Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Road junction lists

message: I'm having a disagreement with another editor over the destinations that should be shown in road junction lists, with the edits occurring primarily in southern New England. I want to make sure that I'm interpreting the "Destinations" bullet in WP:RJL correctly. In my reading, we use the destinations that are shown on the signs in the field, and I interpret that to include what we can see on a Streetview-type application. It appears that the other editor wants to put in the ultimate destinations that the numbered highways lead to, often at the expense of what are actually signed. I've been attempting to engage with the editor about the guidelines, but with little success, and I haven't seen anyone else jump in. So, could someone take a look at the histories of some of the highway articles in question and offer some input? Examples abound; my most recent exchange with the editor is on Massachusetts Route 2A. I've invited the editor to join this discussion. --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion is better suited to WT:USRD, as it deals with application of the guidelines, not developing them, so I have reposted it there. --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  How firm are the destination guidelines? 

message: I disagree with the insertion of standard format road junction lists on articles for motorways in the UK, because I believe they would be more difficult to read compared to what was there previously (eg: compare the list on the M53 motorway with the recently changed one on the M56 motorway).
The benefit of British style lists is that they can work with sequential and distance-based junction numbers, and visualize destinations signed from the junctions along different classes of road, it is only relaying what drivers would see on the ground to keep it straightforward. RichardHC (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, the MOS-compliant version gives the reader some geographic context to where the road is located in addition to your reasons for keeping the British style. –Fredddie™ 23:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There are also accessibility concerns with the older style of tables. --Rschen7754 00:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

text: To this Yank's mind, the "British style" wastes a lot of space. The two widest columns in the table impart the same information. I understand that in a dual carriageway, sometimes the exits are not identical between the carriageways. However, IMHO that's spending a lot of space to cover a scenario that is the exception, not the norm. I've always had this opinion, but I've also mostly avoided debating the issue, as I accept there's likely a regional reason many UK Roads editors prefer that format. I strongly suspect that the "British style" originated from the old railroad timetables, common throughout the world when rail was the primary form of travel. The UK style bears both a functional and visual similarity to those timetables. I also suspect that older people might prefer this format, being used to them. However, assuming my origin thoery is correct, if you look at the old railroad timetables, the read up/read down columns were the arrival and departure times, not the destination columns. In that context ordering the data in a read up/read down format on a train table saved space, not wasted it. As such, I prefer the format that imparts more information in less space, which is the "American format" (for lack of a better word). Just my $.02, please take the opinion in the gracious spirit intended. Dave (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Moabdave: there are some older American roadgeek websites that have exit list tables with per-carriageway columns in their tables. They've typically used HTML to replicate the appearance of freeway guide signs complete with colored backgrounds. We're a few layers of translation and abstraction away from that in our presentation and supply much more information, like geographic locations, mileposts, more notes, etc. That content hasn't really caught on with the different websites though, and may of them out there don't include exit lists at all. I agree that the current RJL standard is far superior. Imzadi 1979 →  23:15, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If the difference between Wikipedia's coverage of a topic verses a fancruft website is "more information, less  graphically pleasing formatting", I would argue that's how it should be.Dave (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

text: I have converted the UK A14 to the standard format before realising there was a discussion on this. It is currently at sandboxA14 if could someone look and see if I've done it correctly before overwriting the existing junction list? (I have also posted this request to the A14 talk page but not had any response there.) Robertm25 (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Robertm25: looks good to me. Imzadi 1979 →  23:09, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

text: I would've cross-referenced the articles using , but it appears those junction tables are hard coded in some cases, so the answer I can give is "I'unno". It would be difficult to put into numbers. - Floydian τ ¢ 15:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep 'British style' junction lists! 

message: I remember there being a template for highway junction lists where one or more of the mile markers are missing. I tried to search for it on Google and found nothing. What is the template used? I want to add it to US Route 322.Bubby33 (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Bubby33: . Imzadi 1979 →  03:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing mile marker template