Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Road junction lists/Archive 2

message: If I had to choose, I'd say User:MPD01605/sandbox2#No. 6 is the best proposal I've seen so far. Only three things spark a match in my mind: the bolded numbers (yuck), the mile column (read: I know what we're doing, combining the mileposts and the exit, but please use #Mile as the column header so users from the sequential-exit states, New York included, know what's going on) and the notice that the exit sequence is changing. Since this rarely happens in New York, I don't know how important the change in exit numbers actually is, but I'm not going to scream bloody murder over its inclusion. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On Interstates is where I'm concerned about exit numbers changing.  In New York where this happens, as far as I can see, is I-87/287 north of the City, where I-287 westbound goes "...3, 2, 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12...".  Not the best example in the country, but still worthy of a note that things are different.  But there can always be exceptions, and I-287 might be the best exception for that, since its "first" exit in New York is after its eastern split with I-87...the short spurs, I'm not too worried about.  It's the longer routes- I-64, I-77, I-40, I-75, etc- that I think that is more important for.  But hold up; we're combining the exit and milepost numbers?  Where did I miss this?  I don't think that was ever an option.  The option was to not use the milepost column if we didn't want, which I later said "if we have the mileposts, go ahead and add them."  And Polaron said "Don't go tagging exit lists as noncompliant if they're missing mileposts."  The column is fine if you have the numbers for them.  --MPD T / C 22:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit myself: After re-reading, I got it.  Haha man, what a day.  I understand what you're saying TMF.  Yeah, ok that's fine. :) --MPD T / C 22:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary section break

message: How should concurrency termini be formatted?  In the notes column, or a multi-column row, or a mix depending on the type of concurrency?  If a multi-column row, specify which columns it should span.
*Notes column for all concurrencies except ones where the exit numbers change, in which case multi-column row spanning only destinations and columns. -- NORTH talk 00:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll

message: Notes column or multi-column row? Multi-column row breaks the table up too much; notes column hides the information too much. -- NORTH talk 07:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What if we got rid of the ! and just centered and bolded the multi-column row?  It would blend more with the table.  --MPD T / C 08:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did that with the Capital Beltway where I-95 joins.  It looks cleaner than it used to. --MPD T / C 16:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Post-poll discussion

message: I originally said that I'd prefer to keep the section breaks out of the table and restart the table for each state.  However, upon further review of Interstate 26 and Interstate 295 (Delaware-New Jersey), putting the section headers in the table does look really clean.  I think my only problem with it is that it seems sort of hackish to put section breaks in the table, but it's definitely worth it. -- NORTH talk 20:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems really hackish. It is sort of clean, but I'm also wondering why the section headers are centered - I'm not looking there for section headers normally. I prefer separate sections for all, like Interstate 255. —Rob (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I personally prefer the "one" table (using the "hackish" setup) so that the respective columns in each table are the same width. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with TMF.  To Rob, the section headers are centered because they are preceded by a !, which automatically bolds and centers.  --Holderca1 19:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *I'm okay with this. —Rob (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *That looks fine.  But I think we should wait until the poll is over before going into an all-out discussion on it right now. --MPD T / C 03:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Hee, breaking my own "no threaded discussion in the poll section" rule.  I agree that it's hackish and whatnot, but surprisingly I too was unable to find anything in either Wikipedia:Manual of Style or Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings) that this violates. -- NORTH talk 00:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You could always make the table, then add the sections afterward.  But how many Interstates will we have more than one section?  Only 2dis (and Interstate 5...) really...so it's not that big of a deal.  Even then the only one that will have more than 2 states is what...I-275?  So the tables aren't so long that they need seperate sections for states, right?  The multi-column row that looks like a section header is fine with me.  Does the same thing.  --MPD T / C 08:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Making the table and adding the break afterwards only works the first time.  If I want to edit a list that's already been made, and I do it by clicking a state section break, I'm up a creek without a paddle.  Any multi-column row is fine with me, but one that's a little more normal would clean up some minor issues – like on I-295, is there really a reason for the state line and the Del Mem Br to be in two separate cells?  No, but it doesn't look right as one cell if you use section-break-y formatting. -- NORTH talk 08:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  Maybe just an "Enter Delaware (Southbound) - Enter New Jersey (Northbound)" under "Del Mem Br" would work (similar to now).  Or as a separate row.  That would be perfectly fine.  But as TMF mentioned at one point, it should be multi-directional- thus the southbound/northbound notes.  I'm actually really flexible on this right now.  --MPD T / C 08:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Northbound/southbound wouldn't be necessary there, since you could just say "New Jersey/Delaware state line".  Take a look at My new #4 (still has bold exit numbers, cuz I'm too lazy to change them).  However, it's not exactly clear there that it starts in Delaware.  We could tweak that, but that's one of the reasons I'd prefer a section break outside the table. -- NORTH talk 08:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just changed it to "!colspan=6|Virginia" and Maryland on the Capital Beltway.  That looks not too shabby in my eyes.  --MPD T / C 16:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: State lines

message: How should we format state lines? Section break in the table, section break outside the table, or a regular multi-column row?
*Section break in the table. It's hackish, but it looks a lot cleaner than the other options. -- NORTH talk 00:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm okay with this. —Rob (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *That looks fine.  But I think we should wait until the poll is over before going into an all-out discussion on it right now. --MPD T / C 03:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hee, breaking my own "no threaded discussion in the poll section" rule.  I agree that it's hackish and whatnot, but surprisingly I too was unable to find anything in either Wikipedia:Manual of Style or Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings) that this violates. -- NORTH talk 00:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll

message: NE2 makes a good point, that if you try to edit a section in the exit list using a section break in the table, it's impossible to preview the table – which is important with all the formatting that can go haywire with tables.  Thus I change my opinion to section break outside the table, but a regular multi-column row is still fine with me. -- NORTH talk 07:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could always make the table, then add the sections afterward.  But how many Interstates will we have more than one section?  Only 2dis (and Interstate 5...) really...so it's not that big of a deal.  Even then the only one that will have more than 2 states is what...I-275?  So the tables aren't so long that they need seperate sections for states, right?  The multi-column row that looks like a section header is fine with me.  Does the same thing.  --MPD T / C 08:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Making the table and adding the break afterwards only works the first time.  If I want to edit a list that's already been made, and I do it by clicking a state section break, I'm up a creek without a paddle.  Any multi-column row is fine with me, but one that's a little more normal would clean up some minor issues – like on I-295, is there really a reason for the state line and the Del Mem Br to be in two separate cells?  No, but it doesn't look right as one cell if you use section-break-y formatting. -- NORTH talk 08:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  Maybe just an "Enter Delaware (Southbound) - Enter New Jersey (Northbound)" under "Del Mem Br" would work (similar to now).  Or as a separate row.  That would be perfectly fine.  But as TMF mentioned at one point, it should be multi-directional- thus the southbound/northbound notes.  I'm actually really flexible on this right now.  --MPD T / C 08:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Northbound/southbound wouldn't be necessary there, since you could just say "New Jersey/Delaware state line".  Take a look at My new #4 (still has bold exit numbers, cuz I'm too lazy to change them).  However, it's not exactly clear there that it starts in Delaware.  We could tweak that, but that's one of the reasons I'd prefer a section break outside the table. -- NORTH talk 08:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just changed it to "!colspan=6|Virginia" and Maryland on the Capital Beltway.  That looks not too shabby in my eyes.  --MPD T / C 16:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Post-poll discussion

message: Should the county column be optional on single-county routes?  The milepost column is already optional where higher accuracy mileposts are not available.
*Support. -- NORTH talk 00:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll

message: To be honest, I just don't see the point of having a county column for single-county routes, or of including an empty mile column when we don't have the information yet. -- NORTH talk 07:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or an empty exit number column as well for freeways with no exit numbers.  A table with blacks look incomplete rather than getting the point across that there are no exit numbers.  --Holderca1 12:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the exit list for Texas State Highway 151 a ways back and didn't include all of the columns.  It is located in one county, entirely within one city, has no mileposts, has no exit numbers.  I think adding those all in wouldn't really give anything to the reader other than thinking the table looks terrible.  --Holderca1 12:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Post-poll discussion