Talk:Interstate 24

message: I think it may not be accurate to talk of the intersection with I-57 happening in Pulleys Mill, IL, as I do not believe Pulleys Mill is legally a separate village/town, any more. (USPS says it is NOT ACCEPTABLE, use Goreville ZIP 62939.)
I grew up in southern Illinois (Union County) and have family in Goreville and some of the smaller towns in Johnson and Williamson counties. I will be contacting my family who still live in the area for confirmation.
At the present time, I believe Pulleys Mill is basically just a wide spot in the road on IL Route 37, north of Goreville. I believe the only building of note is a livestock auction house.
Depending on how you want it phrased, I think it would be better to say the junction happens south of Marion, IL (which I-57 runs through) or north of Goreville, IL (which lies between I-24 and I-57. You can get to it from either one, but you have to take local roads.) (I am also putting this in the Talk:Interstate_57 page.) (forgot to give edit summary) VikÞor    Talk 18:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pulleys Mill

message: In the portion SE of downtown Nashville from near I-440 to near State Highway 840, it has an HOV lane in each direction. Jon 20:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: HOV lanes

message: I'd like to know exactly how adding a link to an Interstate 24 page that I maintain counts as "spam." My page is perfectly valid and well-researched, and provides more information that Wikipedia's I-24 page doesn't list. Frankly, if my page isn't "good enough" for inclusion as an external link, neither should the other one be. --Larrysphatpage 07:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've looked at the page and don't think it's spam, but you might need to call it something else so people can take a second look... —Rob (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a link to be avoided. See Talk:Interstate 59. —C.Fred (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the current situation for I-24, the link may stand, because another editor deemed it worthy of inclusion and added it. —C.Fred (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I fixed information pertaining to the Georgia stretch of 24, based on my own travel from Nashville to Chattanooga. I am still in the area at this point. If you would like video or photographic evidence, I can provide. In any case, is this the only interstate that does this? I'm a Road Warrior recently, and I haven't seen anything of the sort anywhere else.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandora Xero (talk • contribs) 04:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Georgia Stretch 

message: I'm posting this here for now, but it should be placed on Interstate 24 in Kentucky when that article is created. Also, it should be converted to use  to line up with the formatting required by MOS:RJL. Imzadi 1979 →  22:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  KY exit list 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Interstate 24. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20070615061933/http://www.tdot.state.tn.us/Maps/front.pdf to http://www.tdot.state.tn.us/Maps/front.pdf
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 21:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a request stating that this article is to have protection removed due to low amounts of vandalism.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.254.163 (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP users could soon edit this page 

message: The relevant merger discussion is located at WT:USRD: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads#Interstate_24_merger. –Fredddie™ 20:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger discussion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Interstate 24. 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/20130626110409/http://gis.dot.illinois.gov/gist2/ to http://gis.dot.illinois.gov/gist2/
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) 16:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: After reviewing multiple interstate highway articles, I think there is a consensus that the stretch of I-24 in Tennessee is acceptable for a standalone article. At 181 miles long and passing through three major cities, it contains more article-worthy information than many state-level interstate segments. I totally understand the objection that such a split would screw up this article. However, the draft I have been working on has expanded the Tennessee section by probably about tenfold since the 2015 merger, and thus, the current state could get a bit long and disorganized. The Kentucky stretch is also arguably worthy of a state- level article; however, due to the short length of the Illinois stretch, I would be open to combining them into a subarticle titled "Interstate 24 in Illinois and Kentucky". There also seems to be a consensus that a subarticle about the Tennessee and Georgia segment does not need to be titled "Interstate 24 in Tennessee and Georgia". As such, I am going by to boldly perform this split, as I have greatly expanded the draft to a state where there  seems to be an established consensus is acceptable for a state-level article. I do, however, plan to make some additional improvements in the very near future, such as the addition of photos and more history. Bneu2013 (talk) 09:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this should be discussed before it is unilaterally performed. I don't think there's the consensus that you may think is present, so a discussion may be in order first. Imzadi 1979 →  09:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: What I meant was that there seems to be a consensus that such a topic as the stretch of I-24 in Tennessee is worthy of a standalone article. The 2015 merger was conducted when the Tennessee article only contained information about Monteagle Monutain and a 2010 sinkhole, the latter of which probably no one knows about now. There also seems to be an agreement that the Georgia segment is negligible (not unimportant), and therefore making the split title acceptable. As the second longest interstate highway in the state and arguably the second-most important highway, it would be hard to argue that a subarticle isn't acceptable, especially considering all of the extensive history and unusual facts about the Tennessee stretch. With about 57% of the length in Tennessee, this isn't quite the same situation as, say, Interstate 57 or Interstate 82; the combined sections in Kentucky and Illinois are still significant. Bneu2013 (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, the consensus you think is there simply isn't there. –Fredddie™ 18:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

text: I'm going to undo this, as the current state of the article is not comparable to that during the split. Invoking this argument is on the category of WP:LASTTIME, and not an accurate comparison. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Reveted. Do you want to try for 3RR? There still isn't a consensus here to split it, that's what others have been telling you. Make a case for splitting and see what happens. BilCat (talk) 05:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  - For clarity, here's a link to the  merger discussion (I got the date wrong; it was 2016, not 2015). While there was consensus to merge the articles at the time due to their poor states, many editors commented that they would support a fork in the future if the state level sections were greatly expanded and improved. As mentioned above, this has happened to the Tennessee section since this merger, and I hope to improve the Illinois and Kentucky sections in the near future. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I don't think that it is improved enough. For one, a lot more text is needed; Interstate 8, a FA, is still one article. --Rschen7754 05:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  - you're not looking at the right article; this is the most recent diff of the Tennessee level article, prior to BilCat's reversion. And as someone pointed out in the 2016 discussion, I-8 is not an accurate comparison to I-24, passing through two states instead of four. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that what's being lost in this is that the number of states is not a magic threshold to splitting an article. There has to be enough content - on both sides of the split article. Take out Tennessee and there's not much left on the other side. And the diff you point to - the RD seems a touch long to me, and the History seems to be heavily weighted towards the present. --Rschen7754 16:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I just wanted to mention that the length of the Tennessee RD in the TN fork wouldn't necessarily be bad if it were merged into this article, but the accompanying text in Illinois and Kentucky would need to be expanded proportionally. –Fredddie™ 20:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Tennessee section split

message: I have removed the word "briefly" from the subsection of the RD titled "Georgia, briefly", and this change was reverted. Another editor removed the word again, and it was then re-added. I think the word is superfluous and serves no benefit to readers. Needforspeed888 (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's useful to denote that I-24 is only in Georgia briefly. It distinguishes it from the other states where it has longer distances. Imzadi 1979 →  00:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. BilCat (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the way the adverb comes after the state is too colloquial. What about "Brief section in Georgia"? --Rschen7754 00:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: "Brief section in Georgia" works for me. Needforspeed888 (talk) 02:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me too. BilCat (talk) 02:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

text: That's too verbose.  Briefly is fine. –Fredddie™ 03:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that the current is fine. None of the others have the word "section" in the subheadings. Imzadi 1979 →  07:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

text: I'm OK with "Georgia and Chattanooga" as it is at the moment.  It's succinct. –Fredddie™ 13:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems to be causing more confusion, as shown in the section below. BilCat (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of "briefly" in section header about Georgia