Talk:Interstate 285 (Georgia)

Interstate 285 (Georgia)

This article needs to be changed to the title of this comment, since there'll be a 285 in NC as well. I'd do it, but I'm not sure how we want to handle it since I-285 (Georgia) already exists as a redirect. Anybody? --MPD01605 (T / C) 22:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The North Carolina article already exists at Interstate 285 (North Carolina). --Mhking 23:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Once I-285 (NC) comes online—signed road with traffic on it—at that point we'll need to have this article moved to I-285 (GA) and I-285 turned into a disambiguation page. I'm not sure when to make the switch, though. Probably the thing to do is start discussion here and, if necessary, propose the page move—in both cases, the idea being to get debate and see if the editor community agrees it's time to rename. —C.Fred (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE - Now that Interstate 285 (North Carolina) is being approved by NCDOT, perhaps the potential to rename this article should be taken more seriously. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 2 December 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 13:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

---

Interstate 285 → Interstate 285 (Georgia) – Since I-285 in NC is now approved by the FHWA, shouldn’t this page be moved to Interstate 285 (Georgia), and a dab page be created? EBGamingWiki (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Flooded with them hundreds 06:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• I added the RM discussion which included an old comment, and didn't clarify it at the time. My apologies to all involved. - BilCat (talk) 06:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - No. The I-285 in Georgia is the clear primary topic, and a hatnote is sufficient disambiguation. I apologize if a lack of response here prompted today's move, but I have reverted it for those reasons. - BilCat (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Yes, this page should be located at Interstate 285 (Georgia). WP:NOPRIMARY and WP:USSH are the relevant guidelines. –Fredddie™ 02:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • How is there no primary topic? One highway has existed for decades and is widely known by that name, and the other is brand new and unknown. - BilCat (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
    • That's your perspective. One person doesn't get to decide if a brand new designation is notable or not. –Fredddie™ 03:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
      • If you don't believe there is a primary topic, then propose a move, and let the community decide. - BilCat (talk) 03:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
        • That was why this thread was started in the first place. We've now successfully initiated WP:BRD. –Fredddie™ 06:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Since I-285 is coming to North Carolina, this page needs to be moved since neither I-285 can lay claim to being the primary topic despite one existing much longer than the other. Dough4872 03:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support - There is no primary topic here. Cards84664 (talk) 03:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support—longevity doesn't equate to primacy in this case. Imzadi 1979 → 04:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Actually it's one major component of primacy, that of long-term significance. The other is what that is highly likely that it's what the user is searching for. In both cases, it's not very likely that the new highway challenges the old one on these points. - BilCat (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Now I'm curious of how many people search I-285 vs. how many search "the Perimeter" or similar, though I'm not sure how much that would or should affect anything. Roadsguy (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support - We have done this with other interstates that recently became duplicates in other states, like Interstate 87 and Interstate 840. Now that I-285 is duplicated, we should identify them properly. --WashuOtaku (talk) 05:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Looking at Category:Lists of Interstate Highways sharing the same title, there are only two cases of duplicative auxiliary Interstates with a primary topic: I-410 and I-494. In the former case, only one I-410 is actually signed, and the others were decommissioned and otherwise renumbered. In the latter, only one I-494 was ever built, and the proposed highways in Illinois were never added to the Interstate Highway System. Imzadi 1979 → 06:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I-605 is another case, but it is similar to the I-494 case. --Rschen7754 07:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Maybe if this rule is actually written down in project guidelines, the written exception should be proposed, cancelled, or decommissioned routes, which would be relegated to disambiguation while the one existing route gets the "pure" title. Roadsguy (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support: I agree with Dough4872, Cards84664, and Imzadi1979. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 06:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support per above, this is the convention. --Rschen7754 07:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
• Relisting note - I have relisted the RM because it was started incorrectly using the February 2018 timestamp. Flooded with them hundreds 06:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Absolutely move. This is standard convention. With the almost unanimous support, I'm surprised my bold move was reverted at all. Roadsguy (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I moved it back because it was clear to me the I-285 in Georgia is the primary topic. Individual projects cannot unilaterally declare that there is no primary topic for certain titles, especially by unwritten custom. Project customs and guidelines have been overturned on many occasions when they conflict with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, including those of the projects that I am a member of. While it is clear from the supports that this custom (no primary topic for highways) is the view of the project, as far as I can tell, I'm the only highway project outsider who has participated in this move discussion. That's quite telling to me. - BilCat (talk) 22:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I linked to this discussion at WT:USRD, WT:GEORGIAUS, and WT:WNC; I'm willing to ping other talk pages. The RM tag should get us some more attention, but we'll see. –Fredddie™ 23:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
      • I know, and you did right. It's not canvassing. I just disagree strongly with the project's interpretation, but I'm not taking it personally. I hope we do get some outside comments. I won't be disruptive if the consensus goes against me, but that doesn't rule out an appeal either. - BilCat (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Both highways are current, official, and signed. Georgia guy (talk) 01:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support per DAB In ictu oculi (talk) 10:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support seems reasonable, and matches existing practice. --Jayron32 16:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Extra column in the exit list table

Greetings and felicitations. To the right of "Cloverstack interchange" (Exits 4A and 4B) is an extra cell. I'm afraid I'm not well enough versed in the markup to figure out exactly what the mistake is, though experimenting shows that it has something to do with the two row height of the Notes cell in those rows. —DocWatson42 (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done It just needed a |notes=none for the second row there. Imzadi 1979 → 19:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2022 (UTC)