Talk:Tri-State Tollway

message: It's too late for me right now, but at some point the following categories should be considered:
:Category:Illinois toll roads
* North-South Tollway
* Northwest Tollway
* Ronald Reagan Memorial Tollway
* Tri-State Tollway
* I-39
* I-80
* I-88
* I-90
* I-94
* I-294
:Category:Illinois state highways?
* North-South Tollway
* Northwest Tollway
* Ronald Reagan Memorial Tollway
* Tri-State Tollway
don't know about that one, but please discuss
:Category:Illinois transportation (or whatever that one is)
* North-South Tollway
* Northwest Tollway
* Ronald Reagan Memorial Tollway
* Tri-State Tollway
please comment... thanks!
---Rob 07:43, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Thornton Quarry is described as being west of Halsted Street. I have stopped at a Tri-State rest stop near a large quarry that was east of Halsted. Is this the same quarry? Could someone from Chicago verify if the description of Thornton Quarry is correct.  
:You're right, it was wrong, and now changed. Undoubtedly one of many errors that require auditing. Busjack (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are, of course, invited to perform this "audit". Just cite a reliable source. —Rob (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not if certain members start edit wars over it, as they frequently have in the highway groups. Busjack (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thornton Quarry west of Halsted? 

message: They should stay separate as the main subject of this article is the Tri-State Tollway. The Edens Spur is a "related route", much as M-554 is related to M-553 or M-44 has its connector. The spur here is not a disconnected section of the main highway; rather it's a spur. It should have its own section and infobox. Imzadi 1979 →  18:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infoboxes 

message: The "Features" and "Lingo" sections should be combined and reworked into a proper "Route description" section. Hopefully when that's done, the promotional/advertising tone can be eliminated.
The mileages should be revised to use a consistent precision, especially now that our templates convert them into metric for non-American readers. Imzadi 1979 →  16:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold and make the changes, I'm sure nobody will even notice. Speciate (talk) 04:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attention needed 

message: The entire length of I-294 is part of the Tri-State Tollway Dough4872 00:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose.  If the Tri-State designation was coterminous with I-294, I'd have no problem with this.  But, it's not.  Since none of the named highways in Chicago line up perfectly with the numbered highways, we should improve the numbered highways and transform the named highways into redirects and set indices. –Fredddie™ 00:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point in that you would rather have the information in the numbered roads and the named road being set indexes, much like what is done in Southern California. I would be open to that idea too in which the Tri-State Tollway details are in the I-94 and I-294 articles. However, one of the articles needs to go as there is no need for two redundant articles. Dough4872 00:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The simple solution is the use of subsections in both I-94 (in IL) and I-294.  It should be handled similarly in the other named routes. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 10:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

text: Support. Yes, this article seems awfully redundant, most of this could be covered in the Interstate 294 and Interstate 94 articles. NBA2030 (talk) 02:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Interstate 294]] 

message: This should really have its own independent article separate from the other three Interstate Highway articles, similar to the ways that Kansas Turnpike is a separate article from I-35 and I-335, and Connecticut Turnpike is separate from I-95 and I-395. 98.118.32.140 (talk) 13:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Own article 

message: made what appears to be a constructive edit to this article in 2019, and I was curious if it should not have been reverted? I am still fairly new to understanding the processes to edit Wikipedia right now, so it would be nice to know if I am missing something obvious that makes the edit not good for Wikipedia. Sschr16 (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large constructive-looking edit by IP user