Talk:Interstate 759

Merge target

Template:Hmbox I think SR 759 can be reasonably merged into this article. It's a mile-long continuation of the same number. Any thoughts? –Fredddie™ 21:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support The History section states there are plans to extend I-759 east, presumably along SR 759, to reach US 278. SR 759 appears to be a temporary designation until that happens.  VC  22:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Makes sense. Dough4872 01:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support per nom and VC. – TMF 12:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support --Admrboltz (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interstate 759. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727134739/http://aldotgis.dot.state.al.us/milepostinternet/default.aspx to http://aldotgis.dot.state.al.us/milepostinternet/default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interstate 759. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071023041225/http://southeastroads.com/i-759_al.html to http://www.southeastroads.com/i-759_al.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 12 August 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 08:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

---

Interstate 759 → Template:No redirect – Both I-759 and SR 759 are covered in this article, but the article title is only for I-759. There should either be a separate section for it (like Arkansas Highway 530 is a section in the Interstate 530 article) or both routes should be in the title (like the Interstate 110 and State Route 110 (California) article) ChessEric 20:34, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think it's fine to just have the primary interstate route as the title. Interstate 540 (North Carolina) does the same thing. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think the extra mile or so of roadway justifies the un-WP:CONCISE title, especially since the signing for that small stretch is liable to revert to the current title name in the future anyway, WP:CRYSTAL notwithstanding. StonyBrook _babble 15:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per StonyBrook —⁠PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 18:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Alternate option

Is there a way to put both shields in the infobox? This was actually the other option I was thinking of, but forgot to mention. ChessEric 18:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

There should be. Looking at how the I-540 article does it, it appears a new custom road type is specified in Module:Road data/strings/USA/NC ("INC" – Interstate/state route). So, if this becomes the preferred option, it seems like it should be pretty simple to do something similar for Alabama and display both shields.

I agree it would be a good idea to display the AL 759 shield in the infobox, particularly since the map shows both distinct routes, so it's a bit confusing to just have the Interstate shield. I suppose it's possible that displaying both shields could raise some confusion as to whether the routes are concurrent, although the map and lead seem to clear that up. —⁠PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 18:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Looking at Interstate 540 (North Carolina), I agree with this. StonyBrook _babble 21:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. I had tried to do that, but it wouldn't let me; I assume it's because there has been no reason to do that for any other Alabama routes. ChessEric 02:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I see no harm in adding the info to the lede at least. I don't usually edit these kinds of articles, so I don't know how to help with the IB. StonyBrook _babble 03:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Since this seems to be uncontroversial regardless of the outcome of the RM, I have implemented this in the module and on the article. —⁠PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 00:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

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.