Talk:Interstate 605 (Washington)

message: This seems like a original source. Why don't we move and rename this page. I dont think there will be I-605 in WA. --LAFreeways (Conf) 20:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried briefly to fix it myself but didn't care enough to learn the details of the new editor, and I don't see how to switch it to simple markup so I can copy/paste. - PhilipR (talk) 04:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original source 

message: Well, the SeaTimes citations farther down the articleestablish that there was such a proposal as I-605. But the style of this article is very weird in that the assertion of the existence of the subject in the lead is unsubstantiated. The assertion in the lead is only backed up indirectly, but the burden shouldn't be on the reader to sort through citations that are not clearly relevant; far better would be to cite the article as evidence of the existence of such an idea as I-605. Regards, PhilipR (talk) 03:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried briefly to fix it myself but didn't care enough to learn the details of the new editor, and I don't see how to switch it to simple markup so I can copy/paste. - PhilipR (talk) 04:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need citations to support existence of subject 

message: The infobox for this article makes it appear that this freeway exists. Could this be revised to make it clear that it isn't built? Is there an infobox for proposed, never built freeways?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.4.53 (talk) 04:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no other road infobox other than the one that is used.  — ComputerGuy890100Talk to meWhat I've done to help Wikipedia 20:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Never built in infobox 

message: I'm tempted to delete all mention of highway 18's improvements. Certainly highway 18 has been part of some 605 proposal, but, more importantly, highway 18 is not 605, and in no way serves the function 605 was intended to. As a matter of fact, if 18 was made an interstate, it would probably be called 490. If the highway 18 stuff is gone, you know why. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple comments, but if State Route 18 is connected to proposals surrounding I-605, then it should stay. Second, but in Washington, they're State Routes, not Highways, so it kinda makes you look slightly less than knowledgeable when you use the wrong terminology. I've restored stuff you removed from the article, and honestly, you need a source that states that WSDOT has cancelled the highway, otherwise, we will assume that there are still proposals floating around out there with the same level of possibility as the article states. Imzadi 1979 →  03:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highway 18 

message: Why list this as proposed? There has been no action on this in over a decade, and unlike SR 168 and others, it is not legally defined as a state highway. I suggest, for the sake of templates, we change the category to unbuilt. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Interstate 605 (Washington). 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/20101121095735/http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/sr18/auburntoi90/ihobart_i90 to http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/sr18/auburntoi90/ihobart_i90/
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) 17:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified