See WP:IH for details. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  00:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single-state next/previous boxes 

message: Since when were other primary interstate junctions not "major"?Gateman1997 06:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus on longer 2di's such as I-95, has been that only the major routes in the cross direction are "major". IMHO, I-85 should be listed as a major junction since it's the northern terminus of 85. Otherwise, I agree with keeping the list manageably short. C.Fred 23:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I've added I-75 back (via I-595 as it showed before), as it's just as significant as ther northern terminus I-85 (this is I-75's southern terminus), ending in 0/5. Jkatzen 20:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: On the one hand, I'd say it doesn't really intersect, because of the I-595 connection. On the other, that would disqualify I-70, which while designed to hit I-95, doesn't make it all the way there. I'm torn on this one. C.Fred 01:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Here's my theory: after consulting Interstate-Guide.com , I have discovered that up closer to Baltimore, the signs on I-95 do say "695 to 70".  Therefore, Interstate 70 should be included since it is referenced on the sign.  However, I could not find signs in Miami on 95 that say "595 to 75", or even any signs referencing 595 from 95.  So, that said, I say that 75 STAY UNLESS someone can prove that it is NOT on a sign on I-95 that indicated 75 is via 595, if anybody understands what I'm saying.  Benefit of the doubt, and I-75 isnt hurting anybody, since it is a major interstate, and the list is still manageably short.  MPD01605 01:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: No big deal that I-75 was lost, but if your theory of "only east-west highways can be mentioned on a north-south interstate" and vice versa is followed, I-10, I-5, I-65, I-75, etc would all need to be changed.  It should be that any long interstate with a 5 or 0 (almost national length, of course) that is intersected by an interstate of 5 or 0 (of any length) be put in the box, especially if a 5-or-0 interstate ends at that route.  That doesn't put I-75 on the list, and that's fine.  But 85 stays.  I'm not gonna go start changing all these things to make them reflect that, as you shouldn't go on a spree and tear every I-x0 from an I-x0 routebox.  As of now, I-95 is good, and all the others look good, too.  Thank you. MPD01605 21:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, maybe I'll go change the others in a bit. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm going to have to advise against that. From WP:IH, "For I-80, I-90, I-40, I-10, I-75, and I-95 , and for that matter any interstate that is long enough to have 15 or more 2di junctions, only list 2di junctions where the number ends in 5 or 0."  Therefore, 85 stays, and all the other ones stay, too.  MPD01605 22:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "only list", not "list all". --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If the interstate system were a true grid, then this wouldn't be an issue. The problem is that, especially in the southeast, there are some major diagonal interstates (85) and some minor ones (26—and at some point in the future, the 73/74 multiplex). Because of this, I-85 warrants a mention on the junction box of I-65, 75, and 95. And, conversely, all of those are listed on I-85's junction box. Now, looking at that flipside part of the equation, I-95 is not listed in I-75's junction box—it's not even mentioned in the article! By extension, I-95 shouldn't mention I-75 in the junction box, though it may mention it in the text of the article. (By contrast, the I-70 junction box does list I-95.) I say, Keep 70, Keep 85, Delete 75. C.Fred 01:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  Now that still leaves issues like I-10 and I-20.  I-20 on I-10's?  Also with that, on I-5's, which is relatively short, should we keep I-8?  I could put that in I-5's discussion, but seeing as how we're on here anyway, what should we do?   MPD01605 01:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can live with I-30 beling excluded from I-20 and I-40, because it's such a minor major. I-20 is long enough, though, that I think it should stay on I-10's page. I-8 on I-5's page? If it's that short of a list, why not? To me, the routebox should tell me, in a nutshell, where the interstate goes. It should list every major interstate that it crosses, since they're useful mileposts. If the list is manageably short, it should also list all interstates. For 3di's, the list can be expanded further to US and state routes. More than 10 items on the list becomes unmanageable. C.Fred 03:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Major Junctions

message: It's hard to tell -- does this article only mention incidents on 95 itself, or does it include spurs, loops, etc., too?   If the latter, then a brief reference to Air Florida Flight 90 might be considered in the "Disasters" section. 68.221.113.144 05:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, the beltway does not go anywhere near Fredericksburg, and the sniper attacks that shut down the beltway were not on I-95, just 495 near Tysons/Fairfax.  Second, I do have to agree though that the human remains are hardly a disaster.  --MPD01605 (T / C) 21:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Beltway" was a case of me typing faster than I was thinking.  The article is about I-95, which is why I mentioned it in the first place.  Regardless, I'm quite certain that the shooting in Fredericksburg (near the steakhouse) shutdown I-95 for a while. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.187.233.202 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If we include disasters on the various spurs, loops, etc. of I-95 in the I-95 disasters section, the section could become far too long and almost unmaintainable.  It would be best if the section only contains disasters on I-95 itself.  Additionally, I also agree that the section should be kept to major car crashes or the like -- i.e., not the finding of human remains.  --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's time to revisit the disasters section.  Some of these can be weeded out.  Hurricane evacuations aren't really disasters.  A truck striking an overpass isn't really a disaster, it's not infrequent.  Perhaps the commuter bus accident in Stafford could go, it's not the only commuter bus accident in the country.  Many of these are just accidents that happen.  Hail storm accidents?  Yeah, and accidents due to icy roads happen all over the place.  I just feel that some of these are overhyped accidents.  There was an overturned tractor-trailer on I-81 last January that closed both the north- and southbound lanes in Harrisonburg for hours.  I wouldn't call that a disaster.  --MPD01605 (T / C) 15:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. A lot of these are just regular accidents. Maybe include only those that cause complete closure in both directions that last for at least several days or at least those that made it onto national news. --Polaron | Talk 15:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The overpass in Quebec that collapsed? That's a disaster. Bay bridge in Oakland collapsed? Disaster. Chain-reaction accident? Bad accident, but unless it's historic, not a disaster.  Also, an editor just went in and changed a lot of info on the disasters, so it would need re-vetted anyways. IMHO, if there's not a citation from Time, Newsweek, or something of that scale to back it up, it's not a disaster. —C.Fred (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I-95 Disasters 

message: Obviously, it's not finalized yet, but with I-95 having moved onto a new span of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, does this change the length of the interstate in DC, and do we know what the new distance is? The reroute wouldn't be significant for VA or MD but would for DC. —C.Fred (talk) 04:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Google Maps, the distance of the new (currently open) span is shorter than the old span by what I'd guess to be a hundred feet (I'm not good at estimating distances).  But the second under-construction span will be in the same place as the old Wilson Bridge.  I don't know how you'd compute it due to the angle of the DC line, but I'd take the average of the two spans from the centre of the bridge at the line.  --MPD01605 (T / C) 18:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length in DC 

message: I am curious why the Length and Intersections sections are done from south to north.  It seems upside down to me.(Tenorcnj 20:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is done because highways are mile posted in that direction.  For example, in Florida, Exits 1-9 are in the southern part of the state in Miami, whereas Exits 335-366 are to the north in Jacksonville. -- NORTH talk 21:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Direction of Information 

message: Just a note on why two aren't there.  I don't think the J.F.K. Mem Parkway in Maryland is defunct...  It's still listed on the MdTA toll facilites page and there's no mention of the bridge as the toll.  Also, once again, there will be no Pennsylvania Turnpike toll on I-95.  To quote my correspondence with an official (on the Talk:Interstate 95/Archive page: "The only I-95 toll in PA will be the westbound toll for the Delaware River Bridge".  So I removed that reference.  While it will follow a brief section of the PA Turnpike, it won't have a toll for it. 
Also, does anyone have any information on the Trout River Bridge?  --MPD (T / C) 21:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Trout River Bridge is no longer a toll bridge; tolls were probably removed at the same time as the Fuller Warren Bridge. --NE2 07:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Toll facilities

message: *Petersburg, Virginia — Heading southbound on Interstate 95 past Petersburg before the I-85 interchange, there are two signs that show Miami (which is 920 miles away) as the destination of I-95 and Atlanta (507 miles away) as the destination for the I-85 exit. Signs on southbound I-95 heading toward Richmond, Virginia at the I-295 interchange showing Miami (958 miles away) as a control city (via I-295) were removed in 2001.  
Photos: Exit 52 sign; Exit 51 sign pictured right.
*This sign(:Image:I-95 exit 52.jpg) has to be added to the Interstate 95 in Virginia article somehow! If nobody finds a way to do so, I swear I'll add it at some random point along the page! ---- DanTD 00:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  long distance mileage sign 

message: The discontinuity has five separate mentions in the paragraph lead. Is there any way to sharpen these four paragraphs? Jd2718 (talk) 04:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discontinuity in lead 

message: Maine highways... 495 as stated in article is unsigned... 295 goes through portland, not around... 195 is a spur into old orchard beach.... 395 is a spur into bangor/brewer, and not around bangor.
Opinion: 495 only exists for purpose of federal funding (red tape).  It does not exist when concerning the motoring public (duct tape).
Rkinci (talk) 09:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maine Highways (95, 195, 295, 395, 495)

message: The amount of annual traffic is some important info that should be included somewhere.
--Pkenans (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of users 

message: I am providing here a news citation related to I95 in Delaware and cancer prevalence; the headline is, I think, misleading in that "leading" has not been established (as pointed out in the reader responses to the story).
:
--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cancer prevalence in Delaware - include here? 

message: How are these "unique"? -Branddobbe 06:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I refer you to above under "Proposed Rewrite", near the end, where we discuss it.  Maybe not "unique" per se, but I-95 seems to be a magnet for fuel explosions and fires of sorts.  --MPD T / C 08:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ultimately, I thought that 'notable' was a better word that's more consistent with Wikipedia treatment elsewhere, so I changed the section title from 'Unique disasters' to 'Notable disasters'. That should pass muster better. I still think the word 'disaster' is a little sensationalistic but I will leave it alone for now since I have no strong objection to it. 64.209.16.204 (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Unique disasters

message: Quoting WP:IH here, and with emphasis added: "For any interstate that is long enough to have 8 or more 2di junctions, such as I-80, I-90, I-40, I-10, I-75, and I-95, only list 2di junctions where the number ends in 5 or 0." IMHO, a change in the junction box needs to go up to the project level, as opposed to discussing it here, so they stay consistent throughout. —C.Fred (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what the big deal is. The guideline was created to prevent infoboxes from being longer than the articles. If a junction is truly significant, it should be added even if it doesn't end in a 0 or 5. The 0 or 5 guideline exists because typically those are more major interstates nationally, but not always. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox revisited 

message: I amended the distance of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge section.  Looking at the Google maps, the two spans are south of the former span, and since the DC line is a diagonal, the distances will be shorter.  The Outer Loop is measured at 328 feet and the Inner Loop is measured at 390 feet, which are something like 0.065 and 0.073 miles, respectively.  If you doubt this, extend the length to roughly where the old span crosses the DC line, and you get just about 0.1 miles, which coincides with the FHWA Route Log, which is over 6 years old and doesn't include a lot of things.  It's not scientific, but clearly the old "0.11 miles" measurement is no longer applicable.  --MPD T / C 21:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distance in Washington DC 

message: I disagree with the introduction of this article that says "Interstate 95 is the main highway on the East Coast of the United States". It should say "Interstate 95 is the main Interstate highway on the East Coast of the United States". The current introduction has no proof that 95 is the "main" East Coast highway. I mean, U.S. Route 1 covers virtually the same ground as Interstate 95 and then some. (haven't you noticed?) Please, either cite your sources or change the introduction! [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 05:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's pretty standard information. 95 is clearly more highly-used than US 1. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I see his point.  But if you ask me what the fastest way is to get from New Brunswick to the Keys, I'll say "95" and never mention US 1 unless someone really wants route details.  I'm not opposed to making a change, in fact I would have thought it to be a bold change.  Other thoughts?  --MPD T / C 19:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see his point.  Anyone who's driven anywhere in the area (or has even watched any sort of travelers report) is clearly familiar with the fact that I-95 is THE main highway along the east coast.  No question. Famartin (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well it would be on par with Interstate 5. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 23:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Main" highway on the East Coast??? 

message: Shouldn't this list contain major junctions that aren't with 2di's?  For example, the junction with I-16 is listed, but the junction with the Garden State Parkway and I-278 (the Bruckner Expressway), which ware WAAY bigger, aren't.  129.42.208.177 (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Junctions 

message: I'm thinking of changing the junction list to focus more on major cities. My proposed list is below. If the junction is outside city limits (but within the metro area), use "near" instead of "in".
*I-10/Jacksonville FL
*I-20/Florence SC
*US 64/Rocky Mount NC
*I-64/Richmond VA
*US 50/Washington DC
*I-76/Philadelphia PA
*I-80/New York City NY
*I-90/Boston MA
*US 302/Portland ME
Anyway, this is just a thought. If people are comfortable with the I-x0 junctions, then no big deal. --Polaron | Talk 17:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. --NE2 05:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the "0" and "5" rule on WP:IH was designed to limit the number of junctions on routes such as I-90 or I-95, but now that we have a USRD-wide limit of 10, I think we can abandon that rule and favor major locations instead. That said, that list looks good to me. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since that's 9, I'd like to see I-85 (Petersburg, VA) included.  If so, I'm cool with it.  I'd debate I-40 in favor of US 64, but unless someone has numbers on those two, that list is fine with me, too.  --MPD T / C 06:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Petersburg is, however, a suburb of Richmond and my idea was to have each junction be from different metro areas. That said, since there's room for one more, I'm not adverse to it. Regarding I-40, can "in Benson NC" be replaced with "near Raleigh NC"? Benson is technically part of the Raleigh metro area but, not being familiar with local practice, I don't know if Benson is close enough to be "near" Raleigh. --Polaron | Talk 12:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd be pushing it with "near Raleigh".  The I-40 junction is about 20 miles north of Fayetteville, and 20 miles southeast of Raleigh.  That said, US 64 is fine.  It IS a major interchange (they're trying to make US 64 an Interstate between 440 and 95).  US 64 is just easier. --MPD T / C 14:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  infobox junctions 

message: Any ideas how to make this article better? It is a high-importance article, and as such, it should be rated high on the quality scale.
Any thoughts?
PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upgrading to Good Article Status 

message: You know, the 10-junction rule might be fine for the infobox, but I don't see what'd be so wrong with adding major junctions for Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Maine. Sure, they may not be 2-di interstate highways, but that doesn't mean there aren't major junctions in any of those states. ---------User:DanTD (talk)  13:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: In my recent change, I only converted what was in place. I did not add 3dIs initially because they're all listed in the section immediately below in the navbox. I'm not opposed to the judicious addition of more junctions, but we still have to be careful to avoid ballooning the list too long. If it gets two long, we may want to look into making it wrap into two columns within the section. Imzadi 1979 →  21:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

text: Yes, and this article is about I-95. —C.Fred (talk) 00:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major junctions revisited 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Interstate 95. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120207180103/http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=061&typ=bil&val=sj184 to http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=061&typ=bil&val=sj184
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Interstate 95. 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/20101213103631/http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5019 to http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5019
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) 18:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello Fellow Wikipedians:
There is no longer an Interstate 95 Trenton Section. This section is now Interstate 295 from Exit 67 at U.S. Highway Route 1 (Brunswick Pike) to Exit 51 at Taylorsville Road in Pennsylvania. The changes have been made by the NJDOT (New Jersey Department of Transportation) from Exit 67 on Interstate 295 to Exit 2 on Interstate 95 (Trenton Section) at CR (County Route) 579 Beaver Tavern Road and by the DRJTBC (Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission) from Exit 2 on Interstate 95 (Trenton Section) at CR (County Route) 579 Beaver Tavern Road to Exit 51 at Taylorsville Road in Pennsylvania. See http://I95Link.com (I95Link.com ).--Myeabnwp (talk) 04:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Sad, but it should be kept for historic reference. ---------User:DanTD (talk)  14:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interstate 95 in Pennsylvania now ends at Exit 51 at Taylorsville Road. 

message: The length of the route as given in the state-by-state boxes sums to 1896.8 miles and not 1900.19. Is this what is supposed to happen, due to rounding or whatever, or is there a mistake somewhere?
22:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're going to use the FHWA table to show I-95's length, we need to use 1919.31 miles until it is updated. –Fredddie™ 00:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Route Length 

message: Maybe we expand the auxiliary routes section? Articles for other major interstates list them all out.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Needforspeed888 (talk • contribs)  —Preceding undated comment added 03:31 December 17, 2018
:Which route is missing?  Currently, there's a nice, condensed table in the article listing them all... --Jayron32 16:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any benefit to accessibility for using a straight list rather than the template? —C.Fred (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If I can say this, I hate the current presentation. Why are presenting this as a vertical bulleted list that duplicates the navbox? Instead, we should have some sort of prose summary (see Interstate 96 for an idea) that discusses the various 3dIs. That would add some value over the horizontal list in the navbox. The the box should really be shuffled down to the bottom of the article. Imzadi 1979 →  20:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

text: a quick reminder, please remember to sign your posts on talk pages. Imzadi 1979 →  13:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auxiliary Routes 

message: Notwithstanding WP:NOTNEWS, the bridge collapse on I-95 is certainly nonroutine and will disrupt traffic for months. This seems to me to be notable and worthy of mention. Dgndenver (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philadelphia collapse 

message: I have no idea why I would have changed "gasoline" back to "petrol," when obviously gasoline is right. I don't even remember doing it, but clearly I did. Thanks for fixing it. Dgndenver (talk) 13:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion in error