Talk:U.S. Route 395

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

I added 2 photos.. hope it's not overkill.. I just got back from a roadtrip down 395 though, and figured here's a good use for some of the photos I took :) --Kvuo 1 July 2005 22:31 (UTC)

To Merge or not to Merge[edit]

Sorry I let this sit for a while. But yeah, the article U.S. Route 395 North Spokane Corridor needs to be merged and pruned.I just drove a good portion of the 395 corridor and counted no fewer than 5 sections of US 395 that were being widened to a freeway as we speak, not counting this one. It's simply not noteworthy in the big scheme of things. Davemeistermoab (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Davemeistermoab, the US 395 NSC project is not just a "widening" of US 395, its a completely new roadway, and is arguably one of the largest road projects in Washington State. It is most definitely the largest project in Spokane, Washington. Do not merge this article with the US 395 article.. Here's a link to the project's website, if you need to check it out for yourself. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdubman (talk • contribs) 01:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would not do the merge alone, I would wait until a few more editors chime in and a consensus is formed. With that said, at least 2 other editor have put the "merge" tag in place. So there's 3 of us that have gone on record in one form or another with a vote of merge. I don't agree with the logic presented. By comparison Interstate 580 (Nevada), which is a complete reconstruction of US 395 in Nevada on a new alignment built to Interstate standards, has 3 official webpages dedicated to the project: http://www.ccfreeway.com http://www.freewayextension.com and http://www.nevadadot.com/projects/us395northbound/ It did have 4, but the re-construction between I-80 and Clear Acre Lane in Reno was just finished and pulled from NDOT's website. I don't see anybody creating 4 different pages about those construction projects. You're welcome to convince me otherwise. However, with the evidence currently presented I'm not convinced. Davemeistermoab (talk) 01:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't four Wikipedia articles for that project because it is just one major project. The T-REX I-25 project in Metro-Denver has a whole article about it - Colorado T-REX Project (TRansportation EXpansion). Maybe the problem is that the the US 395 NSC page isn't developed and comprehensive enough to meet Wikipedia's "standards"? If that's the case, I would be more than glad to expand the article with some good information. I'm from Spokane, so I know a lot about the project. Jdubman (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think your second reply is a much better argument. I agree that the T-REX article is well done. However, I suspect that as the light rail system ages the name of the expansion project will be long forgotten and this article will be eventually deleted or merged with the main RTD article. For the record, if I were the king of Wikipedia I wouldn't have an Interstate 580 (Nevada) article until NDOT actually nails a 580 sign to a post =-). But, I'm not the king so.... If you can make it a good article, Yeah I'd support it, but until then I still vote for a merge. Good luck on improving it. I'm more than willing to change my vote when that happens. Davemeistermoab (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BC 395 Merger[edit]

MERGER COMPLETE
Merged into Washington state-level detail article. --Admrboltz (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I am proposing that the 2 mile long BC 395 be merged into US Route 395 in Washington. There is no need to have a microstub for a 2 mile long highway and it is just an extension of US 395. --Admrboltz (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as proposer. --Admrboltz (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would feel better if BC 395 were merged into U.S. Route 395 in Washington instead. –Fredddie™ 23:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well US 160 in NM is part of the main US 160 article, and not part of AZ or CO, why would this be different? --Admrboltz (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not following the point of this comment. US 160 does not have state-detail articles; US 395 does. – TMF 00:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll echo Fredddie's concern. Since a state-detail article exists for the part of US 395 that connects to the Canadian route, it makes more sense to me to merge BC 395 there. – TMF 00:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, so we propose to merge it into US 395 in Washington --Admrboltz (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would prefer BC-395 be merged with the main highway article. Merging British Columbia 395 in with Washington 395 (a sub article) could lead to some confusion and perhaps cause some controversy with some overly-sensitive people. Though US-160 in NM was perhaps a bad example, there are several highway articles that have state detail articles for some states but not others, (Interstate 74 (Iowa) comes to mind). However before any merge is carried out, I think we should wait until some Canadian editors have chimed in, they might be aware of some issue us gringos may not be aware of. Dave (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see your point, but merging an article on a two-mile provincial highway with an article on a 1,300-mile route doesn't seem right to me. (I'm also somewhat against merging articles from different countries together, but that ship has already sailed.) – TMF 00:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That begs the question, what would we title the article Route 395 (U.S. and British Columbia)? Also, this has been done before, where? Dave (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merging BC 395 into US 395 in WA. The title can be left alone as the BC segment is relatively short and simply serves as a connector to US 395. Dough4872 01:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with US 395 in WA. --Rschen7754 05:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.

In pop culture....[edit]

This edit [2] introduced the infamous "in popular culture" section to this article. In this case I have two reasons for opposing this addition:

  1. These sections in general tend to be a crap magnet, and often lead to a downward spiral in the quality of an article
  2. This fact specifically, IMO, isn't noteworthy. US 395 does not play an integral part of the movie. In the case of BTTF, the US 395 signs are just props placed on the filming location. If the situation were more like, say Cars or Rain Man or The Stand, where specific highways are mentioned AND specific highways or features along highway corridors are an important element of the story, I would have a different opinion. However, that is not the case with Back to the Future, where highways have no significant part of the story. Am I alone in this opinion, or should this section go? Dave (talk) 15:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dave and I once discussed this in relation to US 8, since that MN–WI–MI highway is shown in Southern California. I tend to agree that the highway isn't significant enough to the movie. However, if other movies featured this highway, then it would be appropriate to include BTTF as part of a larger section. BTW, the source used is a WP:SPS and so it can't be used. A better option would be to rent the movie and find the time index for the scene that shows the signs and use the movie itself as the source. Imzadi 1979 → 20:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with these statements...the section can go. -- LJ ↗ 07:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Article and pictures from Spokane Washington newspaper....[edit]

Recently, the Spokesmen Review of Spokane Washington published a story and photos covering the route of the highway through town on present day Sunset Blvd. Here is the link: http://www.spokesman.com/picture-stories/three-flags-highway/ I enjoyed reading this entry for further information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.117.212.38 (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Include BC 395 in article[edit]

The BC 395 is just a 2 mile extension of the US 395 as mentioned in a previous discussion. I made a few edits emphasizing the connecting nature of the Highway, however they were reverted by User:SounderBruce. The BC 395 is not a does not constitute as a separate highway. There are articles where even highways with dissimilar names have been merged such as British Columbia Highway 15 and Washington State Route 543. I suggest the article treat BC 395 as an extension of the US 395 when referencing its terminus. Zacharycmango (talk) 03:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This merge has been proposed before, though I don't recall the arguments for and against. If you search the talk page archives you should find them. But I definitely remember having this debate before. Certainly I would support merging the two articles if BC 395 was threatened with deletion, simply to preserve the content. If I had to guess I would say that's likely why WA 543 were merged with a Canadian highway article. In general the problem with merging a US highway article with a Canadian highway article is different government agencies, different types of data available, different terminology etc. That doesn't mean the answer is always no, but it does present challenges.Dave (talk) 04:14, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now I feel dumb, the debate is just 3 paragraphs up. It does look like more people supported than opposed the merger. However, re-reading my comments above, my lone concern was that no Canadian editors had chimed in, only US editors. I stand by that. I would definitely ask some Canadian editors for their opinion, as they might be aware of issues we aren't. There are a couple of Canadian road editors that are active but not many.Dave (talk) 04:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh hey, I'm a Canadian editor with opinions. Short answer: no. Long answer: BC 395 and US 395, as inherently connected to each other as they are, are not the same highway. Does BC 97 redirect to US 97? No. Does BC 95 redirect to US 95? No. Does AB/BC 93 redirect to US 93? No. Keep it that way, or if you really enjoy a certain Wikipedia policy, redirect BC 395 to the list of BC highways article. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 05:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am a British Columbian editor, and I know that it is viewed as the same highway from experience. Zacharycmango (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits here and at US 97 incorrectly imply that the BC highways are the same as the US highways. The BC highways are separate entities that have the same number, no more than that. SounderBruce 04:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there was a seamless connection between the two highways, I would be more comfortable with a merge, but the Laurier–Cascade Border Crossing splits them. VC 13:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is reasonable. However, just like a toll booth wouldn't split a highway into two highways, a border crossing is only an obstacle and not really a bisector, considering how easy it is to cross as long as one has a passport from either country. Zacharycmango (talk) 23:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Crossing a border is not easy and not trivial by any means, speaking from experience. In fact, one cannot do it for 8 hours of the day at the Laurier/Cascade crossing; and for most of the 2020s it was closed to all but a handful of travelers. Merging the articles would cause extra confusion and maintenance burdens that we don't need, especially at this time. SounderBruce 23:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the vote is to merge, we have a "restrictions" section in the infobox that could be used to explain the border crossing is closed from 12 PM to 6 AM (or whatever it is). It wouldn't be all that dissimilar from California State Route 120, which is on average only passable 6 months per year, and is noted in the infobox. I don't have strong feelings either way. My inclination is to leave them as separate articles for now. However, if the notability of BC 395 is ever threatened, yeah, let's merge the article to preserve the content. However, I'm open to persuasive arguments to try to lure me into one camp or another.Dave (talk) 00:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of BC 395 is quite questionable. Almost every source talking about the route just mirrors a current or historical version of the short paragraph found on the Wikipedia article for BC 395. It seems like Wikipedia is the sole source of information on this road, other than in primary source government records. As a British Columbian, I was under the impression that the highway was just a connector that connects to BC 3 prior to reading the article. Zacharycmango (talk) 01:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a seperate highway by technicality only. It was specifically named the same number because of it's continuative and short nature. I believe the BC segment was built at the same time as the Washington state segment leading to the border. Zacharycmango (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a continuous roadway, but it is is not a continuous highway designation. US 395 ends at the border, full stop. From the opposite direction, BC Highway 395 also ents at the border, full stop. Neither designation continues across it, ergo, they are separate highways. Imzadi 1979 → 00:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a source of interest. The British Columbia Highway News website refers to BC 395 as a "short cross-border spur" and "a continuation of U.S. Route 395 in Washington State." Quite convincing that it is not in fact a separate highway. Zacharycmango (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That text is identical to the text on British Columbia Highway 395, one was surely copied from the other. Dave (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's ample precedent for combining articles from different jurisdictions, State Route 74 (New York–Vermont) comes to mind. However, where I see a problem in this case is one part of Highway 395 (USA-BC) is signed in miles, the other in Kilometers. Canada likely has a different method of computing AADT than the USA does, if they even use that term. Comparing construction costs would be a challenge. It's tough enough to account for inflation with USA articles, now throw in fluctuating currency conversions with that. It would be significantly harder to have a fully fleshed out article that doesn't read like it was two articles glued together than it would be for two merged US state highway articles. It's doable, but it would require an editor who is at least somewhat familiar with both systems of government. Dave (talk) 00:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The cost of construction for the spur would be so little in comparison to the entire highway it would only equate to a rounding error. The exchange rate does not fluctuate so much that the tiny value would have a significant impact on the total figure. Canada is facing the same inflation issue as the US. In regards to km vs mi, both routes already have both figures on their respective pages. I do not believe either article touches on AADT, so it is not a major concern. Zacharycmango (talk) 01:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The difficulty with inflation figures refers to adjusting historical costs (from decades ago) to today, not the current price inflation crisis; Canada and the U.S. do not have currencies pegged to each other, so there are noticeable differences that can throw off calculations. It's simply easier to keep things separate and link to the respective articles instead of tacking on a mention of BC 395 to an article about an already long highway. This talk page discussion is taking up valuable time that could be used to actually improve the article, and is a total waste of time. SounderBruce 01:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Almost every time I try to improve the article it is undone, so this discussion is not a waste of time at all. Zacharycmango (talk) 02:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The cost of the highway was not mentioned it the article, so I do not understand how currency differences are relevant. Zacharycmango (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Alaska Highway is one article despite spanning Canada and the US. There are border crossings on that too. The Pan American Highway is another example. These highways sometimes even have multiple number designations. Seamless connections are not required. Being in different political entities does not matter either.Zacharycmango (talk) 01:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Alaska Highway, and Pan American Highway, are named highways, unlike US/BC 395. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 03:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Building on Liliana's comment: those names cross the borders, while the US 395 designation does not. While the numerical portion of the designation may be shared across the border, the designation is not the same across it. Imzadi 1979 → 03:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course British Columbia is not going to call their segment of the highway United States Route. The problem is that their segment is so short it does not warrant a seperate article. In common usage, nearly no one calls it US route 395. People just call it Route 395. Technicalities like that are not the main concern. Zacharycmango (talk) 04:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this discussion has gotten accidentally and unnecessarily polarized. Some people seem to have thought that you were proposing a merged article. But really all you are proposing is minor variations in the wording used to describe the relationship between them. If it's only that, it needn't be so contentious, and there's room to find a good compromise, instead of thinking of it as all or nothing.
And the current wording, "becomes" seems like a great compromise to me. Is there anyone who has a problem with that wording? If so, what is wrong with it? And do you, Zacharycmango, have other hopes for further improvements that you want to build consensus for or get help with? Ccrrccrr (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ccrrccrr for clearing things up. Wording variations was indeed what I intended. I did not have the immediate intention to merge the two articles, although I'll admit that I think it's a good idea to consider in the future. I am happy with the current word "becomes." What I hope for is that when the terminus of the highway is mentioned, the article mentions that the road continues across the border for 2 miles to connect to BC Highway 3 right across the border. Currently, in some spots, the article is phrased to sound like the terminus is either a dead end or a connection to another full-fledged highway. Zacharycmango (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:U.S._Route_395&oldid=1201438201"