Talk:Interstate 494#Merger

I see someone added a cleanup tag. I suppose some cleanup can be done, but I'd rather not see someone try to add six headings (to make a normally-formatted Interstate article) to something that only has about five paragraphs. —Mulad (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The article says:

This is apparently the only interstate highway loop in the United States that has separately-numbered sections (the Twin Cities region also has an east/west-split in Interstate 35, similar to the Dallas/Fort-Worth area).

{{Archive top|result = Merger completed. --Admrboltz (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)}}

Proposing to merge 494 Corridor Commission into this article. --Admrboltz (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support as nom. --Admrboltz (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I'm not convinced that the organization meets the criteria/has the sourcing for a non-stub standalone article, but might be worth mentioning at the route's article. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with Kinu's statement. –Fredddie™ 04:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Kinu. – TMF 12:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support - No reason why organization needs its own article when it can be mentioned here. Dough4872 17:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support for all the reasons given above, and suggest that there's consensus for closure and implementation. Imzadi 1979 → 01:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

{{Archive bottom}}

Now that the article on the 494 Corridor Commission has been merged into this one, the logo of the organization has a non-free rationale that technically no longer applies. Personally, I feel that this logo is extraneous and doesn't meet the WP:FAIRUSE rationale (i.e., it isn't necessary for the reader's understanding of the topic), but it might be worth discussing here before having it removed and/or taken to WP:FFD. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

:I have removed it, as I agree with you and have nominated it for relative-speedy deletion. --Admrboltz (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The article makes it sound like Interstates 494 and 694 are part of the same thing. In the eyes of many Twin Cities Minnesotans, they are. Broadly, the two aren't quite the same thing. 494 covers the West, Southwest, and Southeast Suburbs, and unlike interstates 35 W & E, does not stretch down to Burnsville. It's coupled with I-694, which covers the Northwest, North Central, and Northeast suburbs of the metro. It covers more of Saint Paul's suburbs, whereas, conversely, 494 covers the bulk of Minneapolis Suburbs. Yet the two interstates form the suburban beltway of the Twin Cities area, and both are equally integral to urban-suburban traffic flows, and the infrastructure of the metro itself. It may sound obtuse to some persons, yet you could merge the two interstates into a broader page on the Twin Cities I-494 & I-694 suburban beltway. 141.224.85.231 (talk) 03:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Should the terminuses here be flipped and instead say "Counterclockwise end" and "Clockwise end"? Cause doing that make it consistent with the exit number list. Especially since this is part of a beltway. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)