Talk:Nevada State Route 794

Merge

No. They are separate roads, and SR 289 is not entirely signed as Interstate 80 Business (which is where Interstate 80 Business currently redirects to). Which probably should be remedied... say, now. Famartin (talk) 08:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 01 December 2014

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 10:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

---

Nevada State Route 794 → Interstate 80 Business (Winnemucca, Nevada) – SR 794 is completely part of BL 80. – Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 09:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Famartin (talk) 10:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: Unlike the move I am just now requesting (SR 535 to BL 80 in Elko), BL 80 in Winnemucca is signed along three separate state highways. Famartin (talk) 10:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: I do not believe the Nevada I-80 business loops should have their own articles, and should be summarized at Business routes of Interstate 80 instead of keeping some at separate articles and others elsewhere. -- LJ ↗ 10:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
• Suggested counter-proposal: I would support the move, if the BL 80 article remained as is (given that SR 794 is concurent with BL 80 for its entire length). However, this page should be redirected to an appropriate section of the "Business routes of Interstate 80" page. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 10:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - If all of NV 794 is part of BL 80, then it should be covered with BL 80 whether it be a standalone article or as part of a RCS list. Dough4872 01:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This is where it gets murky and why I think it shouldn't be moved... NDOT doesn't officially recognize the Business Loops (even though it asked for them). Only SR's are listed or referred to in the state diagrams, maps, documents, press releases, construction notices, etc. BL's are only signed for business/tourism purposes. This might be simpler if NDOT allowed SR's to be signed on non-NDOT maintained roads, but NDOT forbids it; if its not NDOT maintained, its not an SR and is not signed as such. Hence the odd disconnects of certain urban routes elsewhere.Famartin (talk) 02:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.