This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Let it take out US 17, you have it going to Charleston.

Cleanup notes, Sept 2005. This has to be the worst Interstate article I've seen. Surely we can do better than this, folks. Mark in Virginia. 00:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

It's a pretty pants Interstate too. -- SPUI ( talk) 16:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Approved July 25, 1996 by AASHTO, I-81/I-581 to Charleston

Much information is from here.

Road	Status
US 220, I-581 to near NC 150	future corridor signs (in NC at least); not freeway
US 220-NC 68 connector	not built
NC 68, near NC 150 to I-40 or I-840	not built
US 220, I-40/I-85 Business to near Ulah	FUTURE I-73; non-standard freeway
US 220, near Ulah to near Candor	I-73
US 220, near Candor to Rockingham	future corridor signs; not built
US 74, Rockingham to NC 38	unclear; freeway but not connected
NC 38-SC 38, US 74 to ?	not built

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SPUI ( talk • contribs) 21:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

1991

H.R.2950 (Public Law No: 102-240) SEC. 1105. HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS ON NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM.

(5) I-73/74 North-South Corridor from Charleston, South Carolina, through Winston-Salem, North Carolina, to Portsmouth, Ohio, to Cincinnati, Ohio, and Detroit, Michigan.

1995

S.440 (Public Law No: 104-59) SEC. 332. HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS.

`(5)(A) I-73/74 North-South Corridor from Charleston, South Carolina, through Winston-Salem, North Carolina, to Portsmouth, Ohio, to Cincinnati, Ohio, to termini at Detroit, Michigan and Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. The Sault Ste. Marie terminus shall be reached via a corridor connecting Adrian, Jackson, Lansing, Mount Pleasant, and Grayling, Michigan.

`(B)(i) In the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Corridor shall generally follow--

`(I) United States Route 220 from the Virginia-North Carolina border to I-581 south of Roanoke;

`(II) I-581 to I-81 in the vicinity of Roanoke;

`(III) I-81 to the proposed highway to demonstrate intelligent transportation systems authorized by item 29 of the table in section 1107(b) in the vicinity of Christiansburg to United States Route 460 in the vicinity of Blacksburg; and

`(IV) United States Route 460 to the West Virginia State line.

`(ii) In the States of West Virginia, Kentucky, and Ohio, the Corridor shall generally follow--

`(I) United States Route 460 from the West Virginia State line to United States Route 52 at Bluefield, West Virginia; and

`(II) United States Route 52 to United States Route 23 at Portsmouth, Ohio.

`(iii) In the States of North Carolina and South Carolina, the Corridor shall generally follow--

`(I) in the case of I-73--

`(aa) United States Route 220 from the Virginia State line to State Route 68 in the vicinity of Greensboro;

`(bb) State Route 68 to I-40;

`(cc) I-40 to United States Route 220 in Greensboro;

`(dd) United States Route 220 to United States Route 1 near Rockingham;

`(ee) United States Route 1 to the South Carolina State line; and

`(ff) South Carolina State line to Charleston, South Carolina; and

`(II) in the case of I-74--

`(aa) I-77 from Bluefield, West Virginia, to the junction of I-77 and the United States Route 52 connector in Surry County, North Carolina;

`(bb) the I-77/United States Route 52 connector to United States Route 52 south of Mount Airy, North Carolina;

`(cc) United States Route 52 to United States Route 311 in Winston-Salem, North Carolina;

`(dd) United States Route 311 to United States Route 220 in the vicinity of Randleman, North Carolina;

`(ee) United States Route 220 to United States Route 74 near Rockingham;

`(ff) United States Route 74 to United States Route 76 near Whiteville;

`(gg) United States Route 74/76 to the South Carolina State line in Brunswick County; and

`(hh) South Carolina State line to Charleston, South Carolina.';

1998

H.R.2400 (Public Law No: 105-178) SEC. 1211. AMENDMENTS TO PRIOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION LAWS.

(A) by striking paragraph (5)(B)(iii)(I)(ff) and inserting the following:

`(ff) South Carolina State line to the Myrtle Beach Conway region to Georgetown, South Carolina, including a connection to Andrews following the route 41 corridor and to Camden following the U.S. Route 521 corridor; and';

(B) by striking paragraph (5)(B)(iii)(II)(hh) and inserting the following:

`(hh) South Carolina State line to the Myrtle Beach Conway region to Georgetown, South Carolina.';

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SPUI ( talk • contribs) 23:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[1] and [2] shows it as a current Interstate all the way to present I-40 in Greensboro. That's not even part of the ultimate plan north of new I-40/I-85. And it shows future I-26 as a non-Interstate. -- SPUI ( T - C) 01:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't trust that map. US 52 doesn't go along that stretch of road near Mount Airy. That's reserved for I-74. The first map looks like one of those "close enough" map jobs. -- TinMan 01:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[3] -- SPUI ( T - C) 02:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The statement "I-73 is also not likely to be built in Michigan." may not be correct. There have been route studies done as to where to put the road between Toledo and Jackson. US-127 from Jackson to Lansing to Clare will be re-numbered to I-73. The current governor does not want to build new roads, just to spend the money on fixing current roads. A new governor may want to build the new I-73. 147.240.236.9 21:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually the issue regarding the new roads is that our interstate system is one of the oldest in the nation. And as such they needed repair and done better. A majority of the rebuilt freeways are being done with Cement pavement instead of asfault pavement. As such they should last much longer and require less work. The main issue is they want to keep up a good amount of repair work done every 5 years. Something around 10% of the roads or something. So work building new freeways will be limited to ones that are necessary to use the majority of the funding to fix the present ones. Some freeways I would like to see in the next 20 years or so in Michigan is I 65 extend to Mackinaw City using the freeways of US 31 and a modified route north of Ludington. I 67 using US 131 north to meet up with I 65. That would use a cosigned I 80-90 route to get it from South Bend to Elkhart. The interstate is this I 73 which as you said not that far off from being completed. Only a freeway section from North of Gary to Jackson will be required. Mihsfbstadium

What we really need is sources to either back up the statement "I-73 is also not likely to be built in Michigan" or back up a possible statement like "While the governor of Michigan does not foresee I-73 being built in the near future, a new governor could change that". It's all speculation, so if we're going to include it, we need the sources to back it up per WP:OR. -- Triadian ( talk) 19:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This comes from the I-74 list, since it's pointless to have a long overlap in both articles. Remove this section once the I-73 exit list is cleaned up. -- NE2 12:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

|-
|[[Asheboro, NC|Asheboro]]
|
|Pineview Street
|
|-
|
|
|Spero Road
|
|-
|rowspan=5|[[Asheboro, NC|Asheboro]]
|
|{{jct|state=NC|to1=to|US-Bus|220|dab1=Asheboro|name1=Vision Drive, North Fayetteville Street}}
|
|-
|
|Presnell Street
|
|-
|
|{{jct|state=NC|NC|42|city1=Asheboro}}
|
|-
|
|{{jct|state=NC|US|64|NC|49|city1=Lexington|city2=Charlotte|city3=Raleigh}}
|
|-
|
|McDowell Road
|
|-
|
|51
|{{jct|state=NC|US-Bus|220|dab1=Asheboro|dir1=north|NC|134|dir2=south|city1=Ulah|city2=Troy|name1=[[U.S. Route 220 Alternate (Seagrove, North Carolina)|US 220 Alt.]] south}}
|
|-
!colspan=5|Temporary west end of I-74
|-
|
|49
|New Hope Church Road
|
|-
|[[Seagrove, NC|Seagrove]]
|45
|{{jct|state=NC|NC|705|city1=Robbins|city2=Seagrove}}
|
|-
|rowspan=9|[[Montgomery County, North Carolina|Montgomery]]
|
|41
|Black Ankle Road
|
|-
|
|39
|[[Ether, North Carolina|Ether]], [[Steeds, North Carolina|Steeds]] ([[U.S. Route 220 Alternate (Seagrove, North Carolina)|US 220 Alt.]])
|
|-
|[[Star, NC|Star]]
|36
|[[Star, North Carolina|Star]], [[Robbins, North Carolina|Robbins]]
|
|-
|[[Biscoe, North Carolina|Biscoe]]
|<!--33?-->
|{{jct|state=NC|NC|24|NC|27|city1=Biscoe|city2=Carthage|city3=Troy}}
|
|-
|[[Candor, North Carolina|Candor]]
|<!--28?-->
|{{jct|state=NC|NC|211|city1=Pinehurst|city2=Candor}}
|
|-
!colspan=4|Temporary east end of I-74
|-
|
|24
|{{jct|state=NC|US-Alt|220|dab1=Seagrove|dir1=north|city1=Candor}}
|
|-
|
|22
|Tabernacle Church Road
|
|-
|rowspan=2|
|rowspan=2|18
|rowspan=2|[[Norman, NC|]]
|rowspan=2|
|-
|rowspan=11|[[Richmond County, NC|Richmond]]
|-
|
|16
|{{jct|state=NC|NC|73}}
|
|-
|
|13
|John Barwell Road<!--?-->
|
|-
|[[Ellerbe, NC|Ellerbe]]
|11
|{{jct|state=NC|NC|73|dir1=west|road=Millstone Road}}
|Under construction
|-
|
|8
|{{jct|state=NC|US-Bus|220|dab1=Ellerbe|dir1=north}}
|

Asterisks

What do the asterisks mean in the exit number list as currently existing? Tckma ( talk) 14:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I've gone through and reformatted and cleaned up the citations.

1. All of the "Duke" citations are actually self-published sources (SPS) written by Robert H. Malme, which is probably a member of Duke's faculty or staff. They're not considered any more reliable than a blog unless someone can establish his reputation as an expert. They're all candidates for removal and replacement.
2. The newspaper citations that lack URLs need pages numbers for the location in the print editions. (They probably weren't published online given their age.)
3. Footnote 9 is to a newsgroup posting, also a SPS. It seems to reference a news article though, which if found, could be substituted.
4. There were some links to the old version of the I-73/I-74/I-75 Coalitions's website for the SCDOT Environmental Impact Study (EIS). Well, unfortunately, whoever added those footnotes only linked to the top level of the website, and searching through the Wayback Machine, I could not locate the EIS. The current website hosts an economic impact study conducted for SC, but not an EIS. I removed the footnotes and replaced them with {{ cn}}. We need replacement citations.
5. The dead link for a story that originated in The Sun News can be rectified by finding the article in the print edition of the paper, removing the link and adding the page number.
6. The two working news articles probably should be pre-emptively archived using http://www.webcitation.org/archive.php and adding |deadurl= no to the templates. This way when the links go dead (and they will because the media doesn't leave their sources up for archival purposes indefinitely) we can strip that parameter from the template. That will flip the links around, linking the article title to the archive.
7. Lastly, Adam Prince may be well respected, and he may even be considered reliable, but under the Wikipedia definition, his blog is still a self-published source and not considered reliable. Sorry, but it has to be replaced.

I hope that this helps, but there's a lot of the article that's not properly sourced that needs attention before a less-generous editor removes content. Imzadi 1979  → 21:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The following appeared originally on User talk:Imzadi1979:— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, you seem to have declared some of the sources unreliable. I can only say that Robert H. Malme shows where he got the information but it wouldn't be a simple matter for us to get to what he saw.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Fredddie got it right: a complete reference to an article in print should have its page number. If it was published online only, it doesn't need a page number, however it should have its URL and access date. As for the other issue, WP:SPS applies. Some of his sources are other SPSs as well. It should be possible to get copies of the various newspaper sources he used, confirm his information and then cite the direct sources. Good luck, Imzadi 1979  → 22:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, blogs are almost never appropriate for use under SPS, especially in a case where an old map would verify the old exit number in question. Imzadi 1979  → 23:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It might be possible to get the newspaper sources. It depends on whether NewsBank has them. Fortunately, I can go to a library that has it frequently. If I don't get the results I'm looking for, I won't bother. I am trying to find other information through NewsBank as well. But I believe in including information in Wikipedia if it looks good regardless of whether the sources meet Hyacinth Bucket's standards. I believe we're better off with what appears to be reliable information than having very little information just because it doesn't meet certain impossible standards. Sometimes the information just isn't found in the right places, but that to me doesn't meet we should be deprived.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Except that's not quite how it's done. The sources are replaceable. Imzadi 1979  → 22:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

When we can find something to replace them with. And if I can't, I don't. Others may get lucky.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Except that if an article relies on SPSs, someone could remove the citations that aren't supported by policy and replace them with {{ citation needed|date=July 2012}} tags, and eventually, that could mean that the information itself is removed. Imzadi 1979  → 13:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, that just brings down the quality of the encyclopedia. I know what you're saying, but it's not our fault if good information isn't found in reliable sources, and I have no intention of letting this be an encyclopedia without information people might want to see just because people are so picky.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You can see what I hope will be good results tomorrow afternoon. I'll contiunue searching and may even go to the state highway people in the near future--I actually passed by the office which I think covers the Greensboro area but had other things I needed to do.

<removed information irrelevant to this particular discussion> Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

If the information is notable, there will be RSs that cover it, and that's the requirement of policy. There are exceptions to SPS policy that allow their use, however, you have yet to justify the inclusion of a blog and the hobbyist pages of a non-expert as sources in the I-73 article. I'm sorry, but it sounds slightly like laziness. I've spent money and time to do the research that I've done for the articles I've worked on. Now maybe you're willing to expend the time, money and effort to replace the sources, and I hope that you do. I'm just standing by the requirements of policy and the expectations of working that I've had to follow in the past to get 10 articles listed as Featured Articles and another 180 or so Good Articles, which can't use SPSs. Imzadi 1979  → 01:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not spending money. And at some point I'm not going to push any harder to do certain things. Good and featured articles are not my goals. My goal is to get information that I have been able to find into the encyclopedia. If it looks good, that's good enough for me. You can't call me lazy. I've worked hard on these articles that I've contributed to. I'm sorry if you're willing to work harder than I am, but even though I have the time, at some point I can only do so much. As far as these SPS pages being those of a "hobbyist", somewhere I learned they were "official". I don't know where that is. Now what I may do is contact the highway people on this, since I pass by a highway office on the way to where I am now, and it would be as simple as remembering.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

MDOT points people to http://www.michiganhighways.org/ which is a hobbyist's website. However, that doesn't negate that website's status as a self-published source. Unless or until the authors of these websites are recognized as "experts in their fields" as policy requires, we can't use them, period. And really, this shouldn't be a "I'll use it until I can find something better"; it should be a full prohibition. Imzadi 1979  → 17:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

If Wikipedia was really like that I would have gotten so frustrated I would have left and you wouldn't have all my hard work. Furthermore, you would have a LOT of stuff missing. I think Hyacinth Bucket needs to let Onslow edit from time to time.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that not everyone can or does apply the policy at all opportunities. There's also a difference between being honestly ignorant of the policy and willfully disregarding it. Once it's brought to an editor's awareness that we just don't allow any source to be used, that editor should be willing to improve their sourcing practices. Wikipedia is viewed skeptically or poorly in some circles. I had a discussion with a professor at Central Michigan University once and mentioned that we had a policy that requires reliable sources. He was impressed that we really did care about what we use for sources. If you think it's onerous to exclude self-published hobbyist websites, you should read WP:MEDRS. The medical articles don't allow some medical journal articles, even if they are published in the Journal of the American Medical Association or Lancet, the British equivalent. They only allow articles that are secondary reviews of medical studies, not the initial study itself. These are articles in prestigious peer-reviewed journals, but if they aren't a secondary review, they should not be used at all. Imzadi 1979  → 18:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I did add those sources back at a time when I didn't know any better, but sometimes you have to use what you can find. There is going to come a day when you will not benefit from my efforts because I'll be too skeptical of anything.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

One more thing: some of the NewsBank articles don't have a page number. I don't think you really need those, though. There's got to be some way to get to the newspaper archives if you know the date. And just as I won't likely be going to a newspaper's microfilm when that's all i can do, I won't do it if i have found the article already.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Skeptical is good! One of the key reasons we prefer most books or newspaper, magazine and journal articles as sources is that their publishers have a reputation for exercising what is called "editorial oversight". Journalists have to have sources to back their articles, even if they don't explicitly disclose them. Editors at publishing houses do more than just copy editing non-fiction works, they have fact-checking and verification done. If they don't, their reputations suffer. If a book contains falsehoods, the publishing house may have to recall them and offer refunds even. (We wouldn't just use any supermarket tabloid to back celebrity gossip as fact; we might use them though to back that the tabloids were gossiping about the celebrity though.)

However, self-published websites don't have similar oversight and constraints. There are even self-published books (see vanity press) that have the same concerns: namely that no one other than the author is vouching for the validity of the content of the source. That isn't to say that some of these websites are wrong or unreliable, they're just not meeting the requirements for editorial oversight required to meet Wikipedia's definition as a Reliable Source. We should be skeptical about the sources these sites and books use unless or until they've demonstrated the same reputation. As an example, look through some of Michigan's FAs on highways and you'll see a book writing by Dr. LeRoy Barnett called A Drive Down Memory Lane: The Named State and Federal Highways of Michigan. The book is published by the Priscilla Press, which I suspect is a vanity publisher. However, Dr. Barnett is the former Chief Archivist of the State of Michigan and frequently published contributor to Michigan History magazine. The book has also been distributed by the Wayne State University Press. He is considered an expert in the field of Michigan history, so even if the book is technically self-published, it meets the requirements of policy. If Chris Bessert, webmaster behind the Michigan Highways website, started submitting articles on highways that were published by magazines, or if he was quoted by more newspapers as a source, his reputation as a "highway historian" could be better established and any of our articles could start directly using his website as a source. So be skeptical of SPSs out there unless you can establish that they really are reliable enough to be considered a Reliable Source. Imzadi 1979  → 19:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

As for articles out of NewsBank, you probably should link the URL as there could be slight differences between the archived copy unless it's a direct scan from the original printing. (I assume that if a correction or retraction were ever necessary, they'd change the copy in the database for instance.) As for looking up stuff, I've had decent success in e-mailing libraries in the hometowns of newspapers with the citation information I had. Sometimes they've even sent me a scanned copy of the article off microfilm via e-mail in reply. You might think that I'm being a little hard on you about this, but I've found that if you start an article out with good citation practices early, it makes it easier later if you or someone else decides to take the article through WP:GAN, WP:HWY/ACR or WP:FAC. Yesterday I went to the Longyear Reasearch Library at the Marquette Regional History Center to look at some maps from the 1850s to use in U.S. Route 41 Business (Marquette, Michigan). That library, being a part of a private museum, charges admission. It's a lot nicer to have the full citation to that map from 1855 than need to go back again later to find the cartography information when asked for it while the article is nominated at FAC. Something that took 30 seconds to write down yesterday could save me a drive and admission tomorrow. Imzadi 1979  → 19:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I've used NewsBank too many times to go back and link. Since I'm one of the few fortunate ones, I was told it was pointless. As for this SPS, somewhere I got the idea that these were official pages for the projects concerned and that he was an expert. But if I start being skeptical, I will find information online that I feel needs to be here because I was looking for it and it wasn't here. And Wikipedia won't benefit if I'm scared to do anything. I do know about vanity presses. My grandfather used one. He ran out of books but his needed updating. I had the time and the education. But I always told people not to consider the book reliable, but look at the sources if they're shown. I made a lot of mistakes, though I corrected many of my grandfather's previous mistakes. But not all. And I used his reference formatting, which wasn't all that helpful.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Except there isn't anything on the website denoting it as official. In fact, to the contrary, it says "This site is presented as an educational resource and is not affiliated with the North Carolina Department of Transportation or Duke University." Ergo, it's not official, so we have to rely on the author's reputation and status because this is a self-published work. The site is almost two years out of date now ("Last Updated: August 7, 2010") and the author is a "Senior Data Technician at Duke University's Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy". That doesn't establish that he works in transportation planning, highway construction, or local/North Carolina history. I'm not saying that his website is inaccurate or "unreliable" in the lay sense, but it's not a "Reliable Source" as Wikipedia policy defines it. Imzadi 1979  → 21:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I get that now. But finding something to replace it won't be easy and I've had no luck so far. Looking back at the history, I used it before it was last updated so some of what's there doesn't reflect what is in Wikipedia. I was just trying to find sources for what others had said.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, about corrections in NewsBank. I've seen them. I think they are in the actual article somewhere.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I stopped by the office of the man I talked to last week. He said he passed the information along to the person he thought could help me, but he did wonder why I seemed to expect him to drop everything and spend time on this. I explained the idea was people would be able to find all this information and know it was right, though I never used the word Wikipedia. I was afraid he might think that made it less important. Anyway, that's our major obstacle. I had seen links to the NCDOT web site used as sources, but I don't know how one finds information there. He didn't succeed in finding anything while I was there. But I'm back at the library and working on another set of newspaper articles where I'm sure information can be found. And a week from Thursday it is my plan to go to a state university because parking is free that week.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I have good news and bad news. The good news is I found not only part of what I was looking for, but came up with new ideas to find some of what I tried to look for last week but couldn't find. The bad news is even what I thought I could find this week isn't all there, and there is still stuff missing. Also, there's a contradiction with one of the interstate sections in Greensboro, and I have a feeling that section is no longer marked "Future" since it is connected with the other section now. I have yet to find anything that says it was 3.5 miles.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I got an email from the man I visited yesterday. He doesn't understand what documents I want and since I'm afraid to tell him we're trying to get these for Wikipedia, he can't help me. He did say that the person who requires this information (that would be you) could contact him. I could give you his email address, since I doubt you want to call him. There is one last chance at that state university, but even they might not be able to help me.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 13:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't find one of the facts that source is supposed to confirm. But I found someone who may be able to help.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The state transportation people came through for me, but it doesn't quite confirm what appears in the article, and I'm not sure what to tell them. I am in possession of PDF versions of three letters from the FWHA to the NCDOT, but I don't know what to do with these as I don't have anyone's email address. Imzadi didn't respond to me when I asked if emails could be sent to him. Anyway, I have this information. The letters to not confirm the need to have "Future" on any of the signs, and I don't have the lengths of any stretch of road, so I'm not sure what to do at this point. But this is progress!— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Can someone with some "on-the-ground knowledge" with I-73 go through and start updating these tables with an eye toward merging them and cleaning them up? I'll help with formatting details where needed, but we need more information and context for me to really help.

1. The state-name subheaders should be removed from this section, or else headers above in the article need to be renamed. Duplicate headings confuse things. Which "North Carolina" header is meant by a link to Interstate 73#North Carolina? (The server and web browsers will assume its the first one, in the RD section.)
2. The SC table is missing county, location and distance columns, which doesn't give the reader a whole lot of context about locations.
   1. If these were added, we could convert the table over to the templates.
   2. Once converted, we could merge the SC and NC tables together and add the State column like I did with U.S. Route 8.
   3. The templates also make it very easy to indicate, by color, what exits are not opened to traffic by adding |type=unbuilt, and then making a comment in the notes column. The orange color helps make them stand out as unopened/under construction/proposed/etc.
3. What is this "Future ramps in North Carolina" table supposed to indicate? If these are future interchanges that will be added, just insert them into the main NC table where appropriate and then add the unbuilt color with a note.
4. Good notes in a junction/exit list are like good captions: they're usually sentence fragments.
   1. That means they don't follow the standard grammar of "<subject> <verb> (<object>)" and they don't get terminal punctuation (periods).
   2. They also allow a reader to follow the table from the bottom up for the reverse direction by not assuming something is the "beginning" and something else is the "end".
   3. A good note, in my experience, is short and to the point. It also uses cardinal directions where needed ("southern end" instead of "begin/beginning", "northern end" instead of "end/ending") to eliminate ambiguity. Just because we "start" at the southern or western terminus and work northward or eastward doesn't mean the highway only has one direction.

I will work with anyone to do the necessary formatting changes if people can provide me missing information or context. Imzadi 1979  → 19:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

South Carolina Highway 22 is the only completed section. If I count backwards from that road's southern terminus, we have a start, although I don't know how to format it correctly. However, when the exact route is not known, it's pretty hard to determine mileposts.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm more worried about the counties/locations and not the mileposts. If there isn't a source for mileposts, we can't include them. Imzadi 1979  → 21:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

However, if/when they're added, they need to be in a dedicated column for that purpose. I've converted the table over to the templates, so someone will need to locate the correct counties and locations.

1. Change the |county_special=  to |county=name.
2. If a county is applicable to multiple rows of the table, add |cspan=# after the |county=name line. Then remove the county definition from the next several rows of the table.
3. For any rows that would be in a defined location, change |location=none to include that location name. If it's in an unincorporated section of a county that lacks a place name, leave it as is.
4. If the location is applicable to multiple rows, add |lspan=# and remove the addition location definitions as needed.
5. if a source for mileages can be located, add that as to the {{ jcttop}} template in a |length_ref= parameter. Then add the mileages to the appropriate rows of the table.
6. Last, if appropriate, add |type=unbuilt, |type=concur, or | to any rows of the table for unbuilt interchanges (or those not yet a part of a signed/approved segment of I-73, concurrency termini or interchanges missing movements as appropriate.
   1. Change {{ jctbtm}} to {{ legendRJL}} at the bottom of the table though, because if the colors are being used, the color key must be used as well.

That's the instructions for what to do next to complete the SC table. Imzadi 1979  → 21:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It's still going to be hard in some cases to know exactly what county some interchanges are in. I don't suppose it matters as it's unlikely that the exact route could determine whether one interchange is in this county or that. All I need is the map of the approximate route, wherever that is. The good news is that the first interchange is in the process of being built, though I don't know how far along it is. I'll have to put that in the article. It may not be beyond the funding stage, but it does have that at least.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, we can always correct for future changes. Are exits 1–19 planned for Marlboro County, exits 20–25 in Marion County and the remainder in Horry County? If so, we could insert |cspan=11 into the first row of the template so that it would set the county to span those first 11 rows of the table. Notice how in the NC table, Richmond County's label spans the first five rows? That's because |cspan=5 in that first row of the template. If a row above in the table is defining the county, | | etc, then the next 10 rows or whatever shouldn't have |county= or |county_special= at all. Imzadi 1979  → 19:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to remember to find a map and see if that's right.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I still haven't found a very detailed map, but now the I-73 site has only a general one.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I got tired of I-73 main page being messy and not like the other interstate main pages, so broke-out the North & South Carolina pages. The exit list for both states have also been updated using information from both NCDOT and SCDOT (see refs). If you were thinking more exits might exist in SC, I would simply skip that worry till they actually break ground on the road (hopefully in this lifetime). -- WashuOtaku ( talk) 18:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Something to keep in mind though... USRD went through a process earlier this year about merging two-state interstate (with a lowercase "i") with their parent articles. I know that I-73 is supposed to extend outside of the Carolinas, so it might be beneficial to get the set of articles in decent shape as a whole. You can leave Ohio and Michigan out though since they've indefinitely cancelled the highway. Imzadi 1979  → 19:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to create a map similar to what I have for I-86 East for the current and future path of I-73. I need some help in making sure I have the current theoretical alignment correct, as well as some help with the alignment in South Carolina. I've bolded the stuff I need clarification on.

• Alignment of I-73 from North to South
  • In Michigan
    • From Sault Ste Marie, following I-75 south to the junction with US 127 south of Grayling
    • Continuing south on US-127 to Jackson
    • East of Jackson, running concurrent with I-94/US-127 to exit 142 where US-127 splits off again south to the junction with US 223 north of Addison
    • Continuing southeast on US-223 from near Addison to the junction with US 23 in Ottawa Lake
    • Running concurrent with US-223/23 to the Michigan state line
  • In Ohio
    • From the Michigan state line, continuing south to the junction with I-475, running concurrent with US-23, where I suppose it would bypass the city of Toledo on the west and southwestern side, continue around the south side to the junction with I-75 and run concurrent with I-75 to the junction with US-20/23 where it would turn southeast
    • From Toledo, continuing southeast on US-20/23 to near Woodville where it would turn south to follow US-23
    • From Woodville, continuing south on US-23 to the junction with I-270 in Columbus
    • From Columbus, running concurrent with I-270 around the north and east side of the city, east of Port Columbus Int'l Airport, crossing I-70 and continue around the south side of Columbus to where US-23 splits southward.
    • From south of Columbus, following US-23 to Chillicothe where it would run concurrent with US-23/35/50 until US-23 branches off southward again.
    • From Chillicothe, south on US-23 (SR 104) to the junction with US 52 in Portsmouth
    • From Portsmouth, running east/southeastward on US 52, generally following the Ohio River to Chesapeake where it would cross the Ohio River to Huntington, West Virginia.
  • In West Virginia
    • From Huntington, following US-52/ I-64 to south of Ceredo where US 52 branches from I-64 southward.
    • From near Ceredo, southward on US 52 to north of Williamson at a junction with US 119
    • From north of Williamson, running southward, concurrent with US-52 and US-119 to southeast of Williamson where US 52 branches eastward from US 119.
    • From southeast of Willamson, following US 52 to east of Bluefield at the junction with US 460/ 19/ 21
    • From Bluefield, at the junction with US 460, following US 460 across I-77 to the Virginia state line.
  • In Virginia
    • From the Virginia/WV state line, following US 460 to Christiansburg at the junction with I-81
    • From Christiansburg, following I-81 north to the junction with I-581 in Roanoke
    • From Roanoke, following I-581 south to the junction with US 220
    • From south of Roanoke at the junction of I-581 and US 220, continuing south on US 220 to the North Carolina state line
  • In North Carolina
    • From the VA/NC state line, following US 220 south to the junction with NC-68 northeast of Stokesdale, North Carolina
    • From northeast of Stokesdale at the junction of US 220 and NC-68, following NC-68 south to Airport Parkway and Joseph M Bryan Blvd. northwest of Greensboro
    • From NW of Greensboro, following Joseph Bryan Blvd to Benjamin Parkway to Wendover Avenue to S Holden Road to a junction with I-40 SW of Greensboro
    • From SW of Greensboro, following I-40 East to the junction with US-220
    • From US 220 S of Greensboro, following US 220 south across I-85 to the currently designated part of I-73
    • Following I-73 south to where it becomes US 220 again south of Candor
    • From Candor, continuing south on US 220 to the junction with US 74 west of Rockingham
    • From Rockingham, continuing east (SE) on US 74 to the junction with NC-38 S of Rockingham
    • From S of Rockingham at the JCT of US 74 and NC-38, continuing south on NC-38 to the NC/SC state line
    • New section of I73 is now open. I drove on it from the 68 interchange to the 150 interchange. Looks like it runs north all the way to 220 though. Traffic is allowed to keep going north past 150. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.75.233.58 ( talk) 12:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • In South Carolina
    • NC-38 becomes SC-38, continuing south from the NC/SC state line on SC-38 to a new(?) junction with I-95 Southwest (?) of Exit 181 after splitting off independently on new road from SC-38(?). If anyone knows if there's actually a road alignment here, that'd be super
    • From the new(?) junction with I-95, continuing independently southeastward across US 501 and US 76 to a junction with SC-22 north of Conway, South Carolina
    • From north of Conway at the JCT of (future) I-73 and SC-22 continuing eastward on SC-22 across a JCT with SC-31 and to and ending at a junction with US 17 northeast of Myrtle Beach

Any help is appreciated! Cheers! Stratosphere ( T/ C) 03:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Response for North Carolina

• Well, travling south along US 220, the future I-73 will NOT join NC 68 northeast of Stokesdale. Instead, a road project known as the "NC 68 Connector" will provide the necessary freeway link between the two routes. It will start at US 220 in Summerfield, NC near its intersection with NC 150 and travel in a southwesterly direction to connect with the end of the NC 68 freeway segment just south of Oak Ridge. This connector will prevent I-73 from going through downtown Stokesdale and Oak Ridge. This site will show a very helpful map on top: Duke.edu/I-73 Seg 4.
• There is an article for Joseph M Bryan Boulevard. The name "Airport Parkway" has been completely phased out. The entire road is now completely Bryan Boulevard.
• According to the current plan, I-73 will only share NC 68 for about 1 mile before darting back east to Bryan Boulevard where the future Interstate will exit to join the Greensboro Urban Loop south.
• Your comment: "Benjamin Parkway to Wendover Avenue to S Holden Road": these roads have nothing to do with I-73. The Urban Loop (this segment is currently under construction) will carry the Interstate all the way around Greensboro to the south to join US 220. However, the roads you mentioned may have interchanges with the future I-73. This PDF web file is EXTREMELY helpful. It shows all the planned exit ramps for the Urban Loop: Urban Loop Exits
• Your comment: "From SW of Greensboro, following I-40 East to the junction with US-220" is true. Remember, however, that this will be the new I-40, which is part of the Greensboro Urban Loop.
• Remember, I-73 will NOT follow the future named I-40 BUSINESS to US 220. A few maps erroneously show this.
• Interesting info: For approximately 1 mile, I-40, I-85, and I-73 will share the same piece of road south of Greensboro. This can be shown in detail at that exits PDF file.
• Everything from south of Greensboro to Rockingham is correct.
• I-74 will join I-73 around the US 220/ US 311 interchange in Asheboro.
• A US 74 bypass has already been constructed to the south of Rockingham, bypassing Rockingham. Both I-74 and I-73 will will connect to this bypass. I-73 will split from the bypass south of Rockingham, to somewhat follow US Route 1. South of there to the SC line, the routing is up for grabs.
• I hope this helps you. -- TinMan 04:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Map

I've created a map and thumbed it above. It looks like it should suffice, since at that scale it's hard to tell the minor changes that are indicated in TinMan's and my original post. I'll see if anyone has any comments about the alignment in the map before I put it up. Thanks, TinMan for your quick and thorough response to my question yesterday. Cheers. Stratosphere ( T/ C) 00:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

That's close enough. It's zoomed out far enough that nobody would know the difference. -- TinMan 02:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

That's what I figured...all that work for nothin'! :P Stratosphere ( T/ C) 02:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)