Talk:M-39 (Michigan highway)/Archive 1

Untitled

RE: "Until the Michigan Department of Transportation's deemphasization of the use of proper names for Detroit's Interstates, locals referred to most Metro Detroit freeways by name rather than by number."

That may be so, but as far as I'm concerned, no one seems to care. M-39, M-8, M-3, M-10, M-108, M-17...these only effectively exist on maps. Pretty much all Metro Detroiters never use the numbers to refer to the road. Interstates 94, 96, 75, and 696 are regularly called by their numbers as well as by their proper names, but the Southfield is "The Southfield".

Ypsidan 03:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exits

Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) or anyone else with access to proper resources: Schoolcraft and Plymouth appear to have originally been built as complete exits, with both cut in half after I-96 was completed. (soure) I have a 1976 MDOT map confirming the original layouts, but a 1977 one confirming the aftermath is presumably needed, as this is something I feel should be noted in the exit list. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Such a trivial detail is probably not worth including in the article at all. Imzadi 1979 → 04:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Imzadi1979: If complete removal of an interchange is notable, then why not partial removal? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop pinging me places I've already replied. (I have all of the talk pages of all of the highways in Michigan on my watch list, and they've been there since 2007.)

Now, such a change is trivial because we're dealing with two half interchanges that together act as a full interchange. The ramps would have been removed to construct the ramps for the I-96 interchange. As for this emphasis on the exit lists, I consider that section of the article to be the least-important content of all. In fact, I don't even thing the FAC reviewers typically deal with the table at all in reviewing articles I've nominated there. Instead, we should be putting our energies on the prose content of the RD and history sections, adding memorial highway or historic bridge sections where warranted, polishing the formatting to a professional level. These minor details about exit configurations, past and present, are really so minor they're to the end of the priority list. We need to ensure that the notes are concise and accurate in case readers are using the exit lists for navigation, and former exits are a form of history that's appropriate to include. Beyond that, it's all trivia. Imzadi 1979 → 05:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]