Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style‎ | Road junction lists
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Northenglish in topic Proposing a couple of changes

Proposing a couple of changes

Latest comment: 17 years ago181 comments11 people in discussion

After seeing the recent edits to Interstate 295 (Delaware-New Jersey) and Interstate 78 in New Jersey, I think there are a couple of tweaks we need to make to the guideline:

  • The guideline needs to be explicitly clear on how we want to format concurrency termini. When I was originally making exit lists, I missed the note under special cases that said to use a multi-column row, so I was just doing it as part of the notes column. That's still my preference, since the concurrency termini is part of the interchange.
But if we are going to use a multi-column row, the guideline needs to be more specific as to which columns it should span. Most exit lists have them either spanning all the columns, or all the columns except county and location. Neither of those seems right to me. If it spans the entire table, it unnecessarily breaks the flow of the county and location columns. Having it the way it is in the versions I linked to above gives the impression (IMHO) that the concurrency begins at an arbitrary point between two interchanges, rather than at a specific interchange, or if it is at a specific interchange, is it the one above or below it?
I think if we are going to use a multi-column row for the concurrency termini, it should span only the Roads and Notes columns, allowing the exit number and mileposts to appear to the left. (My first choice is still to move it back to the notes column, though.)
  • Also, we should probably bring more attention to the exit numbers, since they are the "most important". This wouldn't be a problem if the exit numbers were in the first column, but the way it is now, the exit numbers get lost in the middle of the table. That's why I had been using a ! to shade the cell and boldface the text. I think doing so aids in reading the table immensely.

Please share your thoughts. -- NORTH talk 23:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

My feelings on concurrencies:
  • When it's not a major concurrency (as below), then it goes in the notes column saying "US 55 joins northbound and leaves southbound." A good example of this is Interstate 66. It has many concurrencies, but it's not really important to note them. If you're following I-66, and the exit is only for VA-234 south, then look at the note and see if it joins.
  • A major concurrency is when a road joins and the exit numbers change. This should be a column-spanning row with a note that "Interstate 40 joins Interstate 85 <line break> Interstate 40/85 follow Interstate 85 exit numbers" since that's VERY important, particularly when the exit numbers begin to go back down or start over from a different number. There would also be a note in the notes column about the routes joining (that shows the exit where they join). Shields should also be used with alt-text. A good example of this is Interstate 40 in North Carolina. That begins at exit 219.
  • The multi-column row, IMO, should span all columns. I think it looks cleaner that way.
Interstate 81 in Virginia is serious overkill. There is no real reason to note any concurrencies there in the multi-column row, as I-81 follows its exit numbers the entire way. Follow me here: however, on the I-64 in VA and I-77 in VA exit lists, there should be a multi-column row like above.
I agree on the exit numbers. Bolding would be great. --MPD T / C 23:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I definitely understand what you're saying, and I could get behind that. And since in that case we would be using the multi-column row to say something important – that the exit numbers are changing – that would be a good reason to have it span the entire table.
But if we were to have it span the entire table for all concurrencies, that would look a lot less clean. -- NORTH talk 00:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't like spanning the table for all concurrencies (as I said above, I don't need to reiterate it). As soon as I get a nice chunk of time, I'm going to re-do I-81 in VA's list. --MPD T / C 01:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I know, I didn't mean to imply that you did say that. I was more clarifying my original comment. There is a time and a place for a row spanning the entire column, but those places are few and far between – or at least not as common as we currently use them. -- NORTH talk 07:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

How about using colors to disambiguate between unbuilt interchanges, concurrencies, and stuff like that? It would sort of match guidelines in junction tables in projects such as WP:NYSR, WP:PASH, and WP:INSR.  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads 00:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Part of the idea in starting this discussion was to standardize the guideline so that it applied not just to exit lists, but to those intersection lists as well. (That was part of my problem when I was writing exit lists; I was half using this guideline, half using the guidelines of other projects.)
However, even though I was using the cyan for concurrency termini, I would rather have those lists abandon the color than have more exit lists adopt it. It's a good idea in principle, but the color is a little too flashy for widespread usage IMHO. -- NORTH talk 00:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Purple seems to be the norm (on Interstates) for unbuilt/future interchanges (Interstate 485). For Toll Roads, and I've only done this once, I've used yellow for the Roads column of the exit row (List of exits on Interstate 5, California around Exit 85). For the multi-concurrency rows, I use a ! row, which changes its colour and bolds it. But random pinks and pastel blues don't seem to look too good, which is why we're eliminating them from the county/city columns. --MPD T / C 01:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd be more willing to get behind the color idea if we toned them down a bit. That section of the I-485 list you pointed to is IMHO unreadable. If we were to use a paler purple, for example the one at Wikipedia:Colors, that would be a lot better. -- NORTH talk 07:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Another thing that is very inconsistent on exit lists throughout the project is state lines. We don't need them that often, since the exit lists go on state detail pages, but on roads like multi-state 3dis (I-295 for example), the issue does come up.

My preference would be to put section breaks outside the table, and restart the table for each state (i.e. List of exits on Interstate 5). Other options include putting section breaks in the table (i.e. I-295), and using a column-spanning row (i.e. Palisades Interstate Parkway). -- NORTH talk 07:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I like how Interstate 26 (and I-295 DE-NJ) do it. But I can see what you mean by the concurrency rows. I don't think they're that important to put on there, and even if they are, it should say in the notes where it enters, because that is confusing. --MPD T / C 15:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I am glad this was brought up, since this subproject was moved, there are several things that need to be looked at. On some of the above questions, I think the column wide line stating the beginning of a concurrency should always come after the interchange and the line stating the end should come before the interchange, because technically that is when it begins and ends. As far as when to list a concurrency, I believe we should list it as a column wide line when the route is cosigned. For example, I-410 and State Highway 16 run concurrent in San Antonio for about a quarter of I-410s length. TXDOT is very consistant on signing them both during this stretch, the exits from US 90 to I-410 always list SH 16 as well. If there is an instance though where a concurrency occurs where the lesser road only carries through as a hidden designation to keep the continuity of the route, then it should be mentioned in the notes column. I do like the idea of listing this column wide line with the exit number, makes perfect sense to me. The point was brought up that it should only be listed across the column when the exit numbering changes, well since this is no longer an Interstate only guideline, we will run into problems with that one since only Interstates are required to number their exits. Also, anytime Interstates run concurrent, that is a major concurrency and should always have a column wide announcement, regardless if the exit numbers change or not. As far as non-Interstates go, how are exit/intersection lists going to be incorporated? I believe the format should be the same for both, except perhaps the exit column should be omitted for intersection lists. Also, what about highways that have both? It would make sense to just note that an intersection is at-grade in the notes column, but if it is a highway that only has a few exits and many at-grade intersections, it seems to be overkill to make a not of all the at-grade intersections in the notes column. I agree about toning down the colors if we go to that, pale colors are best, the bright/bold colors tend to dominate the table and distract from what we are trying to say rather than just being a guide. Well just a few of my thoughts. --Holderca1 13:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I still don't like colors. Only for toll road exits or toll booths (Interstate 70 in Pennsylvania), and those are a nice yellow. But if I advocate one color, I'll have to give in for a few others, huh? ;-)
Multi-column row below the interchange sounds good for concurrencies. Mention in notes with joins/leaves! If we're going to row every signed concurrency, you get a lot of breaks on long routes (back to Interstate 81 in Virginia) and it doesn't look too good. My mind's all over the place- I just woke up. Let me get my thoughts together before I continue, haha. --MPD T / C 15:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
That article gave me a headache, it needs to state whether the concurrency is beginning or ending, hard to tell what is going on otherwise. I fixed it to make it easier to figure out what is going on. --Holderca1 16:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed on one of the examples that it uses a row to state the speed limit, that doesn't need to be there, not only is it extremely difficult to find that information or verify it without performing original research. --Holderca1 16:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Speed limits are entirely not necessary. That I-81 in VA looks more clear now (thanks), but I still don't like every concurrency. But I won't change it until we figure all this out. --MPD T / C 16:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

For coherency's sake, please make all new comments in one of the sections below. -- NORTH talk 20:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Colors

No consensus here yet. To use colors or not to use colors, that is the question. -- NORTH talk 20:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Pennsylvania State Routes have a color legend {{PAintbtm}}, as can be seen on Pennsylvania Route 3 or Pennsylvania Route 100. The colors are all fairly light and do not make the text difficult to read. VerruckteDan 20:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the question yet to be asked is: what do we want to color? --MPD T / C 20:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm against the usage of color for this reason: comparing exit lists to junction lists is similar to comparing apples and oranges. Why? Precedent. The usage of color in the junction table was derived from the colors used on the now-defunct "Routeboxny" for junctions. As the junction table was a direct result of the loss of junction info that occurred when converting Routeboxny to Infobox road, that's why the colors were retained. No precedent that I'm aware of exists regarding exit lists in this manner.

IMHO to boot, alternate coloration in an exit list (not a junction list, those are two very different things) looks horrible. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. Exit lists and junction lists are exactly the same. Precedence in freeway exit lists does exist, purple for future exits such as on I-485, cyan for concurrencies as on this version of I-295, and both these colors are taken from the WP:NYSR junction lists. -- NORTH talk 21:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
(ec) Two articles? Hardly precedent. No, exit list and junction lists are not the same. Exit lists have the numbers of the exit and control cities for that exit. Except in extreme situations, neither applies to junction lists. It is also a fact that termini of roadways is noted much more prominently in junction lists than they are in exit lists.
It's apparent we're not going to see eye-to-eye on this issue, nor the exit bolding issue, so I'll agree to disagree. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Isn't there an accessibility concern with regard to colors on Wikipedia? Like, screen-readers don't convey color, and that sort of thing (and the fact that Wikipedia strives to maintain access to all audiences).—Rob (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Edit conflict. TMF: Well put. Since this is the exit list guide, let's deal with exits. Can we say exit lists have numbered exits, junction lists are for routes that have unnumbered exits ? For exit lists, I say only use two (three) colors: yellow for toll booths and for exits to toll roads, and some color for future exits. I say "(three)" for the above concurrency rows to use a row exclamation which technically changes the color to that nice darker color. --MPD T / C 21:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreeing to disagree is a good idea in general to keep cool, but it doesn't help to bring us any closer to consensus.
It's true that junction lists don't have exit numbers and control cities, but I don't see how that makes that profoundly different. Other than making the Exit # column optional for them, I don't see why they can't have the same formatting guideline. I don't have a problem with keeping junction lists out of the guideline; I'm just saying I don't see why colors are okay for one but not the other. -- NORTH talk 21:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
It just seems to me that we're trying to make apples and oranges the same thing. That's just my personal opinion. I again pose the question: what do we want to have colored? Perhaps we should decide on each point instead of going with "in general". --MPD T / C 22:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, issue set aside for now. If you would like something colored, feel free to pose the question (and yes, I know you have already several times). TMF and I both seem to be against color in exit lists (although I'm not counting ! shading as a color. -- NORTH talk 22:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll

Should we use color in exit lists? (This has nothing to do with WP:NYSR-style junction lists.) If yes, what colors and where?

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no colors.  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads 16:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bolding exit numbers

Does anyone object to using a header cell (using a !) to boldface the exit numbers? -- NORTH talk 20:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

How about just bold code (''')? --MPD T / C 20:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
It would work, but just using a ! is shorter, and gives a nice symmetry with a row of shaded column headers and a column of shaded row headers. -- NORTH talk 20:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of using a "!" for the exit numbers. VerruckteDan 20:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
After looking at that a little more, I could live with it. --MPD T / C 20:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I object. Personally, I think it looks atrocious. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I said I could live with it. What I don't like is that it changes the color of the column (number box). Centering is ok, but that could look off. The bold is fine. --MPD T / C 21:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Two part question then... (1) What specifically looks "atrocious" about it? and (2) Do you disagree with the logic behind it – that we should bring more attention to the exit numbers? If you agree with the logic, do you have an alternative idea? -- NORTH talk 21:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
(another ec) 1. See the color section. 2. The logic. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I just don't think we need to bring attention to exit numbers. For various reasons I think mileposts are more important - we can rely on those from state to state being consistent. —Rob (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Double Edit conflict. I said I could live with it. What I don't like is that it changes the color of the column (number box). Centering is ok, but that could look off if there are "old" exit numbers. The bold is fine. --MPD T / C 21:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
If we're going to start bringing mileposts into this, this could get ugly. I don't like the mileposts. Period. I don't think it really matters unless the exits aren't numbered according to the miles, then it's ok. I'm about ready to change my position to be opposed to all "emphasis" of any numbers because then we'll be querreling over that. --MPD T / C 21:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The exit number is most important (or at least, more important than the milepost) because that's what the exit is signed as, and what the public is familiar with.

To me, changing the "color" to a darker gray isn't changing the color; it's not like a purple or cyan. If you look at Help:Table, the ! is meant to be used for column and row headers, and the exit number - even though it's not the first cell - is the header of the row in an exit list. -- NORTH talk 21:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm all over the place today; that's the kind of day it's been. Forget mileposts; this isn't about that. Exit numbers: I don't mind bold. Honestly, this isn't that big of a deal to me. Can we try it on something just to see what it looks like? How about Interstate 485? It can be our guinea pig for these bolded exit numbers using the exclamation. --MPD T / C 22:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I had been using exclamation points until recently. Interstate 195 (New Jersey) has them. -- NORTH talk 22:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd prefer using table headers (the !s) but a minimum column width should also be applied to this column. 20px should do. —Rob (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps changing the text in the column header to read Exit # instead of just # would be enough? I do like the idea of widening the column a bit. -- NORTH talk 20:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with having "Exit #" instead of just "#". --MPD T / C 22:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should definitely bold the Exit numbers as they are the basis of what defines a row. The fact that they are so far from the leftmost column (where one normally puts a row-determining field) because of both the county and location columns makes the table somewhat harder to read. So highlighting them is the only option short of moving columns around. --Polaron | Talk 18:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I could live with bolded numbers (as it seems my standpoint has been defeated), but only if they were applied using direct syntax and not using the table headers. Using the table headers changes the color of the column unnecessarily and centers the text, which looks odd considering the remainder of the table content is left-aligned. I also believe that if this change has to be made, then it should be optional. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

True, using the table headers changes the "color" and centers the text. It does so to highlight and bring attention to the header of the row. Perhaps it's unnecessary, but only to the extent that any formatting we're doing is unnecessary. I think it's important to bring attention to the header of the row particularly when it's not located at the head of the row.
I'm not trying to be stubborn; I'm just trying to get you to see the (IMHO) light, since you're the only one who's vocally opposed to the (!). I'd be okay with regular bold syntax if that's what consensus is, but at this point, majority is with the ! table header. -- NORTH talk 06:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
As much as I love majority, majority != consensus. :-) --MPD T / C 07:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes, I'm well aware of that. Darn, I meant to make that more explicitly clear in my previous comment. Essentially what I was doing was taking a straw poll to determine where consensus might be leaning at this point. Basically we've got me and Rob supporting the !, you saying you can live with it, Polaron supporting bolding but didn't say anything about the !, and TMF saying he can live with ''' but not the !. -- NORTH talk 07:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to see the light in this crap, so don't bother. In any case, have fun "fixing" exit lists in the U.S. - I'm going to Canadian roads. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
How about for bold, we don't fix an exit list that isn't broken. If it's already been done and made and the numbers aren't bold, it's fine. If it's a new one, well....I dont' know I just like the wikimarkup for bold. It emphasizes fine. I'm starting to get stressed, too. --MPD T / C 20:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Is everyone (relatively) happy if we close this in favor of using the raw wikimarkup (''') instead of the !, and follow the Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken-style approach? -- NORTH talk 23:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll

Should we bold exit numbers using regular wikisyntax (not the table header (!))?

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no bolding. -- NORTH talk 07:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. -- NORTH talk 00:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Support but I'd prefer no bolding at all. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support --MPD T / C 00:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose mandatory bolding, could care less if optional. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 01:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose --Holderca1 15:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose —Rob (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Concurrency termini

It seems we have a weak consensus to move non-major concurrencies to the notes column. However, there doesn't seem to be a consensus quite yet on what concurrencies are major (all interstate concurrencies? only those that change exit numbers? something else?) or which columns the cell should span.

Personally, I'd still like to move all concurrencies to the notes column, but that's just me, and any consensus is fine with me. -- NORTH talk 20:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll do this in sections:
All concurrencies: notes column.
Interstates: only concurrencies where the exit numbers change get the multi-column row in addition to the mention in the notes column. Spans all columns.
Others: I don't know. Class time though, so I have to run. I'll think of more later.
--MPD T / C 20:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I think concurrencies should be listed in the notes section. The only time there should be a multi-column listing is if the exit numbers are changed by the concurrency. However, it should not span all columns, the County and Municipality columns should be be breached. VerruckteDan 20:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I could care less where the concurrencies are placed, as long as the placement is consistent; in other words, either a multi-column row or the notes column, not both, not mixed. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Between the notes column and the fact that the exits are identified directionally (as opposed to generic), I think the reader should get the point; we should move all concurrencies to the notes column. —Rob (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Even when exit numbers change? That could be confusing and should deserve a note. Not all readers could understand that. --MPD T / C 21:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
A note in the Notes column perhaps? *wink* -- NORTH talk 21:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Notes column clutter is a problem though. For I-40, for example, "Bus 85, US 29, and US 70 join eastbound and leave westbound; I-40 follows Bus 85 exit numbers." or "I-85 joins eastbound and leaves westbound, Bus 85 ends, I-40 follows I-85 exit numbers, Future I-840 north."
I advocate the way they are. And to reiterate, for things like Interstate 81 in Virginia, there should be NO multi-column rows. Even when I-77 and I-64 join, they should only be mentioned in the notes. Conversely, on Interstate 77 in Virginia, when it joins I-81, it would have a multi-column row stating I-81 joins and the exit numbers change (northbound, it's 32 then the next exit is 80, and they go down, then increase again from I believe 45). But when US 52 and US 11 join I-81/77, they should only be mentioned in the notes. My opinion, and I stand by it. It's sort of between all multi-column and notes-only. --MPD T / C 22:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand this logic, so on the I-77 page, I-81 is a major concurrency, but on I 81, I-77 is not? This is all based on DOT arbitrarily picking one of the exit numbers to carry through or is there a method to their madness on picking which to carry though? --Holderca1 23:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Given the two options, it's arbitrary. --MPD T / C 23:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it's completely arbitrary, as they do tend to pick the more major highway (i.e. I-90/I-94 in Wisconsin follows I-90's numbers, and IMHO I-81 is more major than I-77). -- NORTH talk 23:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Well I know that at the I-35/I-10 concurrency, I-35 exit numbers carry through, but I-10 is the busier highway. --Holderca1 23:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I-35 was built first, I know that often comes into play. And yes, sometimes it is arbitrary. -- NORTH talk 23:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Well they were both built in the mid-50's, both were designated on Oct 1, 1959. Texas didn't start using exit numbers on interstates until the mid-80's. The point I am trying to make is that all Interstate concurrencies are major, not just when exit numbering changes. --Holderca1 15:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

My opinion here would be to include all freeway to freeway concurrencies that have intermediate exits/junctions. Exclude freeway overlaps that separate at the next exit as well as surface routes. They should be a subrow of the exit number where the overlap begins/ends and should not span the entire table - just the destinations and notes columns. --Polaron | Talk 19:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That's reasonable. That's more consensus that what I've been proposing. I'm going to separate this into the point-by-point issues so we can more clearly see where the standings are: you can just reply with the number and a quick a yes/no/agree/disagree or the option.
1. Multi-column row: yes or no?
2. IF we have a multi-column row, include only a) Exit #-Changing concurrencies + note on number change, b) all Interstates, c) all freeways, or d) all concurrencies?
3. IF we have a multi-column row, span entire table or just "destination" and "notes" columns?
4. All concurrencies are mentioned in the notes column (I-72 joins northbound and leaves southbound/US 51, US 3, M-43, and Bus 90 join eastbound and leave westbound) regardless of whether a multi-column row is present.
Me, 1, yes. 2, a. 3, whole table. 4, agree. --MPD T / C 22:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  1. My personal preference? No.
  2. No comment at this time.
  3. Just destination and notes columns – unless we're only doing them for exit number changing (in which case, whole table). If we're doing them for all interstates or one of the other options, we should do just destination and notes for all of them, regardless of what the exit numbers do, for consistency's sake.
  4. Strong disagree. Mentioning it in the notes column and immediately below there in the multi-column row is exceedingly redundant.
-- NORTH talk 22:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  1. No opinion.
  2. D. You list one, you list them all.
  3. Span only columns where its presence makes sense (which would be the destination and notes). The mileposts and/or exit number can be "rowspanned", I suppose.
  4. Yes if no row, no if a row. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I'm fairly certain that Question 2 was assuming that all concurrencies would be listed at least in the notes column; it was asking which should be listed as multi-column rows instead. I know you said earlier you wanted them all in the same place, so that's probably the way you were reading it, but I do want to make sure we're reading the question the same way. -- NORTH talk 23:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I guess I will put this up here to keep them with the rest...
  1. Yes.
  2. Option E, only signed concurrencies, if the lesser highway isn't signed, not significant enough for inclusion.
  3. Just destination and notes columns
  4. No, not mentioned in notes column. --Holderca1 16:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I made some examples (the most extreme examples that exist in real life) at User:MPD01605/sandbox2. I can live with non-spanning county and municipality. I incorporated different ideas into each, but real quick: #1 is as it currently is. #2 is with all concurrencies listed as rows and none in notes. #3 is the major number-changing with all noted in the notes (my personal preference of the four), #4 is all in notes no multi-columns. --MPD T / C 23:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

My preference is #4 – there should be a note about the exit numbers in the Notes column, though. #3 is fine as well. -- NORTH talk 23:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've done the same thing (make a bunch of examples) at User:Northenglish/Sandbox. -- NORTH talk 07:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, this has successfully consumed most of my time today ;-). And it's 2AM on the East Coast, so I'm really getting sluggish. I'd have to say I like your preference the best. Except, I prefer the end rows to be full-table (the exit would show where the interchange is), and for single-state exit lists of multi-state interstates, I'd make a "I-XX continues into State" in place of the end (defaults) note, and I'd also split the Delaware Mem Bridge line into a different line and (at least I'd) make it yellow, but that's a preference that can be by table as we discussed in the other option, so let's not discuss that here. But there are lots of other aspects not addressed, like mine (haha). I think if my No. 3 and Your preference were put together, that would work well. I really hope that makes sense. --MPD T / C 07:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you mostly. I made the termini span the entire table, and moved the DMB back to its own cell. Other than the lack of yellow, is my new "This is also good" what you were looking for? -- NORTH talk 19:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I like the current revision of "My preference" (being your preference, not to be confusing or anything). I'm going to add an option #5 onto mine incorporating another idea. It won't be realistic... --MPD T / C 19:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
You're confusing me, you like "My preference" even thought it puts the concurrencies in the notes column? Then again, it's not like I-295 changes exit numbers...
Do you like the "This is also good" for concurrencies where exit numbers do change? -- NORTH talk 19:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, sorry for being confusing. If I-295 followed US 130's exit numbers for whatever reason, then yeah. But I don't like listing every concurrency like that (so US 40 wouldn't be listed like that, but US 130 would, follow?). Here's my No. 5, using pretty much what I think we've for the most part decided on (except the concurrencies): User:MPD01605/sandbox2#.235. --MPD T / C 19:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

None of the examples linked to above are pleasing to my eyes, mostly for the explanation I gave in the exit number section. If we do go with the column row, the terminus of the concurrency text should be written so that the table can be read in both directions, up and down. A uni-directional table serves only one direction of traffic. Additionally, I believe I read somewhere that images should be accompanied with appropriate text when used. Either way, if this is the best we've come up with, there's a lot of work to be done. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 19:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I brought it up and I meant using alt-text for standalone images (I turned them off and for an I-40 shield, I-40, or whatever I'll put there, shows up nice in place of the image, so that works). As for both directions....got me. --MPD T / C 20:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

How about this: User:MPD01605/sandbox2#No. 6. Concurrencies are gone from multi-column row, no unidirectional notes now. The exit number changes are marked using that multi-column row and are multi-diretional specifying which way it changes. The images in the exit number change rows have alt-text so that text shows up when images are turned off. The END of the road is also marked as the beginning, although I'd just like to put "END I-40" because if people can't figure it out then that sucks for them, and all those shields will have alt-text too. State lines are just "[Route] continues into [state]" because I think people could figure that out, too. Let's give some credit to those who will read an exit list. The numbers are bolded, not established as headers using !, but see my note below about not bolding exit numbers that aren't broken because I don't like alienating people. --MPD T / C 20:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Number six on yours works for me, but we still need to reword the note about the numbering scheme. Something like
  Interstate 40 uses exit numbers for   Interstate 85 west of here.
  Interstate 40 uses exit numbers for   Interstate 85 Business east of here.
should be fine. Note that I too think we should always repeat the name of the road when using a shield image. -- NORTH talk 23:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds okay. I still kind of prefer the other way, but this is fine. I still prefer the alt-text instead of reiterating the name; it's just shorter IMO. But this is fine. I updated my No. 6 option with one the above example, although I left the other two the same. At the end of a concurrency would we just put:
  Interstate 40 uses exit numbers for   Interstate 85 west of here.
  Interstate 40 resumes its exit numbers east of here.
? And they'd be ordered on the correct side of the table, right ("west of here" is on top of "east of here"?) Otherwise, if you're ok with it, I'm okay with it. I mean, it's the same thing as your I-295 example just with more variety (and the bolded exit number difference, but whatever), right? --MPD T / C 23:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Sure, saying it resumes its own numbers might be unnecessary, but it's probably best to include it for safety's sake. I certainly could have gotten my directions backwards for my example. I'm okay with it, so you're okay with it, right?
Yeah, I'm good with it. I put our two examples on my subpage User:MPD01605/Roads/Work#Exit list guide examples. Let's use those to ask people what they think, eh? --MPD T / C 00:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Yes, 2. D, 3, entire table, 4. no, it's redundant. We need consistency across the board. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem using a multi-column row for all concurrencies if that's what it comes to – although I'd like to reiterate that I-81 looks horrendous that way – but why spanning the entire table? -- NORTH talk 00:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The reason is so that people notice... looking at examples it's hard to tell when a concurrency begins and ends if it's in the notes column. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
But if I'm travelling down I-81 in Virginia, why do I need attention every time a secondary road joins I-81? If I'm looking for an exit, I'll find it. If I only see "VA 100 east", then I should read across and see if VA 100 joins I-81. But I don't need to see every 5 rows that another road has joined I-81. Then I can keep reading until I see "VA 100 west". Every concurrency could also end up looking like this, and that's very distracting. --MPD T / C 01:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

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 [[Exit number|#]]<br>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)

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)
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)

Straw poll

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)
  • Multi-column row always, every time. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Notes column per NORTH, with a multi-column row for a note when exit numbers change as in the example right above me. --MPD T / C 00:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Multi-column row for all uses per Rschen. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 01:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Multi-column row on all concurrencies spanning destination and notes column, exit number column should span 2 rows to ensure that it is clear when the concurrency begins/ends. --Holderca1 15:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Notes column. —Scott5114↗ 15:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Notes column. Seems to break flow of table otherwise. I stick the shield of the correct highway next to the new mileposts. —Rob (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Notes column except possibly on particularly major ones, including changes of exit numbers and places where the highway "turns" at an interchange. --NE2 22:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Why did you close this one? There's certainly no consensus... -- NORTH talk 22:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Post-poll discussion

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)

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)
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)

State lines

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)

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)
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)
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)

Straw poll

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)
  • Section break in table, see User:MPD01605/Roads/Work#Exit_list_guide_examples for what we're looking at. --MPD T / C 00:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Section break in table per above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Section break in table. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 01:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Section break in table Regular multi-column row Changing my vote, why does it need to be a section break? This only applies to short interstates that cant support being broken up by state. The exit list won't be long enough to need a section break. We have much longer exit lists that don't have section breaks. --Holderca1 15:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Just changed the first state row in Interstate 295 (Delaware-New Jersey) for an example, replaced ===Delaware=== with <big>Delaware</big>. It gives the same look, just without the section break. --Holderca1 03:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm okay with this. —Rob (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Outside of table. Violation of WP:STYLE? —Rob (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I don't see anywhere in the MoS that says not to do it, also, you can only violate a policy, not a guideline. --Holderca1 23:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
  • Outside of table or a multi-column row without a section break only because it's impossible to preview the table otherwise when editing a section. --NE2 03:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Post-poll discussion

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Make some columns optional

This is probably an unpopular idea but I would suggest some flexibility regarding the "Mile" and "County" columns. In highly urbanized areas and for highways completely contained in one county, I feel that indicating the county does not really add substantially. Also, for highways with mile-based exit numbers, the mile column should be optional. The fewer the columns, the cleaner the table looks. Let's try not to be overly strict in "enforcing the standards". This is only a guideline. If something slightly out of the guideline works better for a particular table, that should be alright. --Polaron | Talk 21:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is perfectly acceptable to combine the exit/mile column if they are not different. --Holderca1 21:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. There's already an exception written in the guideline for when mileposts more accurate than integers aren't available. I'd think that even if they're available and just not found yet, there's no reason to include an empty column. But we should definitely have the option to add more accurate mileposts when we do have them. (And you said optional, so yes, I agree with you. :-P)
And I also fully agree that the county should be optional on single-county routes. Seems like common sense to me. -- NORTH talk 21:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed with all. Only a note "entirely located within XX County" before the list or something is fine, eh? If we have the option of mileposts, then fine, put them there. But yeah, let's not strictly enforce these things, too.  :-) --MPD T / C 22:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure even that note would be necessary in most cases. A statement like that should probably be in the lead paragraph, and it shouldn't be necessary to repeat it before the exit list. -- NORTH talk 22:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. No biggie one way or the other. --MPD T / C 22:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed if the county column remains optional in this instance. For someone not familiar with the route's location, the county can help to serve as a locating tool, especially if the expressway runs through obscure towns or locations. My biggest concern with this is that the addition of this specification will lead to edit warring between whether the county column should be present or not. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I think edit warring could be avoided with an explicit guideline. If a county column is included, and you edit it off, you get whacked with a wet noodle. If it's not included, and the county is explicitly clear, and you put it on, you get whacked with a wet noodle. -- NORTH talk 23:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
That sounds painful :) Counties, though, can be as obscure as towns. Listing a county name does not automatically mean knowing where it is. Listing counties is definitely useful in areas where there is strong civic identity with counties (I think this is true in most states) and in rural areas with large unincorporated territories. --Polaron | Talk 06:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. In states I'm not familiar with, I'm much more likely to know where a town is (even if it's small) than a county. -- NORTH talk 06:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

So...I'm confused. I feel for multi-county routes, we should include the county column. Single-county routes, it should be well-noted what county it's in. Is this essentially what we're coming to? --MPD T / C 06:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Essentially, yes, but I believe TMF is saying that there may still be a reason to include the county column on single-county routes. -- NORTH talk 07:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I believe that all columns should be included for consistency, and for accuracy (in CA at least, exit 1 could be from mile 0 to 1.5)... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, county columns are no big deal, since it'd be just one more column anyway and no big deal. But why do I need to know exactly where Exit 1 is? Or Exit 214? If we have them already, fine, but why do we need to strive for mileposts? What if it's a long exit and spans more than 1/2 mile? Is it where the overpass is or where the ramp leaves the road? I mean, I guess if I'm doing physics experiments, mileposts are good. But I just don't see the need. I support having these columns optional, and it's fine if they're all there. I don't even know what I'm arguing anymore. I just don't see the logic. --MPD T / C 01:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
It's the centerline of the exit, at least in CA. But the question is, why not include it? This encourages precision. (A similar practice is going out to 2 decimals with teh lengths in infobox). Such a change would mean loss of data in CA- actually, if CA even decides to follow the ELG. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I forget what I've actually said on the issue. I don't like mileposts. But, if you have them, go for it. You're right: why not? I don't think we should call an exit list "incomplete" because it doesn't have the mileposts. Which is why I support it being optional. --MPD T / C 01:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Everybody should take a step back and remember that this is a guideline. As long as the resulting table is not hideously out of sync with the guideline then that should be acceptable. A single guideline can never account for all situations. That goes for the mile column in highways with mile-based exit numbers, the county column for single-county highways, and which concurrencies to indicate in a multi-column row. Decisions regarding whether to include or not should be made by the regular editors of each article. But let's not go tagging exit lists as not compliant if they don't follow the guideline to the letter. --Polaron | Talk 01:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. This 50-kb long conversation could have been avoided if we realized that a long time ago. -- NORTH talk 04:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Polaron, you should get some sort of award for that. I am in complete agreement. Well said, sir, you successfully answered your own question, I do believe. --MPD T / C 04:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Sort of like this award? -- NORTH talk 04:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Haha, precisely. --MPD T / C 05:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I think we may have overdone it a bit, we are revising a guideline, not a policy. There should be some flexiblity involved. As long as all the exit list look consistant, we are in good shape. I don't think anyone should be burned at the stake if they want to use {{scaps}}, bold the exit number column, or put a multi-column row for a concurrency. Just now thinking of it, but on concurrencies, since this is no longer a IH guideline, what happens if you have a concurrency between two freeways that don't have exit numbers, say the article is about a state highway, and a US highway begins a concurrency, what then? Anyway, that is a rhetorical question, I just think that if all of the exit lists look similar, we are in good shape, like keeping the columns in the same order, not using something drastically different from what everyone else is doing. Let's remember, we lost a lot of good people following SRNC because we told everyone that everyone had to do something a certain way, when actually it wasn't that big of a deal. --Holderca1 21:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll

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)
  • Oppose-Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. --MPD T / C 00:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral, leaning to oppose. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 01:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Should also pertain to location column for roads in a single city. --Holderca1 15:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support. That information had best be found very close by. —Rob (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - if it's unclear, put a sentence before the table: "the entire length of Cruftyway is in Big County". --NE2 22:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Post-poll discussion

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)

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)
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)

Conversation has died... time to think about closing?

I'm going to propose the following compromise based on this comment from TMF.

  • Concurrencies go in the notes column. A multi-row column can be used when the exit numbering scheme changes.
  • State lines are unimportant, since the way exit lists should be done (i.e. put on state-detail pages), they'll rarely be seen, except on multi-state 3dis. Thus, I'm going to say it doesn't matter whether we do a section break outside the table or a multi-column row. However, for preview reasons and the like, a section break inside the table is prohibited.
  • The optional columns proposed should be optional. "Optional" here means that a list that doesn't have them is compliant to the guideline. However, if you want to do the work to add in optional columns, do feel free. Please do not revert war over the inclusion of optional columns.

Any objections, questions, etc.? -- NORTH talk 00:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I support this. --MPD T / C 01:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
We still haven't addressed concurrencies when neither freeway has exit numbers. I think it should be one way or the other, if other concurrencies aren't given multicolumn rows, I don't see why ones where the exit numbers change should get one. I say put them all in a multi-column row or all in the notes, not both. Also, I think we have spent too much time on this since it is just a guideline and it isn't required to be followed. As long as exit lists are consistent, that is all that matters, if a short route has a bunch of concurrencies, by all means move most of them to the notes column, but for a long route that has few, I see no harm in putting them a row. --Holderca1 14:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Technically, no concurrencies get a multi-column row. However, a note about the exit numbers changing gets a multi-column row. Just like a freeway without exit numbers won't have an exit # column, all concurrencies where neither freeway has exit numbers go in the notes. If one freeway has exit numbers and merges with a freeway that doesn't have exit numbers...well this is a guideline and use your judgement. --MPD T / C 16:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
So basically everything in this guideline is optional, per this page: Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Exit list guide/States. --Holderca1 20:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, that's basically what I'm saying, particularly with the second bullet point. For things like state lines, and perhaps even the concurrencies, where we haven't reached a consensus, there's no reason to. Instead, we should follow a "policy" something like what we do for British vs. American English. That is:
  • Article should use the same system through out. Seems like common sense. Don't have half the concurrencies in an exit list in the notes column, and half in multi-column rows. But it is fine to have the concurrencies on I-295 in the notes column and the concurrencies on I-81 in multi-column rows.
  • Stay with the established system. If an article has been using a given system for a long time, and there is no clear reason to change it, leave it alone.
  • Follow the system of the first major contributor. Basically the same as the above. The person who creates an exit list for a given route gets to decide the system that exit list will use.
-- NORTH talk 22:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to close this at the latest Friday night. -- NORTH talk 07:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Road_junction_lists/Archive_2&oldid=1136058834"