Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Interstate 96/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Route Description

I am wondering what is involved in doing something like this. I do not know what all is supposed to go into it and if you can provide me a link or an example of what is needed I can probally put one of these up on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihsfbstadium (talk • contribs) 06:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


Michigan_State_Highway_6

How does M-6 (Michigan_State_Highway_6) fit in? It's the new "South Beltline". Is it important enough to warrant a mention in the junctions on this page, and the Interstate 196 page? If no one raises an objection I am going to add it in soon, especially since there is some possibility it may itself pick up an Interstate designation... ++Lar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lar (talk • contribs) 22:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


I'd like to know exactly how adding a link to my Interstate 96 page counts as "spam." My page is perfectly valid and well-researched, and provides some more information that Wikipedia's I-96 page doesn't list. Frankly, if my page isn't "good enough" for inclusion as an external link, neither should the other ones be. --Larrysphatpage 07:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

See discussion at Talk:Interstate 59. —C.Fred (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Expansion of Article

I am currently working on building a comprehensive exit list, and expanding the article in general. It is currently incomplete, but should be finished in the next day or two. Hotstreets 08:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Good start! Does Michigan number exits sequentially or by mile marker? If it's by mile marker and there were no old exit numbers under the old system, then we only need a column for exit number. Let me (us) know when you've finished on the exit list; I'll wait to look through it (clean up, copyedit, etc.) until you're done, in case you're working out of an external editor for it. —C.Fred (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Michigan has used mile marker exit numbers for as long as I recall (very early 70s). There was that goofy short-lived experiment with dual numbering with metric, but I think we can safely ignore that as I'm not even sure that applied to I-96. -- KelleyCook 02:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have finished adding the exit guide! (Finally!) There are many rough edges, but I wanted to get the basic information in. It is definitely ready for some cleaning and copyediting. I will work on this a little bit in the coming day, but I am more interested in adding a "History" section to this article. Thanks for your help! Hotstreets 02:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Detroit Local/Express Configuration Expansion

I would like to expand this section to add a paragraph describing what a local/express configuration is, for those that may not be familiar. I will work on this in the next day, but I didn't want it to hold up putting in the rest of the exit list. Hotstreets 02:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

How about just a Wikilink to Local-express lanes? -- KelleyCook 01:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I do believe I'm an idiot. Thanks, I didn't have any time last night to look for a page on this after I finished. That is definitely a good link, I will do as you suggested. Thanks again. Hotstreets 01:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you just ran afoul of another Wikirule. Don't wikilink a header: MoS:HEAD#Linking. :) -- KelleyCook 03:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Citation of Standard Oil Map

I was looking for sources to supplement and/or replace the newsgroup postings that I currently have cited, and I have a Detroit Standard Oil Street map circa 1960. Do you know how I would properly cite this? This is my guess...

"Detroit Street Map" (circa 1960). Rand McNally and Company. Distributed by Standard Oil Division, American Oil Company.

I also have some Michigan maps from the era that I would like to cite, so I would like to get this right the first time. Thanks, Hotstreets 23:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Exit List Split Proposal

I really liked the recent addition of the table-ized "Junctions with other freeways" section, and I decided to run with the idea. First of all, the current "Exit List" section with the large tables is 32 KB long, and more than long enough to warrant its own separate article. As a result, I would like to propose that the existing tabular content of the "Exit List" section be moved to a separate article, tentatively titled Exit list of Interstate 96. In its place, I propose that the new "Exit List" section in the main article consist of a summary of the mile-based numbering/exit system in place for I-96, and an expanded version of the "Junctions with other freeways" section as a subtopic, creating a nice "summary-style" section. My proposed content for the Interstate 96 main article (including an updated "Junctions with other freeways" table) is located at User:Hotstreets/Sandbox. If nobody objects in a day or two, I would like to make these changes. Thanks, Hotstreets 07:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't like it, because it's such a wide break from other articles in the project. I would rather see the exit list stay in the main article and the "Junctions with other freeways" section pared back to just junctions with other interstates. I think the junctions with other freeways were userful before the exit list was written, but now that we have the list, that can cover it. Personally, I'd also like to see the exit list condensed to a single list. —C.Fred (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks, I must have misunderstood the main project page, when it says "A detailed list of exits, optionally on their own subpages, that the Interstate has." However, my rationale in suggesting the changes was that:

  • By the time that a comprehensive Route Description section is added, this article (currently 23KB) will almost certainly be over the ~30KB guideline for it to be split apart (WP:SUMMARY). The exit list is by far the largest portion of this article. In the absence of the suggested several paragraph summary, I feel that the "Junctions with other freeways" table covers the most important junctions on the freeway, and serves as an effective "summary" of the complete exit list.
  • In Michigan, all of the non-Interstate freeways that are listed in the "Junctions with other freeways" table are near or above Interstate highway quality, and serve as major thoroughfares (especially the non-Interstate freeways in Detroit). Since Interstate 96 is a much smaller and non-major route than, say, Interstate 95, I feel that these important junctions should have a place in the table.
  • I would also like the exit list as a single list, ideally, with only the Detroit local/express configuration separate (since it requires a different table setup). However, for people that might be using the article for reference, it might be much easier to have it split into portions; it would be much easier to click on a link to "Lansing to Novi exits" than to scroll a long ways down the page. As a sidenote, when building and editing the table, its large amount of markup (and subsequent translation to HTML) required a lot of time for the server (often taking 10+ seconds to preview even a minor change). That's why I originally split the table apart.

I appreciate your comments; but after reading my rationale behind my choices, please let me know if you still have concerns. Thanks again. – Hotstreets 17:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hrm. Really, I guess part of the problem is that this is an interstate that isn't. Take I-95, for example: it has articles for each individual state it traverses, and that's where the exit lives. So, it does make sense to split the exit list out. For consistency, I would suggest that Interstate 96 in Michigan at least be a redirect to the article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I have created that redirect, as per your suggestions. Yeah, in some ways, I-96 is more like a 3di article than a 2di article, due to its intrastate status. Thanks, Hotstreets 03:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have made the split. How do you best suggest that this be polished? I'm not sure that the link to the complete exit list is prominent enough. Hotstreets 05:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Major Cities table

I have replaced the existing Major Cities bulleted list with the same information in tabular format. While this may seem counterintuitive the way I've done it, I just wanted to explain: as the upcoming "Route Description" section grows in size, I will move this up there as a floating table and eliminate the "Major Cities" topic, as it becomes redundant in the presence of an exit list and accurate route description. Currently putting this table inside the empty Route Description section looks quite horrible. Hotstreets 07:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Exit List Questions

According to [1] exits 163 is only for eastbound and exit 165 only for westbound. This is also consistent with the absence of exit 165 in [2]—a trip along I-96 E, and with Google maps referring to all the relevant westbound exits (except for through I-96 travel) as 165—I-96 W -> I-696, I-96 W -> M-5 N, I-96 W -> M-5 E, I-96 W (no mention of exit nos.). For eastbound travel though, Google only refers to exit 163 but never exit 164—I-96 E -> I-696, I-96 E -> M-5 E, I-96 E -> M-5 N (no mention of exit nos.), I-96 E (no mention of exit nos.).

I'll update the table to split exits 163 and 165. -- Paddu 21:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[3] says exit 165 is within the I-96/I-275 multiplex but [4] seems to say there is an I-275 ENDS sign before the exit ramp diverges. I wonder in which order we should have the "multiplex begins" and exit 165 rows in the table.
BTW [5] readily shows an exit 165 sign so I need not have done all the Google maps research :(. -- Paddu 22:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Redundant name

I think the name of the article should simply be Exit list of Interstate 96 (or even could be merged into the article), as "in Michigan" is redundant as I-96 only exists in Michigan (and will likely never be extended as one end is Canada and the other is Lake Michigan). CrazyC83 22:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The name was born out of the discussion at Talk:Interstate 96#Exit List Split Proposal. -- Paddu 06:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Interstate 94

I have read that the current Interstate 94 in Michigan east of Benton Harbor, MI was originally intended to be Interstate 92, also the current route of Interstate 96 between it's eastern terminus and the current route of Interstate 196 was originally supposed to be I-94 including the current I-196 itself. So, please describe that in this article. --Koopa turtle 01:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure that showed up on the original hand drawn Interstate map the User:SPUI posted, except it is pretty much irrelevant as neither I-196 nor I-96 was ever actually numbered as I-94. For what it is worth, that random factoid is mentioned in the Interstate 94 in Michigan article. -- KelleyCook 02:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Article improvement drive

This is apparently the current U.S. roads article improvement drive. I'm also adding the banner to the exit list article as an obvious extension. Hopefully we'll be able to do better with this than we did with I-79. --NE2 11:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Article improvement drive

I tagged this as part of the U.S. roads article improvement drive, as a part of the "real" article, I-96. --NE2 11:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

History notes

Relevant maps: Image:Grand Rapids, Michigan 1955 Yellow Book.jpg, Image:Lansing, Michigan 1955 Yellow Book.jpg, Image:Detroit, Michigan 1955 Yellow Book.jpg Image:Interstate Highway plan August 14, 1957.jpg April 25, 1958 Image:Interstate Highway plan June 27, 1958.jpg

  • 1957 and June 1958: 94 via Chicago, Benton Harbor, Grand Rapids to Detroit; 94N from Muskegon to Detroit
  • April 1958: Michigan SHD requested to make 96 Muskegon to Detroit and 67 Benton Harbor to Grand Rapids; 196 would have been the west and south bypass of Grand Rapids (with 67 ending at 196, and 96 roughly following the present 296 and 196); 296 would have been the loop through Lansing; 98 would have been the north bypass of Detroit
  • Actually approved (by 1959, though I can't find any actual confirmation of the 3DIs other than 196 that early): 96 Benton Harbor to Detroit, 196 Muskegon to Grand Rapids, 296 in Grand Rapids (when was the network there changed to its current layout? by 1960; 296 was numbered by 1961), 496 in Lansing, 696 north of Detroit
  • 1963: 96 and 196 swapped

--NE2 13:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[6] might be useful for some early planning information. --NE2 13:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

An actual numbering change, August 20, 1961: [7]

  • I-96 opened between Cascade and the eastern edge of Grand Rapids; I believe this completed the part around GR
  • US 16 Business and M-50 were removed "in the area"
  • US 16 moved off the South Belt and West Belt onto 196/96; the belt became M-11

--NE2 14:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I-96 was completed on December 12, 1962 [8] (except in Detroit). --NE2 15:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

A continuous freeway between downtown Detroit and Muskegon was almost completed on January 8, 1964;[9] the 1.5 miles between 7 Mile and 9 Mile remained to be completed. The article says that it opened from Santa Barbara (where? apparently just north of 9 Mile) to Orchard Lake Road, and that 696 eastbound had been open from Orchard Lake Road to Lahser Road for several months. The 1964 Rand McNally more or less agrees with that, but shows the Lodge ending at 8 Mile. According to [10] it opened from 7 Mile to Greenfield Road on June 23 and Greenfield Road to 9 Mile on October 29, 1964 (see also [11], which confirms Greenfield Road to 9 Mile). [12] shows late 1962 south of 8 Mile. --NE2 17:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If a reference for US 16 using the beltline around Grand Rapids is needed: [13] --NE2 17:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Some more early history: [14] [15] --NE2 17:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[16] --NE2 10:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Scheduled for 1972 completion along Grand River Avenue; "New Detroit-Ann Arbor Link" also planned --NE2 11:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Openings

  • 1957: west of Coopersville to Marne (16 to 24)
  • 1957: Portland to Eagle (77 to east of 86)
  • December 1957: Brighton-Farmington Expressway (east of 148 to the end east of Farmington)[1]
  • 1958: near Clarksville to Portland (Hastings Road to 73?)
  • July 1959: south of Portland (73 to 77); closed the gap between Hastings Road and 86[17]
  • 1959-60 (after July 1959): near Cascade to near Clarksville (Whitneyville Avenue to Hastings Road)
  • 1961: Muskegon to Nunica (1 to 10)
  • 1961: Marne to east of Grand Rapids (24 to 40)
  • August 20, 1961: east of Grand Rapids to southeast of Cascade (40 to Whitneyville Avenue)
  • September 18, 1961: two-way traffic on eastbound lanes, Nunica to Coopersville (10 to 16)[2]
  • December 21, 1961: Brighton bypass (145 to east of 148)[3]
  • December 22, 1961: 11.8 mi north of Grand Rapids (where?); completed Muskegon to Lansing[3]
  • 1962: east of 86 to 90 and 141 to 145
  • December 12, 1962: 51 mi from "five miles northwest of Lansing" to "midway between Brighton and Howell" (90 to 141); it was all at once[4]
  1. ^ Ironwood Daily Globe, Expressway to be Opened by Dec. 13, December 6, 1957
  2. ^ Holland Evening Sentinel, Open Interstate 96 to Eastbound Traffic, September 15, 1961
  3. ^ a b Holland Evening Sentinel, Last Section of Road Opens, December 19, 1961
  4. ^ Holland Evening Sentinel, Detroit-Lansing-Muskegon Freeway, Third Freeway completed, December 8, 1962

— Preceding unsigned comment added by NE2 (talk • contribs) 06:34, October 8, 2007 (UTC)

Photos

[18] is under an acceptable license, but it's just a random road shot. Hopefully someone can get a better one. --NE2 06:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Lengths

From [19]:

  • Muskegon County: 857607 5.432
  • Ottawa County: 742410 19.501
  • Kent County: 405406 30.453
  • Ionia County: 504910 25.586
  • Clinton County: 208901 10.151
  • Eaton County: 567905 9.602
  • Ingham County: 337304 23.855
  • Livingston County: 935105 27.461
  • Oakland County: 657303 11.340, 639202 4.002
  • Wayne County: 1607802 3.120, 1606201 15.809, 1577404 5.720

192.032 total — Preceding unsigned comment added by NE2 (talk • contribs) 23:56, October 8, 2007 (UTC)

Bridge dates

  • 1972 under Grand River
  • 1971 under 10 Mile
  • 1971-72 over 9 Mile
  • 1974 over 8 Mile
  • 1974 under 7 Mile
  • 1974 under 6 Mile
  • 1971 under 5 Mile
  • 1971 I-275/M-14
  • 1972 under Schoolcraft
  • 1974 under U
  • 1974 under Newburgh
  • 1974 under U
  • 1974 under U
  • 1974 under Levan
  • 1974 under U
  • 1974 under Yale
  • 1974 under Wayne
  • 1974 under Stark
  • 1974 under U
  • 1974 under Farmington
  • 1974 under U
  • 1974 under Brookfield
  • 1974 under Berwick
  • 1973 under U
  • 1974 under Merriman
  • 1973 under U
  • 1974 under Warner
  • 1973 under Melvin
  • 1971 under U
  • 1971 under Middlebelt
  • 1971 under U
  • 1971 under racetrack entrance
  • 1971 under Cardwell
  • 1971 under U
  • 1971 under Inkster
  • 1971 under U
  • 1974 under Breakfast
  • 1974 under Minock ped
  • 1973 under Berwyn
  • 1974 under U
  • 1974 under Beech Daly
  • 1974 under U
  • 1974 under Garfield
  • 1974 under Fenton
  • 1970 under Telegraph
  • 1970 under Virgil
  • 1970 over Rouge River
  • 1970 under Outer
  • 1970 under Bentler ped
  • 1970 under Burt
  • 1970 under Schoolcraft
  • 1971 under Stout ped
  • 1970 under Glendale
  • 1971 under Evergreen
  • under RR
  • under RR
  • under RR
  • 1970-75 over M-39/under ramps
  • 1973 under Mansfield ped
  • 1972 under Greenfield
  • under RR
  • 1970? under Fullerton
  • 1970 under Hubbell
  • under RR
  • 1971 under Schaefer
  • 1971 under U
  • 1971? under Grand River
  • 1971 under Sorrento ped
  • 1971 under Meyers
  • 1971 under Mendota ped
  • 1971 under Wyoming
  • 1971 under Cherrylawn ped
  • 1971 over Davison Ramp
  • under RR
  • 1971 under Davison ramp (1974 ramp over ramp)
  • 1971? under Fullerton
  • 1971 under Oakman
  • 1972 under Elmhurst
  • 1972 under U
  • 1972? under Grand River
  • 2001 under Chicago
  • 1972 under Livernois
  • 1972 under U
  • 1972 under Underwood
  • 1972 under Joy
  • 1972 under Clarendon ped
  • 1972 under Maplewood
  • 1972 under Ivanhoe ped
  • 1972 under Pacific
  • 1972 under Scotten
  • 1972 under Tireman/Grand
  • 1972 under Roosevelt ped
  • 1971 under McGraw
  • 1971 over I-94 ramps
  • 1971 under I-94 ramps
  • 1971 over I-94
  • 1971 under Warren
  • under RR
  • 1971 under Buchanan
  • 1971 under Selden ped
  • 1971 under MLK
  • 1970 under I-75 north ramp
  • 1970 under Michigan
  • 1970 under I-75 south
  • under RR
  • 1970 under Vernor

— Preceding unsigned comment added by NE2 (talk • contribs) 10:08, October 9, 2007 (UTC)

Some old maps

  • 1968: UC I-75 to I-94
  • 1969: none
  • 1969: UC I-75 to I-94
  • 1971: open to GR east; proposed along GR
  • 1972: open to GR east; UC partway to GR west
  • 1972: open to GR east; rest UC
  • 1972: open to GR east; rest UC
  • 1974: open to GR west; rest UC
  • 1976: open to GR west (as Temporary I-96 - huh?); rest (including I-275) UC
  • 1977: open to M-39; UC to I-275; open on I-275

— Preceding unsigned comment added by NE2 (talk • contribs) 11:43, October 9, 2007 (UTC)

Ambassador Bridge

If the Ambassador Bridge and its approaches should be upgraded to Interstate standards, then does the American side of the bridge become an extension of Interstate 96, much as the Blue Water bridge has become part of Interstates 69 and 94 west of the Canada - US border? The bridge seems to be on an alignment. Pbrower2a (talk) 02:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I-96 Sniper section

I am highly concerned about this edit: [20]. It adds a nonstandard section to the article, against WP:USRD/STDS and against the convention of the Michigan road articles, most of which are GA. This also smells of Wikipedia:Recentism, which is inappropriate for a general-purpose encyclopedia. According to the user's suggestion [21] I have brought the discussion here. --Rschen7754 21:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Recentism is an essay not a guideline or policy. Tell the 7 victims of the sniper that the investigation is not important enough for its own section (IMO it needs its own article). TomCat4680 (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
WP:NPOV and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. And those are policy. --Rschen7754 21:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Memorial is an obituary. None of the people are dead. I don't see how it's NPOV, it's not an opinion, it's raw facts. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. Rschen7754's objection, failing WP:SHROUD (what?), it does make me wonder whether dyed in the wool WP:USRDers just cannot cope with information outside their rigid framework. So, question: If we assume that it is worth mentioning the sniper in the article, in which section should it be mentioned if not in its own section? --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
History is fine. Tagishsimon, please keep your ad hominem attacks to yourself. The "rigid framework" has produced almost 800 GAs and 46 FAs, by the way. --Rschen7754 21:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
We found out the worth of those GAs at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Delaware Route 17/1, iirc. Questioning whether USRDers can cope with information outside their categories is not an ad hominem attack anymore than mentioning the sniper is POV or MEMORIAL. Waving these concepts around like shrouds does not persuade. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
If that's what you believe, you're welcome to start another GAR. --Rschen7754 21:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
No. Heaven forfend any thought of driving standards up. That would imperil your all-important FA & GA count. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Tagishsimon, are you going to offer suggestions to remedy this "situation" or are you just going to throw insults at the WikiProject? I, for one, think this should be covered on ENWP. Here? Maybe a couple sentences once the shooter(s) is/are caught and tried, but not a full section like this. If people start dying, it should get its own article. –Fredddie™ 21:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Backing off my tone for a moment, I do see that Tagishsimon did ask a question, so I apologize for that. I simply missed it in the sea of text. I think I unintentionally replied to it. –Fredddie™ 21:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
It's not really historical (yet) because it's an ongoing investigation. Plus it's about a person committing crimes, not I-96 itself. It needs its own section.TomCat4680 (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. It's not about I-96. So...why does it belong in the article? --TCN7JM 21:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Because all the shootings have taken place along I-96, so it needs to be mentioned. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Does every shooting that has ever taken place in Detroit get mentioned in its article? --TCN7JM 21:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
The shooter is called the "I-96 Sniper" by the media because that is where the shootings happened, but the highway is not responsible for the shootings. Even though the acts committed by the Boston Strangler occurred in that city, they are not included in the Boston article because the are not of the city.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 22:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Exactly my point. Thanks. --TCN7JM 22:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

This article is about the road itself, not societal events that may involve the road. No-one is saying that once the whole story is available an article titled I-96 Sniper wouldn't be important. But that story is not about the road. An analogy would be, the article Human does not have any information in it about Murder, even though murder is a strictly human thing.Gtwfan52 (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I do find myself in agreement with Tomcat on one point: This story should and could have it's own article. So why don't you take the info you have and write it, rather than putting it here where it doesn't belong? If you want to talk recentism as a reason not, I only got one thing to say: Trayvon Martin! Gtwfan52 (talk) 23:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm boldly moving the content to the history. the USRD/STDS formula is not so rigid as some would claim. Cases in point:

However, these events related to the shooter, as of this moment, do not yet rise to the importance of a full section of this article. Yes, they warrant some mention in this article, just like the trademark dispute warrants some mention in the "Cultural impact" section of M-22 (Michigan highway), but the core of the details of the crimes should be covered in a separate article. For now, I've taken what TomCat added, moved it to the History section, fully cited it, updated it, and formatted the one citation for consistency. It is a "historical event" for the highway, even though it is on-going. Imzadi 1979 → 23:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I still think it should have its own section, but if I'm happy as long as it's there. TomCat4680 (talk) 02:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

IMO, in the bigger picture, weather the guidelines at WP:USRD/STDS are overly rigid is a legitimate debate that we can have. However, a current event where the summary will change daily is not the appropriate poster child to make that argument. On this specific issue, I agree a level 2 heading is a bit much. What's wrong with a level 3 heading though? Dave (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Let me clarify my previous statement, assuming the sniper content is expanded to at least 2 paragraphs, what is wrong with a level 3 heading? A single paragraph, IMO, should NEVER be an unique heading, and most style guides would agree with me. Dave (talk) 02:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Since there isn't that much content (and once there's about three paragraphs or more, I'd strongly suggest creation of a stub article on the news event/crime itself), a L3 heading isn't appropriate yet. We've had major multi-vehicle accidents summarized and merged into single-paragraph additions to history sections before. See Interstate 43 for an example of that. It's all about applying due weight, and keeping details not related to the highway out of this article. (We don't need additional, tangential content going off in wild directions, specifically when an article is sitting at ACR and headed to FAC at some point in the future.) Imzadi 1979 → 03:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on Interstate 96. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Interstate 96. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 12:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Interstate 96. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 12:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interstate 96. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 05:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

How can it be an Interstate if it's only in one state?

Just wondering.  Eric Cable  !  Talk  14:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@EricCable: it's still a part of the Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways, aka the Interstate Highway System, so by definition, it's an Interstate (capital I) even if it doesn't run interstate (lower-case i). Of the 13 Interstates in Michigan, only 3 (I-69, I-75, I-94) cross a state line, while the other 10 (I-96, I-194, I-196, I-275, I-296, I-375, I-475, I-496, I-675, I-696) do not. Imzadi 1979 → 15:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and why do you park on a driveway and drive on a parkway, and why are they called apartments if they are all stuck together, and why do you send cargo by boat, but a shipment by automobile. You're very clever. --Jayron32 15:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I thought about that as well and added something in there explaining that point prior to seeing this. There's an interstate in Hawaii too. South Nashua (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Exit System Near Brighton

Recently completed construction on the I-96/U.S.-23 interchange has altered the exit numbers and destinations. Specifically, the exit off westbound I-96 for Spencer Road is now combined with the exit for northbound U.S.-23. I don't know the resulting exit numbers or mile marks, but this could be updated by someone who does. BWSMI (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC) BWSMI

The article already reflects these updates, BWSMI. Imzadi 1979 → 20:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Pleasant Valley overpass truck collision - Relevant to Notable Incidents?

It was certainly spectacular...

https://www.bing.com/search?q=pleasant+valley+road+bridge+accident&qs=AS&pq=pleasant+valley+road+bri&sc=8-24&cvid=29BB31DE76764C3B85B4B186E4FE86F7&FORM=QBLH&sp=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.236.48.34 (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

That's not really relevant to the article. The scale doesn't put it on the same level as the one, nor does it fit the notoriety of the other incident. Imzadi 1979 → 20:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interstate_96/Archive_1&oldid=1136822646"