Talk:U.S. Route 23 in Tennessee

Merge SR 137

Yes - This merge has been long overdo to become official because US 23 (TN) page already has the merged information of SR 137 as well as I-26 (TN). SR 137 should become a simple redirect with no further edits necessary. --WashuOtaku (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done Klbrain (talk) 17:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Title and reorganization

Since I-26 is definitely the more prominent designation for this highway, I feel that the current title gives undue weight to US 23. I would like to propose that this article be retitled, per WP:USRD/NT#Combined articles, to something like Interstate 26 and U.S. Route 23 in Tennessee. Since ~95% of this route is concurrent with I-26, having two separate articles for each designation and titling this article Interstate 26 in Tennessee would probably be inappropriate. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I personally detest those combined titles, and I think the proposed title is worse than the ones we have because it involves different numbers. Since US 23 is the longer and older of the two, I see no issue with leaving this article under that title. Imzadi 1979 → 05:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree that this proposed title (or something similar) is problematic. I don't personally have a problem with combined titles if both designations are significant, and I do agree that some weight should be lent to US 23 since it is older. "Interstate 26"/"I-26" is the common name for the interstate stretch by an overwhelming margin, and most people who are looking for this article are going to search for this, not U.S. 23, State Route 137, or US 19E. The entire freeway is designated "James H. Quillen Parkway", but that doesn't appear to be the common name. The US 23-only section is rarely referred to and largely negligible, but still, retitling this article "Interstate 26 in Tennessee" doesn't seem appropriate unless we rephrase how we talk about the US 23-only section (e.g. "I-26 begins in the center of an interchange with US 11W", "the freeway continues a short distance north of this interchange to the Virginia state line"). Bneu2013 (talk) 08:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

The comparison though to the other combined titles fails because it's not the same number, unlike in those cases. Article titles should follow five criteria:

• Recognizability
• Naturalness
• Precision
• Concision
• Consistency

And the proposed title fails most of these. Imzadi 1979 → 16:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Instead of a combined title, here are some alternatives:

1. Merge the relevant content into I-26 and then redirect this article to U.S. Route 23? 3 miles of highway RD is easy
2. Merge the relevant content into I-26 and KEEP this article, and only talk about those 3 miles that aren't part of I-26 while giving a summary of the I-26 part
3. Redirect this article to I-26 and talk about the 3 miles on the national US 23 article
4. Lose interest and work on something else

I say that last one in jest, but it happens to me far too often. Regardless, the article could use mileposts. There were enough city maps that had mileposts for me to tackle SR 1's junction list for a route that is 10× longer than this route –Fredddie™ 07:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

There is more information regarding US 23 in Tennessee compared to Interstate 26 in Tennessee, that's the reason its front and center and I-26 is second fiddle. As one of the editors that help create the current article, the arrangement made the most sense and still does. --WashuOtaku (talk) 13:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Mileposts

The mileposts are currently numbered according to I-26's mileage in the junction list, and completely ignore the 3-mile US 23 section in Kingsport. Since this article is titled "US 23 in Tennessee", not "I-26 in Tennessee", I feel that it would be more appropriate to list the mileage for US 23 in the junction list. However, if there is a way to display mileages for both routes in the table, I would like to know how to do this. Bneu2013 (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I-26 mile markers were used because those were physically along the route and people would identify those instead of US 23, which are not. I would have liked to add US 23, but how to do it where it does not make the exit list confusing is key. Maybe it would be best to just expand the note at top to also indicate the mile marker differences too if you believe it is necessary. --WashuOtaku (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added the US 23 mileposts with I-26 mileposts in the notes. Bneu2013 (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, Washuotaku - do you object to including the I-26 shield in the infobox? My rationale for this is that I-26 overlays most of the route, and is most certainly the most commonly referred to designation for the route by a long shot. Bneu2013 (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not a fan of it, but I am not going to fully object to it unless other editors also believe that is out-of-place. I get why, but we have also noted it in several times and in the infobox too via component highways. FHWA or ASSHTO would have done us a favor if I-26 was approved from the VA/TN state line and not three miles down from it. --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok. I plan to try for a GA pretty soon once I get a few other things fixed, and if the reviewer doesn't like it, I'll probably remove it (I plan to ask them). It also wouldn't hurt if James H. Quillen Parkway were the common name, similar to Pellissippi Parkway. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and created James H. Quillen Parkway as a redirect. We can track and see how it performs going forward. --WashuOtaku (talk) 02:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:U.S. Route 23 in Tennessee/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Bneu2013 (talk · contribs) 23:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: NoobThreePointOh (talk · contribs) 09:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Spelling and grammar are proper. I can do some spelling improvements if I can, but for what it's worth, this is passable. I don't see anything that won't appeal to a range of audiences. The route description is also well detailed for a highway that only runs like 57 or 58 miles in Tennessee.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Follows MOS perfectly fine and has lists incorporated well.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	All material in the route description and history sections of the article that could be considered contentious have references.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The sources are cited inline without any formatting errors.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No original research as far as the eye can see.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig shows only a 3.8% on the copyvio detector, which is incredibly low. Even then, there's no sign of any possible plagiarism. Nice work.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Fixed this up.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Does this properly.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Looks fine and gives equal weight to I-26 as well, even though that interstate is less significant.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	I see no edit wars, which is fine.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are not copyrighted and are fair use.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The images are relevant to the article and have captions to explain, along with significance.
	7. Overall assessment.	Actually, I'm done reviewing. This article looks very good in quality, and I will pass this.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.