Talk:Intersection (road)

message: I think these are actually the same kind of interchange... GCarty 12:57, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also called a windmill. None of them seems to have more than a few google matches, so unless someone can show evidence of official usage of the term, I removed the terms (and removed turbine, since it's covered in stack). --SPUI 22:05, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turbine vs. whirlpool 

message: A lot of articles use interchange, but highway interchange is now a separate article. If people were smart and used redirects, we wouldn't have this problem. --SPUI (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but sometimes if a wikilink links to a redirect, a bot comes along and changes the link to link to the target article instead. However, now that template messages for redirect pages  are now working, some use could be made of the  template. Ae-a 19:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Links here need to be fixed

message: To me it is not clear what was gained by removing almost all content form this article. Much of it was not specific to motorways (where it was moved). In many cities also ordinary roads have all kinds of constructions to separate traffic. It's really not an improvement. We should either bring it back or merge the articles under a more general name. What was wrong with Road junction? −Woodstone 19:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article was originally split into road junction (this article) and motorway junction but the articles have since been renamed Intersection (road) (this article) and Interchange (road). These two titles better reflect the two types of road-junction, and the material that has been moved is now in interchange (road) which with it's new title does not imply that road interchanges only belong to motorways. Since your comment, the article has been tidied up, but could still benefit from more material about road intercections (not road interchanges). Even so, now that the article is split, it makes it easier to link the two articles with articles in other languages. See also junction (traffic). Ae-a 18:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've expanded this article, adding a diagram of an example intersection and three new sections.  H Padleckas 00:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing almost all content bad idea 

message: This article is largely written from the perspective of jurisdictions where vehicles are driven on the right. It should probably be rewritten in a more inclusive way.
The "Turn lanes" section doesn't really go into the fact that right turn lanes/bays can exist on right-hand drive roads.
Also, the caption doesn't make it clear (except by implication) which street is "North-South" and which is "East-West".
--Chaswmsday (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your edits to the "Turn lanes" section, Triskele Jim! That section is vastly improved now, with verbiage I never would have thought to use. I'm glad I left it for someone who is more of an expert than I, since I would have just blundered through! --Chaswmsday (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largely written from [[right- and left-hand traffic|drive on the right]] perspective; Other turn lane 

message: See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#Right-of-way prose is scattered. --Chaswmsday (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Right-of-way prose is scattered 

message: Prior to the most recent edit, the lede of this article was confusing, and introduced terms which should have been linked, but were not. Some of these terms circularly point back to this article. 
The most recent edit removed the term "at-grade", which distinguishes an intersection from the other type of road junction, a grade-separated interchange. It also adds the ambiguous term, "conflicting traffic" (cf. traffic conflict), and over-elevates a specific type of traffic control, the "four-way stop".
Many of the specific terms used in the lede would seem to more properly belong in the body.
I'll attempt to improve/clarify. Please let me know if I have, in fact, done that. Thanks. --Chaswmsday (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with lede 

message: This article is irrelevant as to railways, see Talk:At-grade#Inappropriate redirect. Peter Horn User talk 17:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: In just over three years this anomaly has not been addressed. Peter Horn User talk 22:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant article 

message: A similar merge proposal was made about 10 years ago but was rejected because the proposal included interchanges. This is a more general topic and the two terms (junction and intersection) are synonymous - the difference being which side of the ocean one lives on. Verne Equinox (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Support merge, given the extent of overlap. Any differences (perhaps amongst countries) can be discussed on the combined page. Klbrain (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Withdrawing support and closing, given that there isn't a consensus for a merge and there have been reasonable objections raised. Klbrain (talk) 10:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal