Yes - This merge has been long overdo to become official because US 23 (TN) page already has the merged information of SR 137 as well as I-26 (TN). SR 137 should become a simple redirect with no further edits necessary. --WashuOtaku (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Klbrain (talk) 17:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since I-26 is definitely the more prominent designation for this highway, I feel that the current title gives undue weight to US 23. I would like to propose that this article be retitled, per WP:USRD/NT#Combined articles, to something like Interstate 26 and U.S. Route 23 in Tennessee. Since ~95% of this route is concurrent with I-26, having two separate articles for each designation and titling this article Interstate 26 in Tennessee would probably be inappropriate. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I personally detest those combined titles, and I think the proposed title is worse than the ones we have because it involves different numbers. Since US 23 is the longer and older of the two, I see no issue with leaving this article under that title. Imzadi 1979 → 05:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I must respectfully disagree that this proposed title (or something similar) is problematic. I don't personally have a problem with combined titles if both designations are significant, and I do agree that some weight should be lent to US 23 since it is older. "Interstate 26"/"I-26" is the common name for the interstate stretch by an overwhelming margin, and most people who are looking for this article are going to search for this, not U.S. 23, State Route 137, or US 19E. The entire freeway is designated "James H. Quillen Parkway", but that doesn't appear to be the common name. The US 23-only section is rarely referred to and largely negligible, but still, retitling this article "Interstate 26 in Tennessee" doesn't seem appropriate unless we rephrase how we talk about the US 23-only section (e.g. "I-26 begins in the center of an interchange with US 11W", "the freeway continues a short distance north of this interchange to the Virginia state line"). Bneu2013 (talk) 08:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The comparison though to the other combined titles fails because it's not the same number, unlike in those cases. Article titles should follow five criteria:
- Recognizability
- Naturalness
- Precision
- Concision
- Consistency
- And the proposed title fails most of these. Imzadi 1979 → 16:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Instead of a combined title, here are some alternatives:
- Merge the relevant content into I-26 and then redirect this article to U.S. Route 23? 3 miles of highway RD is easy
- Merge the relevant content into I-26 and KEEP this article, and only talk about those 3 miles that aren't part of I-26 while giving a summary of the I-26 part
- Redirect this article to I-26 and talk about the 3 miles on the national US 23 article
- Lose interest and work on something else
- I say that last one in jest, but it happens to me far too often. Regardless, the article could use mileposts. There were enough city maps that had mileposts for me to tackle SR 1's junction list for a route that is 10× longer than this route –Fredddie™ 07:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There is more information regarding US 23 in Tennessee compared to Interstate 26 in Tennessee, that's the reason its front and center and I-26 is second fiddle. As one of the editors that help create the current article, the arrangement made the most sense and still does. --WashuOtaku (talk) 13:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The mileposts are currently numbered according to I-26's mileage in the junction list, and completely ignore the 3-mile US 23 section in Kingsport. Since this article is titled "US 23 in Tennessee", not "I-26 in Tennessee", I feel that it would be more appropriate to list the mileage for US 23 in the junction list. However, if there is a way to display mileages for both routes in the table, I would like to know how to do this. Bneu2013 (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I-26 mile markers were used because those were physically along the route and people would identify those instead of US 23, which are not. I would have liked to add US 23, but how to do it where it does not make the exit list confusing is key. Maybe it would be best to just expand the note at top to also indicate the mile marker differences too if you believe it is necessary. --WashuOtaku (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gone ahead and added the US 23 mileposts with I-26 mileposts in the notes. Bneu2013 (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, Washuotaku - do you object to including the I-26 shield in the infobox? My rationale for this is that I-26 overlays most of the route, and is most certainly the most commonly referred to designation for the route by a long shot. Bneu2013 (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not a fan of it, but I am not going to fully object to it unless other editors also believe that is out-of-place. I get why, but we have also noted it in several times and in the infobox too via component highways. FHWA or ASSHTO would have done us a favor if I-26 was approved from the VA/TN state line and not three miles down from it. --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. I plan to try for a GA pretty soon once I get a few other things fixed, and if the reviewer doesn't like it, I'll probably remove it (I plan to ask them). It also wouldn't hurt if James H. Quillen Parkway were the common name, similar to Pellissippi Parkway. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I went ahead and created James H. Quillen Parkway as a redirect. We can track and see how it performs going forward. --WashuOtaku (talk) 02:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This review is transcluded from Talk:U.S. Route 23 in Tennessee/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Bneu2013 (talk · contribs) 23:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewer: NoobThreePointOh (talk · contribs) 09:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Done Klbrain (talk) 17:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)