Open main menu
WikiProject Manual of Style
This page falls within the scope of WikiProject Manual of Style, a drive to identify and address contradictions and redundancies, improve language, and coordinate the pages that form the MoS guidelines.

Kenai Spur HighwayEdit

I brought up some issues on the talk page quite some time ago but never got any reply. The main thing being that several of the listed “major intersections” aren’t really major and the one at the terminus may not exist at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Temporary closuresEdit

Exits that are temporarily closed should in Template:Jctbtm not have the same color as those that are closed permanently. They could be given an orange tint, as that color has not been used yet. OhioRoadSigns (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@OhioRoadSigns: do you have a specific article about which you mean? In any case, the orange color is reserved for intersections that unopened/under construction, and the gray color is used for closed/former intersections. Imzadi 1979  13:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
We really shouldn't be covering temporary closures with any specificity, especially not in junction lists. If you must, speaking in generalities in prose is best. –Fredddie 05:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Highway 2 (Israel)#RFC: Which table should be used Edit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Highway 2 (Israel)#RFC: Which table should be used . The RFC concerns the implementation of MOS:RJL Gonnym (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


Gonnym and I are having a discussion and the idea came up to use tooltips in the RJL mile and kilometer abbreviations. So I'm here to ask if that's something we could/should do. –Fredddie 06:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)




Just to be clear, the use of Template:Abbr follows the guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Text and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Acronyms. Television templates such as Template:Episode table and Template:Infobox television episode use it when writing No.. --Gonnym (talk) 06:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Okay, sure. --Rschen7754 07:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Works for me. Imzadi 1979  12:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I like it. Just curious, is this for the "cool factor" or has someone actually complained that mi and km are not obvious abbreviations? Dave (talk) 13:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
    • The idea is that it may be obvious for us doesn't mean it will be obvious for everyone. –Fredddie 18:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I think the tooltips are a great idea for readers who don't understand what the abbreviations "mi" and "km" mean. Dough4872 21:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't see a reason not to implement this. LJ  14:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Exit terminology when an exit is only on one directionEdit

The Interstate 75 in Georgia article (I'm using this as an example) is inconsistent on how it describes exits that are on only one direction. It sometimes says "Northbound exit only"; sometimes it says "Northbound exit and southbound entrance"; sometimes it says "No northbound exit". (For clarification, these phrases also have the variants where the words ending in "bound" are replaced by their opposite meaning; both variants apply.) This is ridiculous because exit lists are supposed to be about exits, not entrances. Any thoughts?? (Please apply whatever changes there are to all Wikipedia articles with highway exit lists.) Georgia guy (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

The three examples have different meanings. To wit:
  • "Northbound exit only" means at that interchange, only northbound traffic may exit. Northbound traffic may not enter, and southbound traffic may not enter nor exit.
  • "Northbound exit and southbound entrance" means at that interchange, only northbound traffic may exit, and only southbound traffic may enter. Southbound traffic may not exit, and northbound traffic may not enter.
  • "No northbound exit" means at that interchange, of the four possible options, only one is missing. Northbound traffic may not exit, but it can enter the freeway. Southbound traffic is not restricted; it can enter and exit.
In short, the notes exist in these formats because the succinctly state the access restrictions. As for meaning, exit lists cover the interchanges. That means covering entrance restrictions as well as exit restrictions. Imzadi 1979  02:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
But the lists are exit lists, not exit and entrance lists. Georgia guy (talk) 11:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
They are all examples of incomplete interchanges (thus highlighted in pink), the notes provide additional information why it is incomplete. --WashuOtaku (talk) 11:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
They're technically junction lists, as implied by the title of this MoS guideline, and junctions necessarily include entrance ramps when present. The exit list nomenclature comes from Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Standards#Major_intersections_or_Exit_list. According to that guideline, since Interstate 75 only has grade-separated interchanges, the section is titled "Exit list". -happy5214 13:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Has anyone proposed changing the guideline so that it can say "Exit and entrance list"?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
No, because that's ridiculous. –Fredddie 14:44, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Why?? It's a more accurate description of the list if it's a list of both exits and entrances, right?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
It's incredibly pedantic. This has been part of the MoS for over 10 years and I cannot recall any time when an article goes through FAC that it was tripped up because the section was titled "exit list" and not "exit and entrance list". –Fredddie 14:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
That's because everyone perceived it as a list of exits only, and nobody bothered to notice that it was in fact a list of exits and entrances. Georgia guy (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I think in all this time, most users/readers have not bothered to dwell on the section header other than distinguishing between a junction list (on non-freeways) or exit list (on freeways). You're being really pedantic here, as I think the intent is understood by most readers. If you insist on pushing this point, at least advocate for something more palatable like "Interchange list". LJ  18:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps "interchange list" will do. Georgia guy (talk) 18:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
"Junction list" is used elsewhere. –Fredddie 23:07, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Interchange design encouraged in Notes columnEdit

Copied from Talk:U.S. Route 24 in Ohio#Showing interchange types in the "major intersections" table.

@User:Imzadi1979 has twice reverted my edits showing interchange type for each grade-separated junction in the "major intersections" table. They argue that such information is "not needed for a generalist audience". We've had a similar discussion earlier, where they seemed OK with a bare reference to "interchange", just not the type. In fact, as this highway has different characteristics along its length, I also included "intersection" for each row that qualifies. They seemingly inconsistently were not bothered by this, as they did not remove those facts. I return to my earlier arguments: 1) The information is correct, 2) A generalist reader can see the words "SomeTypeOf interchange" and ignore it, 3) An interested reader might follow the link, or hover over it, if supported by browser and 4) WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid, policy-based reason not to include non-trivial information about an article. --Chaswmsday (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't like them either, but I'm not going to remove them; nor do I like the "intersection" notes. All too often, our notes columns get bogged down by people (generally speaking, I'm not calling you out Chaswmsday) feeling the need to add every single nugget of information they can find. When that happens, the destinations column, which IMHO is the most important column in the table, gets squeezed to about 10% of the table while the notes column takes up 40%. So let me be clear; I don't hate these "notes", but they would be better off as prose in the all-but absent RD. –Fredddie 03:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Freddie, thanks for having a civil discussion with me instead of just reverting. I consider intersection type an important fact about a junction, not a random "nugget". In fact, MOS:RJL specifically calls for the "design of an interchange" to be included as part of an interchange row's Notes. I'm not sure what you mean by 10% vs 40%. Visually on a mobile device? Visually on all devices? Amount of markup code devoted to a note vs to destinations?
Nonetheless, I have no issue covering such info under the Route description only. However, @Imzadi1979: does. Under Interstate 675 (Ohio), during a recent string of edits of this very type I was making to the RD, they added this snidely-worded comment: "note to editors: don't write this section as a regurgitation of the exit list. That style of writing is quite yawn-inducing for general readers. Instead, give them a sense of where the highway goes and what a driver would see along the way." I personally don't care for this type of prose, finding it often overly WP:FLOWERY, but I wouldn't remove it unless it's inaccurate or blatantly crosses the line into boosterism. Imzadi1979's comment was added just below a 2013 "expand the section" comment urging moving prose from Notes to the RD.
Imzadi1979, in this (US 24 in Ohio) article, seems to have no problem leaving standing a recently-added (as of this date) image with the caption "Part of the new 'Fort to Port' US 24 freeway in Ohio". The word "new" violates the MOS section "Relative time references"; while "Fort to Port" is a term undefined within the article. Yet not a peep.
So, between the catch-22 of following MOS guidelines or face being selectively reverted, then trolled by un-WP:CIVIL comments on Imzadi1979's part, I cannot assume good faith. Again, not directed specifically at you Freddie, mostly to Imzadi1979. --Chaswmsday (talk) 21:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
@Chaswmsday: three quick points are in order here. MOS:RJL doesn't require the notes to include the interchange type. It offers some suggestions for additional information in list in the notes, but nowhere does it use a "shall" signal to require any of them.
The second is that the RD section needs to describe the route of a highway. There is a lot more to the route of a highway than its interchanges. In fact, I'd say most of a freeway's length is not contained within the interchanges. Where the road goes, what it passes, and the directions it takes to get there are all integral to the route.
Following the second point, keep the description objective, and you won't have to worry about WP:FLOWERY. That guideline has to do with biased writing and using Wikipedia's voice to make claims. It would be against the guideline to call a highway segment "scenic", but it isn't puffery to say it has a scenic highway designation. Imzadi 1979  05:27, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

End Copy.

Despite this earlier discussion, Imzadi1979 is once again reverting interchange types, shown in these diffs: Interstate 196 & U.S. Route 131, now calling the information an "esoteric detail".

A plain reading of this MOS shows it strongly encourages including "the design of an interchange" in the Notes column. It even holds up Kwinana Freeway, which is replete with such table prose, as an exemplar of a table written to standards.

Accordingly, I will continue to revert any such reversions.--Chaswmsday (talk) 07:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

And now, these diffs: Interstate 196 & U.S. Route 131 by Imzadi1979, "other interchange types are not indicated, so yes, it's an esoteric and unneeded detail".

So, I'm trying to capture that this very rare (and IMHO notable), not formally named, interchange type exists on these roads AND to create a reciprocal link back to Interchange (road), where these very roads are specifically mentioned, but that's all supposedly "esoteric"? And now it's incumbent on me to cure any and all deficiencies in the affected pages?? OK, I'll play your game.--Chaswmsday (talk) 12:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

It looks like you're trying to include links to "hybrid interchange". Reading the section on interchange (road)#hybrid interchanges, it is not a specific interchange type but rather noting that blends of different interchange types may be used. To me, that isn't inherently notable such that you'd link to hybrid interchange in the notes column of the junction list. I can understand mentioning if the interchange is of a specific design, such as a diverging diamond or turbine—but there isn't a specific design associated with "hybrid interchange", so I think including it can be misleading or confusing to the reader. (Disclosure: I don't necessarily like listing interchange types myself, but don't necessarily actively remove them from articles either.) LJ  14:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I've had issues with "hybrid interchange" as well, as it doesn't reflect a type recognized by other sources. It all feels so much like original research to me.

As for the continued insertion of interchange types into exit list tables, a reply I typed out last week that apparently didn't save here, noted that the guideline text itself says of the notes column that it includes "[a]ny additional notes about the interchange or terminus, such as the design of an interchange, special circumstances such as missing ramps, concurrency termini, opening date, or additional locations that do not merit inclusion in 'Destinations'." Furthermore, of the seven examples tables, only one lists interchange types. That hardly seems to be that MOS:RJL "strongly encourages" anything of the sort, just that it offers it as possible content to be included. If it were mandated, the guideline would use stronger language, such as "the notes shall include the design of an interchange", and if it were encouraged, but optional, "the notes should include the design of an interchange". Imzadi 1979  20:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I find that saying "interchange" can be useful if it's a road that alternates between intersections and interchanges (for instance, U.S. Route 24 in Michigan has a couple cloverleaf exits with crossroads but is largely a divided highway otherwise). The verbiage to me suggests that interchange descriptors are encouraged if the exit follows a nonstandard design that requires clarification as to what ramp goes where, such as US-31/I-96/Hile Road/Airline Road or I-96/I-275/M-5; or if the exit does not provide access in all directions or only provides indirect access. If it's just a basic diamond on a rural freeway, then that doesn't need to be clarified. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 21:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Starting a new sub-thread for this: but what is the consensus on exit numbers for intersecting highways in the RJL? There's several IPs who keep re-adding them to Washington articles when they are wholly unnecessary (especially in the case of an exit 0 at a highway terminus). It's not exactly easy to cite and only saves a fraction of time compared to pointing users towards the appropriate article (already linked in the destination column). SounderBruce 21:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Imzadi1979#U.S. Route 131

Looks like Chaswmsday (talk · contribs) has been unnecessarily re-adding exit types to U.S. Route 131. I fixed this again. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 20:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
@TenPoundHammer: please see WT:RJL. I agree that they're not needed. Imzadi 1979  20:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

End copy.

In the future, please remember that WP:Etiquette and WP:Talk page guidelines would have editors make pertinent comments such as those I've copied and italicized, either here or on the talk page of the article in question, not on your User Talk page.--Chaswmsday (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Note that MOS:RJL *is* a guideline, not a policy; "shall" and "should" are thus scarce within it. If one were to give this guideline *that* strict a reading, the "standard columns" verbiage doesn't *explicitly* state that mileage/kilometerage "should" be included; however *not* to do so would not be reasonable.

Also note, that among the example tables included in this guideline, the "only one" (quoted from Imzadi1979) that lists interchange types is in fact a Featured article, not some average, run-of-the-mill WP road article.--Chaswmsday (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

RFC about interchange typesEdit

Copied back to Talk:U.S. Route 131

  • Procedural points: (Summoned by bot) It truly was pretty inappropriate to have moved this discussion here without the assent of the author(s). Basically said editors availed themselves of the appropriate community process for deciding a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS issue on a particular article, and then that proposal was moved here (awakwardly and with with !votes already lodged), where the proposal has an entirely different scope and context than that which was intended in the initial instance. This is doubly problematic in this case, as we are talking about MoS advice: while the style guide has some precedential power, it absolutely can be overridden by local consensus, if the editors of a given article decide there is good reason to do so. That means not only has the move A) changed the character of the proposal, widening it to all articles and therefore changing the outcome of the eventual !vote, it would still not resolve the issue definitively for any given article, meaning the RfC could be restarted there and nothing would have been accomplished except a waste of time for numerous editors.
Instead, this move should be reversed, and the RfC can run out as originally intended on the local talk page. Then, in parallel to that discussion, Chaswmsday can, if they so choose, open the issue here on this page with a separate and general RfC--which is what they should have done from the start. Note that this does not constitute forum shopping because it's entirely possible for both discussions to reach different conclusions as to what the appropriate outcome is, and in that case the more particular localconsensus at the article talk page would control if there was significant consensus, while a new more general standard for most articles generally will also have been established. It's also possible that the discussion here will result in an !vote that any general rule represents unnecesary WP:CREEP and that this issue should generally be left to local consensus without any strong default advice here. Lastly, both discussions could agree as to the appropriate course of action, in which case there would obviously be a clear path forward at the Route 131 article. But the point is, it is disruption of the consensus building process to move an ongoing RfC from its place of origin without some degree of assent by those who opened it and those who have commented thus far already. More than that, the move here confuses two different scopes and two different community discussions that need to take place in different spaces, instead conflating and smashing them together here. This is just not how our process is meant to work. Snow let's rap 10:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Manual of Style/Road junction lists".