Jump to content

Talk:Interstate 40 in Tennessee

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleInterstate 40 in Tennessee is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 16, 2023.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 15, 2022Good article nomineeListed
March 2, 2023Peer reviewReviewed
April 6, 2023Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 26, 2023Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 5, 2023Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
September 21, 2023Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 11, 2022.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that community opposition to the routing of Interstate 40 through Memphis, Tennessee, led to a landmark United States Supreme Court ruling in Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe?
Current status: Featured article

Exit list from I-240

[edit]

This was on I-240 and may be useful here:

1F-G TN 14 (Jackson Avenue)
2 Chelsea Avenue; Smith Avenue
2A
TN 300/To U.S. 51 - Millington
3 Watkins Street Exit to reach Overton Crossing Street
5 North Hollywood Street
6 Warford Street
8 TN 14 (Jackson Avenue) Split into 8A and 8B westbound
10 TN 204 (Covington Pike)
12A White Station Road Eastbound exit and eastbound entrance only
12A U.S. 64; U.S. 70; U.S. 79 (Summer Avenue ) Westbound exit and westbound entrance only
12B Sam Cooper Boulevard


Feedback post on Interstate 40 in Tennessee

[edit]

From the wikipedia feedback system, some feedback for this page on the question of a missing exit from the exit list. It is noticeable that the numbering in the list has gaps, with no explanation of those gaps. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

//Why don't you have distances from the start of the interstate to the exits on the interstate. I notice you have that for your US routes and State routes but few of your interstates. I myself am writing a series of books about rebuilding the earth with all electricity renewable and knowing distances between the start and stop of an interstate, state route, or US route in a particular state and the distance between the start of the highway and each exit on the highway is practically needed and I don't want to have to look up some mileage calculator to calculate distance between start of highway and an exit on that highway for every single exit, especially the interstate ones.Caters1 (talk) 06:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interstate 40 in Tennessee. 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:

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) 04:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interstate 40 in Tennessee. 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:

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) 17:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I-69 Overlap - How Official Is It?

[edit]

There has been a bit of an edit war on the I-269 page, with the dust settling on a claim that Wikipedia should not recognize the extension of the interstate designation as official until there is documentation that TDOT has recognized the change, even if federal approvals have been granted.

This begs the question: for I-69 in Tennessee, is there any documentation in support of TDOT recognizing the designation as official? It's obviously been approved by AASHTO and FHWA; TDOT is almost certainly going to sign it as such if/when the new sections get built. But at the moment, I don't see any documentation that TDOT officially agrees that the overlap section of I-55/I-240/I-40/SR 300 really is I-69 today. There's just a bunch of internet lore, much of it referencing Wikipedia, that TDOT will sign it "someday".

(This comment is being added all of I-40/I-240/I-55/TN 300. More detail on I-269 talk page.) MikeTheActuary (talk) 04:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roane / Cumberland County line?

[edit]

Per this link, it appears that the Roane/Cumberland County line (the Eastern/Central Time Zone border) is at milepost 340.4 . Shouldn't the exit list be adjusted accordingly? --DarkStarHarry (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DarkStarHarry: it would appear that the mileposts do not match the actual accumulated mileage based on whatever source was used to list the mileposts in the table. For example, exit 340, which is just inside Roane County (in terms of the cross road), is listed at MP 343.67. This roughly three-mile offset runs all the way back to exit 2A in Memphis, and the offset decreases from there back to the state line at the Mississippi River. It would behoove us to find the source used for all of the mileposts and verify them all. Imzadi 1979 → 18:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Imzadi1979: Wouldn't it be prudent to add a reference to the Time Zone Change between the Roane/Cumberland County exits? DarkStarHarry (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DarkStarHarry: not really. Time zone boundaries, if mentioned at all, are usually included in the route description section, and not in the junction list table. Imzadi 1979 → 17:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Memphis tanker explosion

[edit]

According to multiple sources, the 1988 tanker truck explosion was blamed on a poorly designed ramp with a sharp curve. Multiple sources, including this one (dead link), cite this accident as one of the top reasons for why this interchange was completely reconstructed. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at WP:CARCRASH (full disclosure: I wrote it), this would be a good example of an accident that led to a redesign of the highway. That being said, I think you could get a good paragraph out of it. Ideally, the reader should be able to tell what happened, how the old design was unsafe, how the new design was different, and how long the roadway was under reconstruction. –Fredddie™ 04:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to reinstate it, but this time rewrite it to focus more on how it led to the resesign.Bneu2013 (talk) 08:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Truck lanes

[edit]

From what I can tell, the general consensus has been to include only major events in the history sections of roads, such as initial construction, reconstruction projects, major accidents that led to reconstruction, etc. Therefore, we probably shouldn't include smaller projects, such as resurfacings, bridge repairs, new interchanges, minor interchange reconstructions, etc., in the history section, even though the latter two are generally acceptable in the exit list. United States Man insists that we should include information about a truck climbing lane that was recently constructed in Smith County; however, I'm not sure that this should be included in the history section. This is one of about ten truck lanes that have been constructed on I-40 in Tennessee in the last ten years, and the current wording seems to imply that it is related to the ongoing widening in Lebanon, which is not indicated by the source. Maybe a sentence or two about an effort by TDOT to construct truck lanes throughout the entire corridor that included this project would work better; however, a different source will be needed for this. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing stopping you from adding any of those other projects. My opinion on Wikipedia has always been that more information, rather than less, leads to a more comprehensive article. Now I will agree that not every repaving project or brand new interchange should be included (there is such a thing as too much info), but a >2-mile widening project seems to be notable enough for inclusion. United States Man (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@United States Man: - we should probably include all of these projects then, and likely have a distinct paragraph dedicated to them. From what I've been able to find, the I-40/81 corridor study in 2008 identified the need for these truck lanes, and initiated the projects. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Interstate 40 in Tennessee/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 21:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]



Hi, I'm Kingsif, and I'll be doing this review. This is an automated message that helps keep the bot updating the nominated article's talkpage working and allows me to say hi. Feel free to reach out and, if you think the review has gone well, I have some open GA nominations that you could (but are under no obligation to) look at. Kingsif (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: - Thanks!. FYI, I've just finished making a series of copyedits and minor improvements, so be sure to take a sweep of the entire article again in case you happen to have already done so. I can look at some of your nominations. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif: - You still interested in conducting this review? - Bneu2013 (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bneu2013: Yeah, I try to get all my comments added to the review page at once, and this is a longer article, but I could do it in chunks? Kingsif (talk) 08:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif: - that's fine. I'd also prefer to address the article in chunks also. Bneu2013 (talk) 10:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Illustration

[edit]
  • All free (and predominantly public domain and CC0) images
  • Infobox complete as standard
  • Good use of route map in title line (where coordinates usually sit)
  • Good distribution of images
  • Images relevant for inclusion
  • Quality of images all at least sufficient to serve illustrative purpose
  • Exit list table good per standard - am I mistaken or was there a legend to it before?

Stability

[edit]
  • Edit history stable
  • There is a recent discussion at the talkpage that doesn't seem to have a resolution - will anything be added about the truck lanes?
    • Already done in the "Other projects" section.

Copyvio

[edit]
  • Images fine (see above)
  • Check looks fine

Sourcing

[edit]
  • The Route description is sourced to maps, as is typical. In prose review, I will check that the prose doesn't get too flowery for the kind of simple description this sourcing allows.
  • In the Predecessor highways section, there's a chunk of information sourced to a 1911 map ("Route of the Memphis-Nashville-Bristol highway (1911)". OCLC. Retrieved February 10, 2021.) - none of which seems to be attributable to a map, some of which is post-1915, and, checking the source, little of which is mentioned there. If the next source ("Plan To Spend $8,000,000 On Route 1, Tennessee's Broadway Of America". Johnson City Chronicle. August 18, 1928. p. 9. Retrieved February 10, 2021), which is inaccessible to me at the moment, contains some of this information, can the source be duplicated to show it covers the whole paragraph/otherwise arrange the refs. If not, sources will need to be found.
    • Most of the info sourced to the map comes from the description. I've added a few additional sources.
  • No other issues found in spot-check of accessible sources
  • There's an odd habit of putting refs inside parentheses, but when punctuation is attached to text (i.e. all except dashes), refs should go outside the punctuation. Since these mostly seem to be related to inflation, I have to ask if it is necessary to mention this at all and, if so, if footnotes aren't more appropriate?
    • Including inflation data is useful, and is most commonly presented in this form in highway articles. Although, I will admit that the cost of highway construction has greatly outpaced inflation, mainly due to more stringent environmental regulations.
  • Several sources are inaccessible either because of subscription access or because they're not online - but the references are written fully and, should someone have access to the local libraries, are verifiable.
    • If you don't have a subscription to Newspapers.com, you should still be able to view the clippings. The only sources that are behind a paywall should be 160 and 170, but here is an archived copy of 160. All of the sources that are not available online came from microfilm archives at either the Tennessee State Library and Archives or the East Tennessee History Center, both of which I have access to. However, I can (partially) back some of them up with sources on the internet.
      • Source 47 mentions the Dickson and Putnam County sections (not by name) that opened four days later.
      • A transcript of source 103 is here (possible unreliable source).
      • Information from source 158 can be found here: [1], [2], [3], [4].
        • Update - I've provided the Google Books url for the Harry Moore book. Didn't realize this hadn't already been done.

Prose

[edit]

@Bneu2013: - did you want the prose comments in sections (based on the article structure) too? Kingsif (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: - yes, please. Bneu2013 (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
  • Good length for article
  • Traveling on the interstate through Tennessee, a motorist can observe - reads as promotional or like a travel guide.
    •  Fixed - Please let me know if this is adequate.
  • by the latter 1960s - "latter" doesn't mean "late", which is presumably what this intends (rather than the CE 1960s compared to BCE 1960s...)
    • It doesn't mean late here, it means approximately 1966-67.
  • with the stretch between Memphis and Nashville the first major interstate segment to be finished in the state in 1966 - what exactly is meant here? Was it the first segment to be "finished in the state in 1966", or was it the first segment "to be finished in the state" (coincidentally in 1966)? Rewording would clarify.
    •  Fixed - the latter.
  • The I-40 corridor between Memphis and Nashville is culturally significant in that it passes through a region that was instrumental in the development of American popular music, and is known as "Music Highway". - I would personally front-load "Music Highway" here, and state rather than explain (no "it is X, which means that Y" kind of phrasing; we're not talking to the reader)
    •  Done
  • This resulted in the state abandoning the alignment through the park in favor of relocating the interstate onto a section of what was originally part of I-240. - this would be improved if it specified what (case?) after "This". It could also be reworked and appended to the preceding sentence with a semi-colon for improved readability.
    •  Fixed - while the Supreme Court case was by far the largest factor, it wasn't the only factor in the cancellation of the Overton Park route.

Route description

[edit]
  • Notes like where motorists are advised to slow down are unnecessary - despite appearances, this isn't actually a route guide. If there have been a number of road incidents in certain areas, paired with such warnings as noted in independent sources, this could be discussed. (As done later.)
    •  Done
  • Otherwise, a good neutral tone that doesn't stray from the kind of prose that uses mainly primary sourcing.
  • The Music Highway subsection feels a little out of place, I'm not sure.
    • The only other decent alternative I can think of would be the history section; however, this section covers more of the route as opposed to its history, and the musical heritage of the area is largely unrelated to I-40's history.
  • I-40 was designated as such by an act of the Tennessee General Assembly in 1997 "from the eastern boundary of Davidson County to the Mississippi River in Shelby County," a distance of about 222 miles (357 km). - this sentence seems to get lost at the start of the quotation. It says the name was given in 1997, but then, without preamble or even punctuation, goes into the boundaries. Could something be added in there to make it complete?
    •  Fixed - rephrased/copyedited section.
  • Starting two sentences (back-to-back, no less) with "I-40 is/was designated as such" isn't great style - while adding something to the sentence mentioned in the point above, perhaps rephrase to also remove that.
    •  Fixed

History

[edit]
  • the territorial legislature on July 10, 1795, authorized a wagon trail to be constructed between Knoxville and Nashville. - I'd move the date to the end here, for flow.
    •  Done
  • 1.09 miles (1.75 km) long - the convert template here will need "adj=on" (or "yes", can't quite remember) to make it adjectival.
    • Ditto for 23 miles (37 km) section, 21 miles (34 km) section, and a few others. Some seem to be done already.
      •  Done - fixed all the ones I saw.
  • In Jackson, TDOT is working to widen I-40 - is this still current?
    • Yes - the first phase was completed last year, and the second phase is ongoing, and expected to be completed late this year. The final phase was originally planned to start last year, but as of this writing has not begun.
  • Need a ref for The rugged terrain of East Tennessee presented numerous challenges for I-40 construction crews and engineers. Rockslides, especially along the eastern Cumberland Plateau and in the Pigeon River Gorge, have been a persistent problem since the road's construction. - since there's also an erroneous space at the end, it looks like this was recently chopped from a longer paragraph
    •  Done - even though, I will admit, aspects of this were already cited throughout the article. This wasn't part of a larger paragraph.
  • It was definitely big, but there is possibly too much coverage of the Memphis tanker truck disaster in the article, especially since it has its own article
    •  Fixed - condensed it a little and made some copyedits, but largely left the major details.
Kingsif (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif: - I think I've addressed all the points you raised. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

[edit]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that community opposition to the routing of Interstate 40 thorough Memphis, Tennessee, led to a landmark United States Supreme Court ruling in Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe? Source: McNichol, Dan (2006). The Roads that Built America: The Incredible Story of the U.S. Interstate System. New York: Sterling Publishing. pp. 159–161. ISBN 9781402734687 – via Google Books.

Improved to Good Article status by Bneu2013 (talk). Self-nominated at 04:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Substantial recent GA, no issues that stand out with the article. Nominator is exempt from QPQ requirement. Hook fact is interesting and mentioned in the article (where it is cited to original newspapers, but it is plausible that the citation is also in the given book, which I couldn't access). —Kusma (talk) 13:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FA criteria

[edit]

I have made additional improvements to this article since it passed GA, and would like to nominate it for a featured article. However, there are a few outstanding issues I have that I would like to address before doing so.

  • I would like to have a photo of the Pigeon River gorge stretch in the "Geological difficulties" section; however I currently have none of my own, and could not find any decent ones online that are free to use. It will probably be some time before I can get back there. I'm also leaning towards another photo of the Cumberland Plateau section, as well as an updated photo of the descent.
  • There are a number of projects, mostly widenings and truck lanes, that are planned to take place in the near future; however there isn't much information out there about them. I feel like mentioning plans for future road projects infringes on WP:CRYSTAL, as there is no guarantee they will ever take place as planned (and TDOT is notorious for delaying projects repeatedly), unless they have repeatedly received significant coverage, none of which any of these have.
  • Several segments of I-40 in Tennessee have honorary designations, in addition to multiple bridges. I feel like I might should include a section about this, and have started drafting one in my sandbox; however, I don't want the article to get too long.
  • I'm leaning towards including a photo of the crack that closed the de Soto Bridge.

I'd appreciate if someone more experienced with getting US road-related articles to FA could give some input. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see the FAC has been archived, which is a shame, as I was planning to take a look at this. I realize I-40 in TN is a long Interstate Highway, but I think the article's sheer size (62 kB of readable prose size) may have dissuaded reviewers. For example, the route description alone has more than 20 kilobytes of readable prose; by contrast, Interstate 82's route description is only 8 kB, while Kansas Turnpike's route description is 14 kB. I also know that these highways are physically shorter. Nonetheless, I think this article may benefit from summary-style condensation - for instance, some of the details about the landscape and minor roads could probably be omitted without significantly degrading readers' understanding of the subject. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Interstate 8 doesn't mention every junction in the RD, which is where I think a lot of the length comes from. --Rschen7754 00:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Epicgenius, Rschen7754 - I was disappointed in the lack of response to both the nomination and this discussion (posted almost a year ago). While, I must admit that I was concerned someone might bring up the length, it still largely meets summary style, as the word count is less than 10k and all sections contain between one and four paragraphs. Furthermore, I would like to point out (I may have already done so elsewhere) that while you all have accurately pointed out that this highway is unusually long, it also most certainly has a lot more notable post construction history worth mentioning that articles about other interstate highways of similar length, such as Interstate 80 in Nebraska or Interstate 90 in Montana. This being the fact that I-40 in Tennessee has most certainly had far more widening and interchange reconstruction projects than these, due to Tennessee's much larger population and central location relative to the country's center of population. The article doesn't mention most interchanges; I tried to limit it to US Highways and primary state routes. But I suppose there are some we can trim; I'll be looking in to this. With regards to the length, I would like to point out that the vast majority of people who read this article are probably not going to read the whole thing. For example, if someone in Jackson or Cookeville wants to know when their stretch of I-40 was finished, I'd hope they would find this article, but that's probably all they are going to look at. I think it is important that we include this information, because it is clearly not easily accessible anywhere else on the internet (I know this from more than five years of working on this article). The only other options would be to dig through rolls and rolls of microfilmed newspapers at a select few libraries across the state; I actually had to do that to find a few of the sources used in this article. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unaddressed FAC comments

[edit]

Note that I am reposting comments from the archived FAC review that I was unable to get to before it was archived. This is so I can confirm that they have been addressed before I re-nominate. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rschen7754: - I thought I'd let you know that I have gone ahead and addressed all of the remaining points you posted that I was unable to get to before the FAC was archived. That being said, I've also made some additional recommended changes, as well as cleanups (and even managed to add a small amount of information while slightly condensing the article). That being said, I am going to try for an FA again. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2013 multi-vehicle collision

[edit]

While the crash that happened near Dandridge in 2013 did receive lots of press coverage, I don't see that it was in any way caused by a design in the roadway and/or resulted in a change in design to the roadway. This is usually used as a yardstick for inclusion of incidents such as these. While this incident was very tragic, accidents caused by blown out tires are fairly common and rarely caused by a flaw in the road. Contrast this incident to the Memphis tanker truck disaster, which was partly a result of an unsafe design and was the impetus for the eventual reconstruction of this section of highway. Or the 1990 Interstate 75 fog disaster, which did result in safety improvements to this section of highway. Bneu2013 (talk) 08:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Such is the joy of editing roads articles in the modern Wikipedia era of policy nazis screaming "must be sourced to an ivy league academic journal and nothing less or we delete it!". The sad fact that roads are mentioned every 5 minutes in press and news coverage, but it's always a tangent to a bloody story. If we followed the mandates the policy nazis impose with more and more furor each day, road articles would only be an ever expanding list about people complaining about traffic congestion, politicians making promises for more funding that never materializes, and list of accidents and crimes that occurred along the roadway, with the occasional mention of a serial killer who preferred this roadway to find victims. There would be virtually no mention of anything about the road itself, except for a select few roads that are covered in travel guides and tourist promotional materials. All that to say, yes, be careful of covering accidents in roads articles because it can lead to a never ending spiral. A road that is 400 miles long and has a 50 year history has had literally thousands of accidents along the right-of-way. Consider also the principle of undo weight, which unfortunately applies to wikipedia articles but not the media it relies upon for sourcing. Without commenting on this specific addition, I agree in principle. I only mention accidents if there was something extraordinary about it, such as national or international media coverage, involved a famous person, resulted in changes to the roadway or new legislation, etc. However, there's no rule. In fact, the rules go the other way; the rules say we must follow that the sources do and the sources are obsessed with highways as a reference location for "if it bleeds it leads" stories. If the policy wonks had their way, road articles would be a little more than "list of accidents and crimes along I-40 and political promises to improve I-40" with no mention of what I-40 actually is, because that's that the easy to find secondary sources do. Dave (talk) 16:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. I seem to recall hearing other editors claim that there has been a consensus reached about what accidents are appropriate for inclusion. A paragraph about a similar accident on Interstate 65 in Alabama almost two years ago was removed on those grounds. Bneu2013 (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History / railroads

[edit]

It might be interesting to briefly address parallel / predecessor rail corridors. The main rail route between Memphis and Nashville was the Nashville, Chattanooga and St. Louis Railway, which as its name suggests did not continue east to Knoxville but rather southeast to Chattanooga. Nashville to Knoxville was never a major rail route; I think the closest thing to a direct connection was the Tennessee Central Railway. Mackensen (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there is a consensus about this, but from what I've seen, we generally only mention roads and trails as predecessors. There is a railroad that roughly follows all of the route of I-40 in Tennessee, but not very closely (even though US 70 deviates a good ways in some places too). That being said, some of the Native American trails between Knoxville and Nashville were probably predecessors to both the railroads and I-40. Before adding this, I think we should get the opinions of some other road editors. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10 Jct Limit

[edit]

I saw in the recent revert of the change is that the junctions are more than 10. What happened to the 10 jct limit? Why doesn’t it apply to this I-40 in TN article? 174.209.192.45 (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The list has been trimmed by. I dropped the I-275 junction in Knoxville as the least important of the 11 because it's not a 3dI of I-40 and because it's the third junction listed for Knoxville. It appears that the listing was at 10, but at that time I-65 and I-24 had been merged together. Imzadi 1979 → 05:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if there's a consensus for this or not, but if I'm not mistaken, we don't normally combine two designations if the junction is not at the same interchange. I-65 and I-24 are separate because they no longer interchange with I-40 at the same location. I had actually proposed combining the I-840 junction in the infobox to read "I-840 in Dickson and Lebanon", but if I remember correctly on one replied. I'm okay with removing I-275; that interchange is without a doubt the least important of all of the system-to-system exchanges. In fact, I could probably make a good case that Exit 407 is more important than I-275. But I suppose if my proposal were to be adopted we could reinstate I-275 in the infobox. Bneu2013 (talk) 07:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Normally we'd prioritize based on factors like: Interstate > US Highway > state highway, and then 2dI > 3dI while also considering geographic distribution along the routing of the subject of the article. It looks rather imbalanced to have three junctions (or 30%) in a single city, for instance.
As for combining the two I-840 junctions, I wouldn't do that since it makes the list jump around when read from one terminus to the other. I'd just leave them as is. Imzadi 1979 → 07:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interstate_40_in_Tennessee&oldid=1207729106"