Talk:Interstate 376

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Interstate 376 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Interstate 376 was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 16, 2011	Good article nominee	Not listed
April 13, 2011	Good article nominee	Not listed
April 25, 2012	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former good article nominee

Pittsburgh Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pittsburgh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pittsburgh and its metropolitan area on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PittsburghWikipedia:WikiProject PittsburghTemplate:WikiProject PittsburghPittsburgh articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pennsylvania Low‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Roads: Interstates / Pennsylvania 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	Pennsylvania
	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.

PA 60 north of I-80?

This is already on Talk:Pennsylvania Route 60, but I figure more people are watching this page at the moment, so I'll ask this here too. Does anyone know what changes have been made to signage on the portion of PA 60 north of I-80? Have any been made? I've heard rumors that it will become PA 760, but it's also possible that it will become part of an extended PA 418. I've heard nothing official about it yet. – T M F 07:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this means anything, but Google Maps has it labeled as State Route 3004 [1] Highwaydude2007 (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't place any value on Google Maps. I've seen plenty of cases in West Virginia where they label state routes as also being a county route, which is wrong. PennDOT's Type 10 map for Mercer County [2] hasn't been updated for I-376 change yet. Brian Powell (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has become Pennsylvania Route 760 as of May 2010. To me, personally, it makes no sense, but it is what it is. Jgera5 (talk) 07:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This section does not actually seem to be about any improvements to the I-376 article. I'll wrap up as best I can. Was the "3004" mentioned above actually from those little white rectangular signs I see in Pa. on numbered AND other highways? (For PA 760, I would now expect "0760" on those little signs.) Also, I have personally seen what is now PA 760, which we notice is far from what is left of PA 60 once I-376 signs took over what was expressway part of PA 60. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Length

In the info box, the length is listed as 80.6 miles. But the exit list goes up to exit 85, and the exit numbers are mileage based. So is the highway 80 miles long or 85? Highwaydude2007 (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-writing the article

Hey guys, within the past week I've rewritten much of the article and removed some stuff that I didn't feel was needed for the article. If anyone has any questions feel free to ask. Thanks! Jgera5 (talk) 07:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but there's still a lot of work to be done, as noted in the to-do box above. The most glaring issues to me at this time are the lack of references throughout the article and the inconsistent formatting of the references that do exist. – T M F 16:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't see the list before. I removed some of the things I've already corrected, such as describing the history of each section. I also removed the suggestion of removing the exit list, as it is consistent with other Interstate articles. I'll get to work on improving what still needs done. Jgera5 (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The exit list comment was referring to the extra exit list for I-376 Business. – T M F 22:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I re-added that one in. I do agree that it is debatable if that should be in or not. Jgera5 (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination

The article still needs some formatting, but I feel that it is good enough for a good article nomination. It doesn't have any major issues.Jgera5 (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Major rewrite and second Good article nomination

Taking the recommendations from the first Good article nomination, I reformatted the article and copyedited some sources from the Pennsylvania Route 60 page. I tried to expand on it a little bit. I hope it gets picked now! Jgera5 (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the standards at WP:USRD/STDS. This article is quite lacking in that regard right now. --Rs chen 7754 21:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the exit list does not have mileposts, something that's coming to be expected on good USRD articles. Additionally, as a bare minimum, the references need to be cleaned up. Each citation should, at a minimum, give author/cartographer, title, publisher, publication date, access date (for online sources), page numbers/map section numbers Footnotes 1 and 3 are the same online page, but it's still a self-published source and unacceptable as a source for Good Articles. Ditto footnotes 4, 8, 9, and 15. The "Overview" and "Route description" sections should be merged together, and the lead should be expanded. The lead has no summary of the history, and it needs some summary or mention of all article sections. (The summary of the exit list is in the infobox, btw.) Sorry, but I suggest you withdraw the nomination and rework the article before continuing with a GAN. Imzadi 1979 → 22:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a "Mile" column, though I can't find a list of the corresponding miles to the exit lists. I did email PennDOT to see if I can get a list (as well as a link to source it with), and I'll fill those in as soon as they respond back. If I have to, I'll drive the entire length from Hermitage to Monroeville and check myself, though it's a last resort due to it being both time-consuming and original research. I'm trying to improve the article for a good article nomination, and have made the article more consistent, such as reversing the history to go west-east, in consistency with the rest of the article. I would like others to help with this, though I have spent a great deal of time working on the article, not just in the past week but for years now. Jgera5 (talk) 05:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The History should normally be chronological, not geographical. As for the mileposts, Google/Yahoo/Bing maps can be used to measure distances barring official DOT sources for mileposts. Driving the road to measure it is not an option because it's also not verifiable in the realm of policy. Imzadi 1979 → 05:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have over 450 GAs in the U.S. Roads project - please look at those as examples. Years of work doesn't accomplish anything if you don't meet the standards. --Rs chen 7754 05:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PennDOT doesn't produce adequate mileposts for certain roads. You need a GIS viewer to read them and its not really beneficial for routes with concurrencies. Mitch32^{(Erie Railroad Information Hog)} 10:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the only method available to derive distance information though. The various online mapping services can be used to obtain this information. Imzadi 1979 → 17:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Highway abbreviations

Good writing should use the abbreviated form of highway names consistently. The first time each type of highway is mentioned in the text, it should have the full name spelled out (Interstate 376, U.S. Route 422, Pennsylvania Route 60) and the abbreviation should appear after it in parentheses (I-376, US 422, PA 60). After that, all other mentions should consistently use the abbreviated form, even if using a different number (I-376 vs. I-80, US 422 vs. US 22, etc). Second thing to remember: non-breaking spaces. These look just like regular spaces, but they are entered by typing out  . They're needed anytime a numerical element is not independent of a text element, like in US 422 or exit 15. That way if the highway name appears at the end of the line, the two halves can't be split by the line break. I skimmed through the lead and the route description, but the rest of the article needs to be audited for abbreviations and non-breaking space usage and fixed. Imzadi 1979 → 20:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mileage numbers

Well, after taking an extended break on I-376 and working on other articles, I have returned by adding the mileage numbers. I measured it from Google Maps. Wish there was a way I can source it, though.Jgera5 (talk) 01:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is: {{google maps}}. Imzadi 1979 → 01:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference for the mileages using Google Maps, but feel free to update the URL as necessary. I also rebuilt the table using the templates (which means its formatting will better match other exit lists in the US going forward. Imzadi 1979 → 20:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I've taken a long enough break on the article to do some more work on it again. Thanks! Jgera5 (talk) 04:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

My last project today on the article was to clean up all of the citations' formatting. There are a few issues left to address concerning them though before this article can pass at WP:GAN if renominated in the future:

Footnotes 1, 4, 7, 16, 18, and 19 are all self-published sources, which are not allowed per policy unless the exceptions apply. (At least in the case of footnote 4, it doesn't, but no one has asked WP:RSN if the exception would apply for the others.) At this time, these need to be replaced.
Footnote 17 (National Bridge Inventory) should have its URL and page title changed to reflect the specific bridge listing used to back the statement in the article.
Ideally, the few press releases should be replaced using secondary sources from the press that contain the same information.

Failure to address #1 above means that the article can't meet the Good Article Criteria. Failure to address #2 could be a verifiability issue, depending on the opinion of the reviewer(s). Imzadi 1979 → 20:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly-placed mileage marker

Recently, I drove in the Pittsburgh area and followed the Parkway to its eastern end. In the little part where eastbound US 22 has split off and is heading toward the merge onto eastbound William Penn Highway, there is an I-376 mileage sign. STRICTLY speaking, that is not I-376, which instead should be heading into the toll plaza and making the connection to its "parent" route, I-76 (which there is the same road as the Pa. Tpk.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(I drove E-bound US 22 in this area again recently, and I didn't see that mileage sign, but I did see a reference to end of SR 0376 where I merged onto E-bound William Penn Highway.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.47 (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, notice that if you are eastbound on I-376 (after its westward extension was put in along former PA 60 expressway), you will see "EXIT 85" going to the Pa. Tpk. As noted above, that (strictly speaking) is I-376 going into the toll plaza. If you do not take that "EXIT 85", you will be on eastbound US 22 as noted above, heading onto eastbound William Penn Highway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up jgera5

Noticed you've nominated this for GAN. While the prose seems to have excellent structure, flow and grammar, there are numerous paragraphs, including much of the Route description, that are completely unsourced. THis will need to be fixed, so I suggest you get a head start on it now. Google maps satellite views are a good source for the physical surrounds in the route description, and a paper map/atlas for the start/end, route, and points of interest of the highway. As for the history, I unfortunately cannot be of much assistance. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Along with that citation issue, there is still the matter of the self-published sources that need to be replaced before this can be listed as a Good Article. I made a note of this issue in August 2011, and its still not changed. Imzadi 1979 → 16:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

references (to I-376) along Pa. Tpk.

I just thought of that, and remembered that in at least 1 direction on I-64 in the Norfolk/Portsmouth area in Virginia, at 1st interchange with VA 168 there is a sign referring to another interchange with VA 168 several miles ahead. (This is a result of I-64 hooking back to the west, causing cardinal directions of "east" and "west" to be omitted for that part of I-64 to avoid confusing drivers; see Wikipedia article(s) about I-64.)

Now, because of the extension of I-376 along existing road in Pa., the Pa. Tpk. meets I-376 at TWO places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1st sentence of "Route designations prior to 2009"; also, details of Parkway East before it reached Tpk.

That sentence reads:

"From I-376's eastern terminus until the end of the Penn-Lincoln Parkway, I-376 has had the US 22 and US 30 designations for its entire history."

Apparently this is referring to WESTBOUND I-376. By the time I-376 signs were posted (for the Parkway in downtown and east of there), the direct connection to the Pa. Tpk. at Monroeville was already up and running. But even when the Parkway ended at Churchill (necessitating use of William Penn Highway to continue to the Turnpike), not all of "Parkway East" was US 30, which (when eastbound) split off the Parkway west of that point. Now what did the writer of the above sentence have in mind for western end of Penn-Lincoln Parkway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article could be a little more specific about the Parkway East before its connection to Pa. Tpk. opened in 1962. Before then, my recollection is that if you were eastbound, you saw a merge coming on (from Penn Avenue) and then the Parkway ended (a "PARKWAY ENDS" sign was there) and you would continue straight ahead onto what has since become Business US 22 (William Penn Highway) before you reached PA 791. You could try going onto classic mapquest and entering zipcode 15235 for your map to land nearby.

3-digit highway numbering: I-376 still a spur or now a loop?

Has anyone noticed that since 376 was expanded recently, having met interstate standards - it is now technically, a loop highway which should perhaps begin with an even number? ... See Interstate_Highway_System#Numbering_System

Granted, not a "loop" in the sense of a circular outerbelt as some cities have. But since it now intersects the longer highway at two points, the whole thing should have been renamed to something like I-676. Doing so would of course required alot of funding, as well as confusing drivers and required GPS updates. Just pointing out that it doesn't seem conform to the federal numbering plan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trep26 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC) --Trep26 (talk) 01:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There have been certain numbering conventions for the Interstate system which end up being violated when changes are made. As for I-376 designation being extended, it was bad enough that (according to what I have read) some local drivers were confused. This was not a new road, but the same road with new route number and new exit numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice the above mention of "676". 276, 476, 676 are all in use in the Philadelphia area so they aren't available in Pittsburgh area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Penn-Lincoln Parkway" includes part which is not I-376

Despite the extension of I-376 to west of downtown Pittsburgh (causing removal of parts of PA 60 and I-279), there is an expressway stretch of US 22/30, heading west off of I-376, which could also be referred as part of "Penn-Lincoln Parkway" (then US 30 breaks off and US 22 continues on that expressway by itself). I added a remark at the outset pointing this out, since "Penn-Lincoln Parkway" is a redirect here on wikipedia to I-376. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interstate 376. 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/1970fr.pdf
Added {{dead link}} tag to ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/pdf/BPR_pdf_files/Maps/Statewide/Historic_OTMs/1960fr.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081014041055/http://www.paturnpike.com/news/2006/Mar/nr031606.htm to http://www.paturnpike.com/news/2006/Mar/nr031606.htm
Added {{dead link}} tag to ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/pdf/BPR_PDF_FILES/Maps/Type_10_GHS_Historical_Scans/Mercer_1987.pdf
Added {{dead link}} tag to ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/pdf/BPR_PDF_FILES/Maps/Type_10_GHS_Historical_Scans/Mercer_1997.pdf

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.

? A help request is open: ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us is now http://www.dot.state.pa.us -- see below. Replace the reason with "helped" to mark as answered.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pages formerly in ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us may be assumed to now be in http://www.dot.state.pa.us -- for example, ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/pdf/BPR_pdf_files/Maps/Statewide/Historic_OTMs/1970fr.pdf is now available on http://www.dot.state.pa.us/public/pdf/BPR_pdf_files/Maps/Statewide/Historic_OTMs/1970fr.pdf ... I did not see a simple way to report this in your tool, but it should be possible to apply this change programmatically across the system. Erskiji (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interstate 376. 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/20070821185151/http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/BI/BH/2007/0/HB1590.HTM to http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/BI/BH/2007/0/HB1590.HTM

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) 17:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]