Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Road junction lists/Archive 4

message: There are a few templates floating around that are specific to this project... can someone more familiar with them add these to a "Templates" section of the project page? Thanks! I'm specifically looking for the "this exit list is nowhere near complete" template. —Rob (talk) 19:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the template you are referring to no longer exists, clean up tags have been moved to the talk page and incorporated into the project banner and/or to do list.  --Holderca1 20:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates specific to exit lists 

message: Does the exit list on Bundesautobahn 12 look good? I made it as a test of applying this to Europe. --NE2 10:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does Germany not have anything comparable to counties? Does 12 not pass through any municipal limits? —Scott5114↗ 05:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Europe 

message: See User talk:NE2#Exit lists and User talk:Imzadi1979#Exit lists for the introduction. Imzadi1979 claims that M-39 should use template:MIint. Now, ignoring what WP:MISH actually says - that freeways should follow the exit list guide - if MISH required use of the intersection template, would it override the exit list guide? --NE2 07:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now here is my thoughts.  Because M-39 is not a freeway for the entire route it should be using the intersection parts where it is not.  When it is a freeway it should use the exit list per the freeway setup but combined into one full list.  IE a row break to show that it is an expressway in parts and a freeway in other parts.   That means I consider it to use the MISH project definations.  A different route, M-6, should follow the freeway exit list since it is fully a freeway from start to finish.  So to make it more clearer, Exit Lists are for Freeways per California State Defination.  Intersection Lists are to be done per State Guidelines on non US Highway routes.  US Highways should be all the same wether its exit lists or intersection lists.  --Mihsfbstadium 08:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How would you put exit numbers in an intersection table made with Template:MIint? --NE2 10:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I said it should be setup as a merger IMHO.  Now does that form allow it not really but it does provide a basis for what should be included.  You just have to reset the number of rows if needed for the expressway/road for the intersections in the exit list table.  Its easier done than said hehe.  --Mihsfbstadium 17:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I can't make heads or tails of what you're saying, can you show me an example? --NE2 02:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay take the exit list designated and combine it with the setup of the intersection list.  All you should do is look at the info that the the intersection provides and split it into the rows that would be needed then reduce it down when you only need to do the exit list.  There is no example because I am trying to tell you how it should be handled for state routes.  Along with the fact there is very few state routes in michigan that have both freeway portions and/or local roads, expressway portions. --Mihsfbstadium 04:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't understand. Does template:MIint support an exit number column? --NE2 04:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not without having it not be the right format.  From what I gathered an exit list that offers the miles instead of exit number would work for the most part along with the colors and sutff I have missed after a quick glance.  For states outside of Michigan that is pretty much already accomplished and would require a mild merger of the column into one instead of mile and exit number.  --Mihsfbstadium 05:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still can't make sense of what you're saying; are you suggesting dropping the exit number column? --NE2 05:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Its pretty close, it would have miles for the intersections and exit numbers for the exit list.  The exit list is for the freeway portions only.  The intersection would be for all other parts of the route.  Then the color would be used in only the intersection portion.  The rest of it would have zero color.  It should be setup using the same columns for the two diffrent style of lists.  I dont have them memorized nor does it take too much effort to just look at each one and redo the column headings inside of the table for the freeway or non freeway portions.  I think doing US 31 in Michigan in this manner should help out a lot in seeing what it would look like.  Since it would go from freeway to intersection to freeway to intersection to freeway then to intersection style.  --Mihsfbstadium 20:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How much "wiggle room" does a state have? 

message: Unless text forms a complete sentence, do not put a period after it.
*I thought this was obvious, but the examples disagree. There's something similar in the MoS for image captions, but I can't find it right now. --NE2 05:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Periods only after sentences 

message: In the destinations column, shield images should all be to the left of the text.
*Personally, I think this looks cleaner; it's also necessary when a bannered route is included, so the banner can be aligned. --NE2 05:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  All shields on the left side 

message: In general, only information that appears on the main signs for the exit (in other words, not the ones saying "Foo Street / USE EXIT 14") should be listed. Exceptions include unsigned route numbers (which should be in parentheses) and possibly names of freeways and other major roads, especially if that road has an article.
*This should prevent disputes over what to list. --NE2 05:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only list what's signed 

message: In a simple case of a partial cloverleaf, where there is one exit for each direction, signed as "Bar Street east" and "Bar Street west", the two exits should be combined into one row, with a note in the notes column to the effect of "Signed as exits 5A (east) and 5B (west) northbound". If the exits are technically for two directions of the same road, but they are signed completely differently, it may make sense to use two rows if using only one would be significantly more complicated. If there are two exits that are combined in one direction but separated in the other, and serve two different roads, two rows should generally be used, unless it is felt that one would be simpler and still clear.
*This does match all the examples. Should we specify whether to use "5" or "5A-B" in the exit number column? --NE2 05:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fewer rows are better 

message: In general, proposed interchanges should not be listed, unless they will majorly change the road, and are definitely on track to completion, like the Pennsylvania Turnpike/Interstate 95 Interchange Project. If construction has started, the interchange should be included, but with a light gray background and a note in the notes column, making it clear that it is not open. A similar treatment should be used for former interchanges that have been permanently removed.
*This makes sense to me; we shouldn't be adding speculation. --NE2 05:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed interchanges 

message: Do not guess exit numbers for proposed exits or exits that, for whatever reason, lack numbers. Unless a reliable source (such as Cal-NExUS) has reported on what the exit number is, do not include it, even if it "makes sense".
*Obvious application of Wikipedia:no original research. --NE2 05:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No guessing exit numbers 

message: You should not mention in the exit list that two blocks away is the "medical corridor", or that the intersecting route travels north 27 miles to the only ferry across the Mississippi River. Leave this to the route description or the article on the existing route. Exceptions include former route numbers, especially when the route is not presently numbered. Think about whether the information helps the reader understand the exit list and route it describes or not.
*These usually "bloat" the table; an extreme example can be seen at . --NE2 05:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't mention tangential facts 

message: Please comment on each of these proposals, and whether, even if you don't think they should be actually added to the guideline as text, they should still be applied to the "best practice" examples. Thank you. --NE2 05:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conclusion 

message: Whoa... whoa... whoa... I almost tl;dred the above. But I got to thinking... do we really need the shields? Sure, they look nice, but they really are decoration. I've noticed a few exit lists with a note at the top saying "shields are used at junctions with other Interstates"; was this from a time when shields were being added? But I don't see where WP:FLAG applies, when its actual arguments are based around issues of nationality and which one to use. It should be noted that one of the above proposals that looks likely to pass will place all shields at the beginning of the row, so there won't we anything like  I-95 /  I-495, except possibly in the overlap colspans (which I disagree with). In other words, the shields are not sprinkled throughout the text; they are only in specific places within the exit list table. (If you need an example, see Interstate 35E (Minnesota); the only shields are in the infobox and the exit list.) To the highway editors: don't panic, guys; he may have come out of "left field", but it's not like he's saying we should delete the articles or anything. --NE2 06:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear, I never suggested that every single thing in WP:FLAG applies here; that would indeed be silly.  Please see the intro of WP:FLAG; it should be clear from context that the general advice (i.e. don't add icons to general article prose, don't add icons where they are not helpful, don't add icons simply for decoration purposes) are what's applicable. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 09:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm talking about the reasoning behind WP:FLAG, which seems to be in part based on the number of edit wars over which flag to use. I definitely agree that shields should not be used in prose; I don't believe anyone is suggesting that. Whether or not the shields in infoboxes and exit lists are purely decorative is not an easy question to answer, and the answer is probably "sometimes" or "maybe". When dealing with fair use, they definitely are decorative. But we can get around that if necessary with similar free images (). But the bar is much lower with nonfree content; here we're talking about whether putting shields at the beginning of the row helps the reader. I honestly don't know. Traffic engineers have found that it's better to use a shield than text, but that's at highway speeds, and is in place of, rather than with, the shield. (We need the text because there are articles about the roads to link to.) Shields are usually designed such that different types can be easily distinguished; on Interstate 80 in Ohio#Exit list you can look down and easily see which junctions are with Interstates (the red, white, and blue shield), probably more easily than without the shields. --NE2 10:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Moving the shields to the beginning of the row would be fine. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That does sound like an improvement to me. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 09:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shields

message: To assist those wanting to globalize this, I've put together a /Glossary. Hope this helps. —Scott5114↗ 22:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glossary 

message: I believe I've properly applied the changes discussed above to the examples, and in the special-case section. I've also changed the examples to remove the northeast U.S. (especially New York) bias. Please comment. --NE2 20:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is shading necessary for interchanges that aren't open? We have a notes column for that purpose. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes it a lot clearer that "something's up" with the exit, for instance exit 14A on Interstate 25 in Colorado, which was permanently closed. --NE2 20:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not buying that argument - someone could easily apply "something's up" to items such as concurrency termini. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really; those are standard junctions for which you don't need to know that the concurrency ends there to understand the list. There was no consensus above on whether colors should be prohibited for closed or future exits, so I changed the guide to reflect that lack of consensus (note "can be used", not "must be used"). --NE2 20:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't need shading to understand the list if the exit is labeled as closed, either. To me, it's clear this discussion will end up going in a circle, so I'll let someone else weigh in. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest I think shading a exit that is currently under construction is stupid.  It doesnt make sense.  Plus we have the notes column to do that for us as TMF has stated before.  --Mihsfbstadium 21:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes applied 

message: Should the size of the banner plates match the size of the shield width or not?  The issue I found using different widths is it also gives them different heights which in most cases is not noticed, but if they are side-by-side it is. 
:.  --Holderca1 20:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, usually US 90 would go first; the second spacer is only needed if there is more than one three-digit shield, or if a business state highway comes after. --NE2 21:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, we could make wide plates.  I've seen a few around.  That would also solve the problem.  I brought this up before, and there seemed to be no real objections; so if there are no objections, I'll try and get to them tonight: how about abbreviated "BUS" and "BYP" plates for these instances where it's tough to read them?  --MPD T / C 23:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The norm I've seen in the field was that the latter NE2 showed.  I don't believe there are any other ways used regularly. I follow the method NE2 shows master sonT - C 01:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banner plate sizes 

message: How about exit lists using sortable tables?  See Help:Sorting.  There are (usually) two directions in every highway, why not view the lists that way as well, say, for example, Interstate 80 in California, that the exits could be sorted from Nevada to San Francisco, in descending numerical order?  --Geopgeop (T) 08:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I recall correctly, this isn't possible due to the "rowspan=" attributes of the county and location columns. While the other columns will sort correctly, the county and location columns will be messed up. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 14:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it won't work unless we completely change the format. It's not worth it. --NE2 00:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sortable exit lists 

message: When Caltrans makes small realignments, like at , are all the postmiles north to the next county line adjusted? --NE2 05:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, only the realigned portion is adjusted. Then an equation is used at the point where the realignment ends. (I don't know about that particular instance, but this is the general rule.) --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the little bumps on SR 99 have equations afterwards, and the postmiles after the bumps are un-prefixed. So either the postmiles after the realignment were moved, or the postmiles do not accurately represent distance. --NE2 06:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: For further confirmation, see : "The milepost at a given location will remain the same year after year."] Unfortunately, either equations are not always established when short realignments are made, or the bridge log does not give all equations. --NE2 06:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But if we were adding the numbers for statewide mileage, we'd have similar problems. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I just realized that. --NE2 06:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: So then we're screwed, statewide mileage or no, unless we find another source. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah; I emailed Caltrans and asked if they have a list of all equations. --NE2 07:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: If the dual mileages display correctly, I don't see the issue with having both. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about postmiles