Talk:Partial cloverleaf interchange

message: I don't see what does the cloverstack have in common with a parclo, barring the fact that each incorporates parts of a cloverleaf interchange. If it doesn't deserve its own page, it would make more sense in the cloverleaf or stack interchange articles. Admiral Norton (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cloverstack 

message: I think it's a little strange to tag this for both HWY and CRWP/ONRD. The analogous situation in the US, Michigan left. That article is tagged for USRD but not  MSHP because while Michigan's highway department invented it, it has caught on in places in the rest of the country. If it has caught on internationally enough, it should be HWY only. I would argue that Parclos are sufficiently internationalized now that they aren't just a Ontario thing anymore, or even just a Canadian thing. That was my rationale for tagging it for the HWY parent project only. (On a side note, Michigan left is tagged for WP:MICH, and this article can be tagged by WP:ONTARIO.) I just don't think in a roads context though that either subject is particularized to just one province or state anymore. Imzadi 1979 → 02:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. In the case of the Michigan left, MDOT's predecessor is directly given credit by official sources as having invented the intersection type. MDOT also takes credit for it on their website. Newspaper articles typically describe it as invented in Michigan. I don't think the media does the same with the parclo though, making the MTO connection here slightly weaker. Imzadi 1979 → 02:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, and I have yet to find any official documents supporting the claim; only roadgeeks really. The Michigan left example makes sense though. I switched things back. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagging 

message: This is a terrible and biased article with few references.  It reads like as if it was written by a salesman.  This design does not allow better flow then a clover leaf, it allows an interchange to be built more cheaply where a clover leaf is not needed.  This kind of article should not be on wikipedia.  Find some sources for your work and write an unbiased article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.168.46 (talk) 10:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is a bad article, much due to material added to the article by someone who knew squat about interchanges.  A parclo cannot be used at the intersection of two freeways. Big difference between it and cloverleaf, stack, or turbine interchanges (or bastardized versions thereof). --66.41.154.0 (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrible and biased article. 

message: * A 4 ramp parclo needs to hande 3 conflicting directions on the crossstreet
* A 6 ramp parclo needs to hande 2 conflicting directions on the crossstreet, only
--Hans Haase (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capacity issue not handled by the article 

message: …are hybrid interchanges of cloverleafes and stack interchanges. They have freeflowing traffic, often free from weafing. They are interchanges and far away from intersections. --Hans Haase (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cloverstacks 

message: http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=13546 --NE2 20:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rest my laurels on Chris Beach's answer. I've wanted to cut that 'fact' out for some time. 4 years actually, if you look above. - Floydian τ ¢ 00:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's always permissable to request a source citation with a Template:cn tag, then come back later and remove the disputed statement if no one has supplied a source. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed 

message: http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/8/docs/designGuide/CH_7.pdf pages 15–22 --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 11:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Am I the only one to think that it is strange that folded diamond interchanges are covered in this article (with Folded diamond redirecting here) rather than at Diamond interchange, with which I think they have more in common? This kind of interchange is extremely common, heavily predates the parclo idea (as mentioned in the article), and lacks what I would call a central feature of the parclo idea: the absence of left-turns off the minor road. Just because folded diamonds are considered variants of the parclo rather than of the diamond in Ontario, why should we? 85.226.204.72 (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Folded diamond 

message: My bold edit was reverted, and AFD is apparently not the venue for this. I would like to redirect this article to interchange (road)#partial cloverleaf interchange. This article is almost entirely unsourced, and a list of examples. Here is what the article looks like when the lists of examples are removed.
While I will not argue that this topic is notable, I see no reason it shouldn't be covered in amongst other interchanges. - Floydian τ ¢ 02:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: since you undid the redirect, I'd like your opinion posted. - Floydian τ ¢ 16:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirecting to [[interchange (road)#partial cloverleaf interchange]] 

message: I don't see the point of section 3.4, as a parclo has loops and signalized lefts, and this has flyovers. As well, this is already covered at Interchange (road)#Combination interchange.
ClydeFranklin (talk) 00:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and removed the section per WP:SILENCE. However, feel free to revert that and discuss it here. CLYDE (TALK) @PING ME! 21:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the point of section 3.4?