Lets re-open this for discussion. The Interstate should be its own page since they are far more notable than state routes. Any other site that deals with interstates has a page for every route (http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-587_ny.html). Anyway here on WikiMadness, if you want to learn more about I-587, it is confusing to figure out where it is spoken about when confined to a few lines within the NY 28 article. There is no infobox and not much detail about the route. Wiki encourages you to be bold and take things on yourself, but then an admin who claims territory to some section just thinks they can go an revert your edits when it is clearly constructive without any malice to destroy the sight. Lets get some folk in here and discuss this thing opposed to being childish and trying to get our own way. Roll Tide. --Airtuna08 (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate-Guide is a fan site, not a reliable source. I-587 is a 1 mile interstate that is wholly concurrent with NY 28, which is 300 miles. Also, before you complain about WP:OWN, go complain about WP:BRD, which is a completely valid reason to revert you. You started the discussion, stop complaining. I-587 has no construction history to go with it, it is completely unsustainable as its own article. Mitch32^{(There is a destiny that makes us... family.)} 21:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source either. Try using it in a paper and your professor will laugh his ass off. It's a place where you should be able to type in a topic and see an article about it. Anyway, name me other interstates that do not have their own page? I know some have their respective state route included in the article (Interstate 4 for example), but the Interstate is the focal point of the article and not visa versa. Tell me how NY 28 is more notable than I-587? An interstate or a state route? Even several unsigned interstates (Interstate 595 (Maryland) has its own. It isn't lumped into US 50.) have their own artcle. It certainly has room to be a sustainable article. In any event, if people want to learn about the I-587 routing a simple page is much easier to read (with the infobox, etc.) than it being buried in a small section in a very large NY 28 article. --Airtuna08 (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily true in every circumstance - Interstate 305 for example. --Rschen7754 22:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't buy that. U.S. Route 8 passes through three states, which normally would mean that it would have state-detail articles. However, when about 250 of the 280 miles are in one state, and another only has 2 miles, that means the best way to cover the material isn't always the "normal rules". Interstate 296 was merged into U.S. Route 131 for a time, but since it's not wholly concurrent, it was demerged. In this case though, I-587 is just a part of NY 28 and does not need its own article.

As a side note, you may not like something, but to make this a case of "admins" vs. "everyone else" is disingenuous. TMF and Mitchazenia are not performing administrator actions by reverting your edits. Admins are just regular editors that have some additional tools and responsibility. When it comes to editorial disputes such as this, they can't wield "power" and "claim territory". You want additional comments, well here's mine: "it was fine as it was and should be left merged." Imzadi 1979 → 22:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In these kinds of situations, the question at hand can be reduced to "Will the reader have a better understanding with separate pages or one entry?". Sometimes, including more information about "x" would cause it to overstay its welcome in parent article "n", and splitting it up makes sense. However, here, information about I-587 is almost certainly better off situated within the context of NY 28. I-587 as a daughter article might simply confuse casual readers by overwhelming them with too many links. Additionally... you would need so much background info about the NY 28 corridor that the sub-article would overlap substantially with its parent. Juliancolton (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rschen, I said some unsigned routes have pages. Name me a signed interstate that doesn't have a page? Name one. Julian, if the reader wants to find out about I-587, which is an Interstate highway, how is it more complicated to read a smaller article on just that opposed to fishing for something on the NY 28 page. It isn't clear at all. Imzadi, anyone who has been around the block on Wikipedia knows admins think they own the site. It's a cult. --Airtuna08 (talk) 03:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can name one: Interstate 210 and State Route 210 (California). There, the articles are combined since they are essentially the same road. --Rschen7754 02:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again if you read my first comment, I mentioned that some Interstates are combined with their corresponding state routes, but the interstate is the focal point. In this article the interstate is merely a footnote. --Airtuna08 (talk) 03:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interstates are just state highways with a special marker, a number from a national grid and a set of minimum standards. When dealing with concurrencies, we do tend to follow DOT and other RSs that prioritize the Interstate number over another number by listing it first, but that status does not imply a difference in importance on its own. The I-587 designation is a footnote because we're talking about 1.21 miles out of 281 miles. That's 1.21 miles of wholly concurrent roadway along a 281-mile highway. What more do you want to say, without copying half of this article in terms of history? Imzadi 1979 → 03:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interstates are federally funded roadways that stand out on any map you read. For the most part, state routes just blend in. Use your common sense. I-587 is not the only interstate that is wholly concurrent with state or US route, but each of those have their own page. --Airtuna08 (talk) 03:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The tweaks Imzadi has made is a good step in the right direction should I-587 ultimately not get its own article. However, I'd go a step further and call the section Interstate 587 opposed to Realignments to give it the justice it deserves. --Airtuna08 (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]