Talk:Interstate 88 (New York)

U.S. Roads: Interstates / New York Mid‑importance

	U.S. roads portal This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Topics	Interstate Highways
Locations	New York
	This article has a map. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.
	This article has a junction list compliant with the Manual of Style on road junction lists.
	This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.

Interstate 88 (New York) was previously a U.S. Roads Article Improvement Drive collaboration.
For more details, see the U.S. Roads Article Improvement Drive.

Original Routing

There's no talk about I-88's original planned routing from Albany to Portsmouth, NH. I'll put it in later, provided I can find a reference. -- Tckma 18:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of the 'other' I88

This should be renamed I-88 in New York and the other I-88 in Illionis. The designator (east) and (west) implies that this is part of the label when it's not. Both roads are simply named I-88. 99.149.197.13 (talk) 05:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Kia Sue[reply]

Somehow, there should be mention of the other I88 in IL. If you don't read the tiny mention on one of the other pages, or go through the dab page, you may never know it really exists. Remember, people are idiots. Even with (west) and (east), people may not notice. Otherwise, there should be a link to a separate page or at least the information in the one article about these discontinuous numbers. Andyross (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But how do people end up in this article anyway? They usually follow a link. If ther simply search for "Interstate 88", they'll end up at the disambiguation page where they should quickly realize that there is another route. --Polaron | Talk 17:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But on the other hand, this shouldn't be just a simple 'tree' of links. It should be spaghetti. Andyross (talk) 15:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, I don't see any way that anyone looking for I-88 in Illinois would end up here unless something was mis-disambiguated. I doubt anyone looking for I-88 in Illinois would explicitly type in "I-88 (E)" or "Interstate 88 (east)" into the search box; rather, they'd more likely put in "I-88" or "Interstate 88", which leads to the dab that links to both 88s. As for a need-to-know standpoint... knowing that an I-88 exists in Illinois isn't vital to understanding I-88 in New York, and vice versa. It's just like auxiliary Interstate Highways whose numbers exist in multiple states like I-290 - one has nothing to do with the other and knowing whether the others exist isn't vital to understanding, say, I-290 in New York. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 08:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the initiative to add "FOR" links to both pages. This is a small change that should help anyone who is confused by this. Coopman86 (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it for the reasons I stated above a couple years back. The only way someone gets here is by a dabbed link, and if they're arriving by a dabbed link, they know which I-88 they want. Typing in just I-88 into the search box doesn't bring them to this page; it brings them to a page that has explicit links to the I-88 in Illinois and the I-88 in New York. From there, they can choose which I-88 they want. – T M F 07:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree 100% with TMF's logic. Yes, somebody explicitly searching for an article on I-88 will reach the disambiguation page and will soon learn there are actually two highways with that number. However, someone who is from Illinois who happens to read the article for Schenactedy, may be surprised when they click on the link in that article for I-88 to learn that the article only talks about New York, when they know I-88 to be in Illinois. With that said, I don't think a hatnote is necessarily the way to do this. Personally, I like how Interstate 84 (west) handles it, where in the lead it is explained why there are 2 I-84's. Dave (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted TMP's edit to restore the link for the time being. If a consensus feels that a for link should not be placed or a Wikipedia policy states it should not be used, I will remove it. These types of links appear on many pages in the name of helping users and they take nothing away from its quality of information. On another note, I agree with Davemeistermoa; a addition to the intro would be the best way to disclose this. (See Interstate 86 (east) for an example of similar tagging) Thank you, Coopman86 (talk) 05:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re the hatnotes being on other pages of the same type...WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If I edited those articles, I'd remove these type of hatnotes from them as well. Also, the hatnote on I-86 serves a different purpose than what's being discussed here: in the early days of the IHS, there was an I-86 in New England. Since the article on the modern I-86 in Pennsylvania and New York is titled "I-86 (east)", one might assume the article is about the original I-86, hence the hatnote pointing users to I-84 (east), the modern designation of the original I-86. I will concede this point, though: how I-84 (west) handles it is preferable to a hatnote. However, I'm not sure even that's necessary to include.

One argument I saw above was "someone who is from Illinois who happens to read the article for Schenactedy, may be surprised when they click on the link in that article for I-88 to learn that the article only talks about New York, when they know I-88 to be in Illinois". Perhaps, but what if someone from Rapid City, South Dakota, reads the article on Buffalo, New York, sees I-190, and is surprised to find that the I-190 in Buffalo is not the same I-190 in their backyard? Are we going to placate to those editors, even though the auxiliary IHs are even more specifically dabbed than the duplicated main IHs? I'd rather not. – T M F 15:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I must admit you're right. Agreed, we cannot practically accommodate every scenario in how a non-roadgeek could be confused by having 2 roads in the same system with the same number. However, I would argue the fact that there are multiple highways with a 3di designation is more well understood than the 3 or so instances where 2di designations are repeated, as these are anomolies within the Interstate Highway system.Dave (talk) 22:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And it was added again today. – T M F 18:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect I-88 Signage?

Why exactly is the picture designated as "incorrect I-88 signage?" what is incorrect about it? I live in Binghamton and have seen the sign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.86.127 (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this article

I'm going to move this to "Interstate 88 (New York)" to avoid confusion with the eastbound and westbound directions on the highway. Same with Interstate 88 (west). Listroiderbob^talk _'tribs ^▆ 18:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose that. There has not been that much inherent confusion, has there? The message on the top of each talking about the other is more than sufficient.Mitch32^{(Wikipedia's worst Reform Luddite.)} 21:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss a substantial move before doing it - if we did this, all of the articles at this convention would need to be moved. --Rs chen 7754 21:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the moves are twofold: (1) The east and west designations could obviously be confused with directions, as I noted above. (2) If a person in Illinois saw the "east" highway, they might not know that the other I-88 is in fact east of them, and might assume it to be the Illinois I-88. Listroiderbob^talk _'tribs ^▆ 22:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 220 and Interstate 84, for instance, do this differently. I prefer the former's method for the aforementioned reasons. Listroiderbob^talk _'tribs ^▆ 22:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have not heard of any confusion the way it is. If there are people confused, there is a mention at the top of the article. Mitch32^{(Wikipedia's worst Reform Luddite.)} 23:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The message is somewhat buried at the end of the lead. A hatnote might be appropriate, but the titles would still be confusing and not comply with WP:NATURAL. "I-88 East" would most commonly identify a direction, regardless of my Illinois reader scenario. Listroiderbob^talk _'tribs ^▆ 00:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with this move at all. One more thing I can cross off my mental to-do list. Thanks. –Fredddie ™ 03:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support if and only if the other similar articles are moved to similar conventions (76, 84, 86, 88). Otherwise oppose. --Rs chen 7754 03:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support if they are moved to the following:

Interstate 76 (east)→Interstate 76 (Ohio–New Jersey)

Interstate 76 (west)→Interstate 76 (Colorado–Nebraska)

Interstate 84 (east)→Interstate 84 (Pennsylvania–Massachusetts)

Interstate 84 (west)→Interstate 84 (Oregon–Utah)

Interstate 86 (east)→Interstate 86 (Pennsylvania–New York)

Interstate 86 (west)→Interstate 86 (Idaho)

Both Interstate 88s moved back to their state-specific names

I would even like to see Interstate 275 (Ohio–Indiana–Kentucky)→Interstate 275 (Cincinnati), but I'm willing to discuss this one more. –Fredddie ™ 04:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for the reason that the "east" or "west" ones are shorter in all cases and, in my opionion (at least), are sufficiently disambiguated already. Just put a hatnote at the top of each page (and possibly make a disambiguation page, if needed). Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 04:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone considered examples of auxiliary Interstates like I-610, I-220, and I-277 where there are only two with the same number and the state names are used anyway? For example, there could be "Interstate 610 (east)" instead of Interstate 610 (Louisiana), etc. Either way, I think both auxiliary and main interstates should use the same convention. I would not be totally opposed to using capitalized (East) and (West) or widely-known regional names like (New England) or (Midwest); that might be less wordy than Fredddie's proposal above for multi-state Interstates.Listroiderbob ^talk _'tribs ^▆ 17:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose any move. I don't believe this naming convention violates WP:NATURAL. I don't believe using a cardinal direction in the title is confusing such that a person would go to I-76 (west) and think that the article is about I-76 westbound. Nor do I think it would be confusing per a prior example: I don't believe someone from Massachusetts would be confused between I-76 (east) and I-76 (west) because there are two I-76's to their west. Furthermore, the article should be appropriately revised such that the message isn't buried in the lead; a hatnote would suffice. --hmich176 08:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnotes should not be used in this case, I think, per WP:SIMILAR and WP:NAMB. Listroiderbob^talk _'tribs ^▆ 18:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The current titles are fine in illustrating the difference between the eastern and western versions of the interstates. However, a hatnote should be included to the other page. Dough 48 72 16:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the titles are really not ambiguous than a hatnote is not needed per WP:NAMB. Listroiderbob^talk _'tribs ^▆ 17:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support using Fredddie's proposal for the relevant 2dis. V C 01:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fredddie's proposal - Many other routes used to be titled as Interstate XX (State), so it makes sense that if the designation isn't continuous that we follow the example used with a continuous designation. Up here in Ontario, we have several highways split into two or three segments due to provincial downloading to municipalities; these routes are covered by one article. However, if there ever came a time when there was too much information for one article, the splits would make ideal delineaters and the normal dab process should apply. With roads though, using cardinal directions makes little sense and doesn't help identify the route covered by the article in a clear manner as it would using the states it passes through as the disambiguator. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 03:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - per WP:PRECISE and WP:COMMONSENSE. The use of a specific state location in the page title is a much better identifier than the generalized non-specific terms of "East" or "West". State locations provide the reader with immediate unambiguous identification and less confusion about the page they are searching for. I see no reason here to justify the use of ambiguous titles. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't have a stake either way, as long as any changes don't cause breakage or major revision to templates. However, if it is decided not to use state names in the title, I'd propose the slight change in titles to "eastern" and "western" to help quell the concern about confusing with cardinal directions. -- LJ ↗ 18:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think CactusWriter has a very good point as well. I think I am starting to dislike my "regions" idea and would rather adopt all conventions (both written and unwritten) that are currently used for auxiliary Interstates. Listroiderbob^talk _edits ^more 02:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fredddie's proposal. Looks much more specific than "west" or "east". T C N7JM 03:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That makes 7 that support (me, Rschen7754, Fredddie, ViridisCalculus, Floydian, CactusWriter, TCN7JM) and 4 that oppose (Mitchazenia, Morriswa, hmich176, Dough4872). Considering this has been dormant for several days, I'll take that as consensus and perform the moves. Listroiderbob^talk _edits ^more 02:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I like the move proposal, I wouldn't really consider a 7-4 !vote consensus. That's barely even 60% support. T C N7JM 02:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not support the move and agree with the comments above so that would be 7 for and 5 against, hardly a solid majority. I would say move it if there was an overwhelming consensus but not by just a small margin. Also, is it standard practice to only allow voting for 7 days over a holiday week? I logged on last night to I-84 (East) fix the incorrect exit numbers in Mass. that someone had changed and decided to wait until this morning to find the article had moved! Dbroer (talk) 10:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus should not be based on numbers. The general consensus should be based on opinion and the strength of the opinions. Mitch32^{(Wikipedia's worst Reform Luddite.)} 16:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, the "strength of the opinions" of those who oppose is not great. The basic arguments of those that oppose are

It would require moving other pages. (I moved those that could and tagged the others in about 15 minutes last night.)
It would "add more confusion than it solves" (how?)
The current titles are not ambiguous (They are. CactusWriter and myself have explained this two different ways.)
But we could use hatnotes (either they are ambiguous or they're not. See WP:NAMB)
People are not confused (How do you know? I was confused.) Listroiderbob^talk _edits ^more 01:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but who is the arbiter of which argument/opinion is strongest? Why even base it on a vote as Listroiderbob did? I also think that more time should have been given to allow editors who might have a stake to speak out. It doesn't seem fair to hold a vote over a holiday week when editors might be traveling and unable to voice their opinion/vote. I oppose the move because it just adds more confusion than it solves and causes many other articles to have to change as well. I also think that there wasn't a consensus on what the new naming convention should be. If you read all the comments, most offer differing opinions but we wound up with one any way. IMHO, more discussion was needed. Dbroer (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They had eight full days to speak out. I think that was enough time. Listroiderbob^talk _edits ^more 00:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A neutral party from the non-roads community. I am not neutral, I am vehemently opposed to this move. Mitch32^{(Wikipedia's worst Reform Luddite.)} 19:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Listroiderbob that eight days was plenty to speak out, and I do not buy the holiday excuse. However, I also recognize we probably do not have consensus here. Therefore, I suggest we restart the RfC and start the discussion again with a blank slate and direction from a neutral party. V C 02:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note I declined the "speedy deletion to make way for a move", not because I disagree with the move per se (I have no opinion on it one way or another), but because it is not (based on the discussion here) non-controversial. Sufficient concensus has not yet been reached - I feel that another week or two of discussion would be beneficial before a decision is made on whether to move this page or not. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RfC started - I have started an official RfC here. Your comments are welcome. T C N7JM 03:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page move RfC

(see section above this) Should this article should be moved to "Interstate 88 (New York)" for precision and clarity? This would most likely cause the numerous other articles with the same naming convention to be moved as well (this is explained above). Listroiderbob^talk _edits ^more 02:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please crosspost to the other affected articles? --Rs chen 7754 03:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support exactly what I said in the above thread. However, I'm not sure this is really necessary. The above discussion was not finished by any means and the idea I put forward seemed to be gaining support. I feel like starting an RFC now could undermine any support from above. –Fredddie ™ 03:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fredddie's proposal --Rs chen 7754 03:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed RFC per above comments. Leaving this section in case of restart later. Listroiderbob^talk _edits ^more 03:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fredddie's proposal — V C 19:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please place all comments in the section above. The RfC has been suspended. Listroiderbob^talk _edits ^more 21:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interstate 88 (New York). 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 {{dead link}} tag to ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/pdf/BPR_pdf_files/Maps/Statewide/Historic_OTMs/1989fr.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719082831/http://www.cdtcmpo.org/linkage/hudson/final.pdf to http://www.cdtcmpo.org/linkage/hudson/final.pdf
Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/highway-data-services/inventory-listing

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interstate 88 (New York). 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://archive.is/20130131192340/http://www.pressconnects.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060629/NEWS01/101220028/-1/flood to http://www.pressconnects.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060629/NEWS01/101220028/-1/flood

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]