Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Road junction lists/Archive 7

Unresolved issue from archived material

While this is back, one thing caught my attention in the revised guideline, which is the Highway Link Appearance section, which reads:

When linking to highways, a commonly used abbreviation should be used for the displayed text for the link. For instance: I-59, A1 rather than Interstate 59 or A1 road (Great Britain) respectively.

In Ontario at least, we do not use abbreviations, ever, for our roadways. SH isn't secondary highways, CR isn't county road or city road. I'd like this changed to:

When linking to highways, avoid repeating information redundantly. For many countries, an abbreviation is commonly used (Such as I-59 for Interstate 59, or M25 instead of M25 Motorway) to represent those roads, which avoids repeating certain words endlessly.

Which hammers out the main reason (avoid redundancy) without saying its mandatory for all. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

If there isn't a commonly used abbreviation, there isn't a commonly used abbreviation. Since there isn't one in Ontario, there isn't anything to do but provide the link. Simple, no need to change text. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Understood, but you may want to make that clear in the guideline, because some at WP:FAC may insist on abbreviating (for example) County Road as CR, which is common in many places. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

FAC is a crapshoot, but it's generally my experience that what you will get nailed for is stuff like, using an abbreviation without explaining what it means first. I can't see why you'd have a problem with not abbreviating when someone thinks their might be a suitable abbreviation.Dave (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Dave on this one. My writing practice is to use abbreviations because they are common here in Michigan (plus, you can't abbreviate M-28 anymore than it is already.) Because I use the abbreviations, all first mentions in the article, which is usually in the lead, are followed by the abbreviation in parentheses. If you never spell out an abbreviation, they can't ding you. If someone tries to say that there is a "commonly used abbreviation", just tell them that the abbreviations aren't common in Ontario. Imzadi1979 (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussions other than locations and column order

There are a number of other items that can be tidied up in this MoS while those areas that have split on a UK/US basis are put on hold.

Tunnels and Bridges

I have kicked things off by including tunnels alongside bridges. I have also suggested that the Wikiproject should decide the criteria for inclusion. Should this be changed to "National Wikiproject" as the criteria for notablilty might well vary from country to country, or does the existence of a Wikipedia article justify inclusion in the list?

Tunnels are very rare in the UK (and I think most other countries which don't have big mountains), so it makes sense to include them where appropriate. Perhaps change the bridge, tunnel and services notes to refer to something along the lines of "Notable road features such as bridges, tunnels and services may be included dependant upon local standards, usually defined by the appropriate WikiProject." Jeni ^(talk) 13:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, that part of the MOS is poorly written. Most highway articles, throughout the world, mention tunnels if present along the roadway. Although common in mountainous countries, they aren't _that_ common. The only article I've worked on where every tunnel wasn't spelled out was Interstate 70 in Colorado, and that was because, there's just too dang many of them, and two tunnel pairs are far more well known than the rest. Dave (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I edited the text just now to removed the Wikiproject discretion clause. Why did I do that? Well, we ideally want a guideline that isn't as full of such "discretionary holes" as a block of Swiss cheese. The word "major" to define bridges and tunnels should do fine to limit the inclusion of a bridge over a small backwater creek or stream. Each wikiproject is probably going to define their local guidance in a project standards page at any rate that will supplement this MoS, and that page can narrow down the definition for that locale. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Shields

I think that there might be a better word than the word shields. Would Highway route identifiers be a better name - after all the identifiers concerend come in a variety of shapes and sizes.? Martinvl (talk) 12:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the term shields in this context seems to only be used in the US, if there is a desire for this to be used worldwide, that needs changing. Jeni ^(talk) 13:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I would have the guideline specify that shield images are to be used when these are the means of identifying the highways in the field, but for countries where signs get plain alphanumeric route designations and no other graphic embellishment (such as UK and most of Europe) you just use text. No real need to include graphics that are of text when we have to include the text again for accessibility reasons. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 15:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

For the record, shield isn't consistently used in the US either. In the documentation I've read for researching articles, I've probably seen the word "marker" more often than "shield." I think it became the norm in wikipediahighwayland out of habit (i.e. one guy started using it, and others followed). Obviously the name came about because several jurisdictions throughout the world do use shapes that are shield like for the highway markers. Only about 4 or so of the 100+ highway marker shapes used in the US are shield like. There is a higher percentage of roads signed with shield shape markers in Canada, Mexico, Ecuador, Peru, etc. than the US. With that said, I have to ask, is it mandatory to fight over every word? Really, who cares what we call it? Shield/Marker/identifier/whatever it all gets the point across. You could probably do a search and replace on the guideline from "shield" to "marker" and few would even notice. Dave (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I think its just a case of it being a North Americanism. I know that shield and road sign are the only two terms I've heard up here, but obviously you should use whichever term applies to your country's variant of English. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The Italians use an octagon and the South Africans a pentagon. Martinvl (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, the US MUTCD calls these simply "route signs", with the description of the Interstate and U.S. Highway route signs using the term 'shield' to describe the general shape of the sign. It wouldn't be a bad idea to change 'shields' to route signs or route markers to implement what is likely a more global terminology. --LJ (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Other terms in use in the US are trailblazer, reassurance marker, guide sign markers (all based on specific usage), shield, marker or even just road sign, or combinations of them. In the US, they are all sorts of shapes: squares, circles, diamonds (really squares rotated 45°, pentagons, shield shapes, outlines of states or even the head of a former president. I don't object to an alternate word, but since like Scott says, many countries don't use a shape to render classification information, so the text link to the article on the road is sufficient. Like Dave says, if we want or need to change it, that's fine and no one would probably care. Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Since the term route sign is the preferred term from an authoritative source and since it adequately covers diamonds, pentagons, octogans and any other shape that local authorities dream up, I suggest that the MoS use this word instead of shields. Again, since the MoS is written in American English, I have no problem with using US MUTCD terminology as the reference terminolgy in the MoS (assuming of course that this would not prevent editors from using local terminology in their articles). Martinvl (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of the shield image guideline, something that should also be mentioned is accessibility issues. Specifically, not using the graphic as the sole means of identifying the intersecting route (i.e. it should be accompanied by text/link), and use of the "link=" parameter to comply with WP:ALT. Scott's suggestion above about using images where they are a common means of identification should also be incorporated. I've got some ideas on how to revise this that I'll work on later today if there are no objections. --LJ (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess us American editors a) just continue to use a word out of convenience and b) most of articles use {{jct}} to generate the graphic and link. That template has been modified to to use the |alt=|link= parameters. We can do that because our shields should all be in the public domain, so attribution isn't required. We probably should do a survey to make sure that they are all PD, because I think if they aren't, a link is needed to satisfy attribution requirements of the Creative Commons licenses. Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Canada has this issue now, with British Columbia route markers subject to copyright (I think there is another province too). For example U.S. Route 395 (which connects to a British Columbia) is missing shields in the infobox and major intersections table for the connecting BC highways, and even has html comments explaining why they cannot be used. Dave (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Alberta is the other province with a copyright issue about route markers. The problem there is that they have the "Alberta" word mark on them, but I think a compromise was to make graphics that lacked the wordmark as a generic geometric shape and a number isn't purely copyright-eligible. As for BC, that issue may resolve itself in the coming years. The Trans-Canada highway sign fell out of copyright at the start of this year, so it's a public-domain image in Canada now. The graphic is appearing now in articles as appropriate since the development. I will assume that the BC marker isn't so new that it won't have a similar fate before long, and the graphics will show up in articles in due time. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

:Q: I agree with the sentiment that Scott has expressed (i.e. shields aren't necessary for identification if the shield is a simple text based shape). However, there is a huge gray area. For example, would state highways in Texas be subject to this proposed policy? Several U.S. states use unique designs for state highway markers, others just have a black and white square with a number and text. I could see this being difficult to manage if Interstate 10 in Texas uses shields in the exit list, while Texas State Highway 50 does not. It might be better to say everybody use shields, just for the sake of easier to manage.Dave (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. With Imzadi's latest comment above, I get what Scott meant to say, and my comment isn't relevant.Dave (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The 2009 US MUTCD actually uses the term "route sign", which seems like a suitably broad term that would be grokked worldwide. How about we retitle the "Shields" section to "Use of route sign images" and have it say:

“ If a country uses a graphical route marker or markers (i.e. a shield or other marker design(s), such as those illustrated in Figure 2D-3 of the U.S. MUTCD) in its standard approach to signing, images of such route markers should appear in the Destination column unless prohibited for copyright reasons. If used, route marker images should generally have a height of 20–25px and comply with WP:ALT linking and alt text requirements. Route marker images shall appear at the beginning of the line as prescribed by MOS:ICON. Route markers shall not appear in any place within the table other than the Destinations column. When images are used, a textual expression of the route name is still required for accessibility reasons.

If a country does not use a graphical route marker (e.g. differentiating between road classes by alphanumeric designations only, as is done in the United Kingdom, Ireland, France, et al) the use of route number graphics is generally considered redundant to the required textual expression of the route name, and should not be used unless local project consensus judges that using such images provides information that could benefit the reader.

”

Acceptable? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I like it. The only change I'd recommend is to add color scheme to it, like "e.g. differentiating between road classes by alphanumeric designations or sign color schemes only, as is done in the United Kingdom...". That would make clear that the color schemes used in the color section (which half of the table needs to be added back) are perfectly acceptible options. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I like it, I would add something to note something like, "If a route marker design is subject to copyright, wikipedia's fair use policy states the image can only be used as the identifying image on the article for that highway only. Any references to that highway from other articles in the major junctions guide must not include the copyrighted image. If a simplified version can be made that is lacking the copyrighted elements, this is an acceptable substitute." As we've had problems with this before, not only with the Canadian provinces, but with roads that intersect E-470 and similar private maintained highways. Dave (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I'd say about your idea, Dave, is that this whole text should be as compact and concise as possible. MOS:ICON already covers most of this, so I guess we don't need to repeat provisions of other MoS sections needlessly. Scott's text already references copyright issues, so we wouldn't need to add more. From the KISS school of thought:

Route markers

Several countries use graphical route marker images to differentiate roadway classifications. Road junction lists for these areas should include these images unless prohibited by copyright restrictions. If used, these graphics shall appear at the beginning of a line followed by a textual expression of the road name. The graphics should generally have a height of 20–25px. Additionally, these images shall comply with WP:ALT linking and alt text requirements for purely decorative images.

Other countries use an alphanumerical naming convention or a color scheme to differentiate between roadway classifications. Since these methods do not rely on a graphical route marker, the usage of a graphic is redundant to the text and graphics should be omitted.

Thoughts? Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, a good idea, with appropriate use of "shall/should" as described below. I would possibly provide an appropriate link to MOS:ICON, change some instances of the word "graphics" to another term, and move the sentence on sizes to the end (grouping the 'shall' conditions together). --LJ (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Exit/Junction column

Just a question... now that the US articles are being updated to change the name of the column from # to Exit, should the column header still be wikilinked? For the templates that generate the headers in the Michigan articles, I de-linked it. My assumption was always that it was linked to explain the number sign, but with the name spelled out in text, I don't think that's needed anymore. In a pure opinion, the link in the header looks slightly tacky. It does violate the spirit of MOS:BOLD about boldface links. If an explanation is needed, a footnote would be better. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I'd wait for the brits or Indians to chime in. Every country I've driven in uses EXIT or a translated equivalent, so I think it's pretty universally understood. However, there's 3 continents I haven't driven in, so might want to get some feedback from those areas. Pending that, support. I think the bolded, linked Exit looks awful. Dave (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the text could be recrafted to use the English-language translation of whatever word is used on the signs, with "Junction" as the default. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe linked boldface is always discouraged whenever possible. I think that should be carried forth to table headers as well. The Division header doesn't link to List of divisions in X. IMHO, the only links that should appear in the headers are the footnotes. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed the link as I changed the header from "#" to "Exit" in New York. – TMF 00:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I updated the page to add this. --Rschen7754 23:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Special case scenarios

In recrafting the old ELG for the new RJL, I attempted to move as many of these bullet points to other sections. The point about directions being in lowercase was moved to the Text appearance section, for instance. I think the last one in that section about toll barriers and the like could be moved to the What to include section somehow. The second point about junctions that list road names and control cities/destination cities could be moved to text appearance. Not sure what to do with the first though... maybe we could drop it completely? It's a bit redundant to the "Interchanges with multiple exits" sub section. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Another good idea. That first bullet is redundant to the other section. --LJ (talk) 23:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Language options

Scott was mentioning on IRC that the US MUTCD uses three specific words in text to indicate the degree of compliance required with a standard or guideline. I'm sure we could streamline the text using this idea. As we copy edit the text, we can reword sections in this format.

• Shall – required and not optional
• Should – recommended practice, and deviations are allowed with specific reasoning. This would replace some of the "WikiProject discretion" comments. I'd expect that the reasoning be outlined and discussed someplace for reference.
• May – optional provision. If the provision is invoked, the guideline must be followed completely.

In the interim, I'd say this could be a great solution to the outstanding issues regarding column order. We could make that a should provision. Location columns could be a should provision, but the Distance, Exit/Junction, Destination and Notes columns would be shall provisions. (The text on Destination would have the may text regarding splitting it into two columns based by carriageway or traffic direction.) Colors would be a may provision, as would route marker graphics. Thoughts? Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Expounding on my thoughts a little more after I reread what I typed, column order, for now would be a should to accommodate the previous objections of the UK editors. We've discussion those points to death for now, so that reasoning has been outlined already. In the future, if a compromise is brokered and reaches consensus, the order of columns in the table could be elevated to shall. The appearance of specific columns would be a shall however. Something like:

Standard columns

The following columns shall appear in road junction list tables. They should appear from left to right as follows:

• Geographic columns should appear in the table, subdivided as necessary. In US states, these should be divided into columns for county (or equivalent) and location. Other countries should have similar schemes as appropriate.
• Distance column(s) – this column shall give the distance from the origin of a roadway in miles or kilometers as appropriate. Some countries may use both systems of measurement in separate columns
• Junction column – this column shall give the number applied to each junction along the roadway. The column shall be titled as appropriate for the naming scheme in each country, translated as necessary. This column should be omitted if the junctions are not numbered, or there are now grade-separated junctions along the roadway.
• Destination column – shall give the roads accessed from the junction. This column should give destination cities as appropriate.
• Notes column – shall offer explanatory notes as appropriate for the junction

Optional columns

The following columns may appear in the table as well:

• Interchange name – shall appear after the junction column for articles about components of a highway system that name interchanges. This column should not be used if the names are not in common usage, they are purely ceremonial, or a significant number of the interchanges are not named along a roadway.
• Carriageway columns – should replace the Destination column for road junction lists that follow local practices to differentiate the signing based on direction of travel. The Notes column may be removed from the table in this scenario.

Thoughts? Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

As a budding traffic engineer, I find this use of terminology to be a good idea. It would be beneficial to replace/amend the first paragraph under "Using this style guide" to define the use of shall/should/may in the context of this guide. Wording will need to be tightened up if this concept is adopted. --LJ (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Unilateral changes

I reverted a recent change, because the language added to the guideline raises questions. In the future I would ask that all changes being made to the guideline be discussed here first. The exception would be to copy-edit the text for clarity, tone, style, or to update examples given. Otherwise no one should be making changes to the guide without discussion. That's just considerate because of all the work that has gone into an attempt to craft a compromise document.

My objections to the change are as follows:

1. The text added encourages the use of the road signs themselves as a source. While for some things (like the destinations listed for a junction) this is acceptable, distance information is better coming from some sort of document. Otherwise, if we're going to be using signage as a source, then every sign used to document the distances will need to be photographed. Google Street View can be used to verify the text of a guide sign, but many of the distance signs for junctions 1) don't exist in some jurisdictions, 2) won't be legible on Street View in the jursidictions where they are posted and 3) may not be in a log document of some sort. For Michigan, I have to consult the Control Section Atlas and Physical Reference Finder Application from the MDOT website to calculate distances. MDOT does not post any sort of sign at freeway interchanges with a milepost. They've only erected mile posts on one highway that isn't a freeway, and the mixed freeway/at-grade highways only have mileposts along the freeway sections. I can calculate the mileposts by adding up the lengths of the control sections, the ends of which correspond to highway junctions. The PRFA can actually give the same information on the same basis, using smaller segments. It's my understanding that the UK posts distance signs at the junctions, and maintains a log of them, but that's not as common of a practice. I would prefer we leave any mention of a source preference out of the guideline.
2. The editor "reinstated" text about California's postmiles. The problem is that his text addition asks for a column giving a cumulative distance measurement, which is not possible at this time for California. The postmiles date to 1964 and no equations have been given in the bridge logs to calculate the proper corrections to make cumulative distance measurements possible. I think the "alternate distance-measuring systems" sentence already covers the situation without cluttering the guide up with additional text. I know the Californian editors have agreed that if a source for postmile equations is found, they'd switch to a single, cumulative distance system. CalTrans is using statewide mileage for the exit numbering in the state, so maybe they'll find such a document at some point soon.

I appreciate that editors from all over are trying to make this single, unified guide work, but we need to be respectful of the situation and not make changes without consulting others. Imzadi1979 (talk) 07:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

As a California editor and resident, the text that was added does not address the situation in California - it just makes it worse. I endorse Imzadi's summary of the situation above. --Rschen7754 08:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The proposed Junction list MoS is unclear about a number of points regarding the representation of distance:

• If highway route markers clearly display distances that are not referenced to the start of the road concerned, but to some other reference point, should the Wikipedia articles show the distances as displayed to the motorist or as calculated from the start of the road?
• If the distance markers are reset when the road crosses an administrative boundary (such as happens on South African provincial borders where each sector is typically 100 to 500 km long), how should the cross-over be handled?
• Are columns of computed distances permitted (such as cumulative distances where marker sequences are reset)? If so, should the readers attention be drawn to the fact that one column shows source data and the other computed data and how much prominence should be given to such notices.

Martinvl (talk) 09:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Martin, regarding when when distance marks reset, There are 3 U.S. states where this is also true, to see how we've handled that see some articles like, California State Route 14, U.S. Route 50 in Nevada, etc. Regarding Imzadi's point. Yes, I've personally been crucified over using pictures (including of road signs) as sources. I've seen it done at GA class articles, but no higher. Dave (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I've used a photo as a source in U.S. Route 41 in Michigan, which is an FA. In fact, I used two photos in that article to illustrate some unique signs at the northern terminus of the highway, one of a big wooden sign that's hung every year in the spring for the warm months that shows the whole path of the highway south to Miami, Florida. The other is a mileage sign that lists 1,990 miles to Miami. These were clearly exceptions that were allowed because the photo sources were used in the article, and they are discussed in the prose, much like a music album article discusses the album cover artwork.

As for distance markers that reset at administrative unit boundaries, California puts the boundary postmiles in the county column. There is also a note that states: "Note: Except where prefixed with a letter, postmiles were measured in 1964, based on the alignment as it existed at that time, and do not necessarily reflect current mileage. The numbers reset at county lines; the start and end postmiles in each county are given in the county column." Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Nevada is one of the states that has mileages resetting at county lines. I use a similar approach to California. However, Nevada does not use postmile prefixes, and the mileposts are generally representative of the actual distance. The note I use is similar to the last sentence of the California note. (It's somewhat of a moot point on many articles, since there's not enough published milepost data to completely fill in the table in most cases.) -- LJ ↗ 22:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been criticized for using photos for sources. But, given the complicated nature of reviewing articles, with multiple reviewers looking for multiple things, I'm not surprised that this is not consistently. It's also possible there's come context or application that would allow them in some uses but not others. Dave (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

A photo is essentially a primary source. It's hard to dispute the content of a photo of a road sign, especially when the photo is placed in the article in question. In the US 41 example, the two photos are of unique road signs in Copper Harbor and at the cul-de-sac east of Fort Wilkins. Both signs have photos uploaded to the Commons, both photos were in place in the article to illustrate it. Much like an article on a music album will discuss the design of cover art, this article briefly discusses the existence and content of the signs. It's not going to be common practice, but it is possible.

My comments were that if we don't have access to a published log of the content of the signs, then the only way to use the signs themselves as a source would be a photo archive of them. That's actually allowed under WP:OR. There are other issues though to that method, namely that many jurisdictions don't erect driver information signs, mileposts, post miles, etc at junctions. Because of that fact, I don't suggest that this guideline have a preference to a source. Each wikiproject should be collaborating on the best methods to source and cite the material within the bounds of Wikipedia policies related to source material. This is a style guide for how to present and format information, not a policy on how to obtain it. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Highways with both controlled-access and non-controlled access sections

For highways that have freeway and surface access sections, do we want to address that in this guideline?

I've typically done this different that most other editors. I prefer to not say anything if it is obvious from other columns (such as the exit numbers that are blank) or a simple note in the notes column. However, the more common standard is to have a colspan entry with "North end of freeway" etc. More often than not this column is bolded, which is not advised per MOS:BOLD. Do we want to standardize this or is this an uncommon enough phenomenon that we don't even care? Dave (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I've seen this most frequently in California as compared to anywhere else in USRD. --Rschen7754 18:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This is done in New York as well. However, if it's not done anywhere outside of the US, maybe it's better suited for the USRD standards page. I would like to see this standardized somewhere, though. – TMF 19:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

If the transition corresponds to a junction, a note to that effect in the Notes column is what I use. If it doesn't correspond to a junction, then I use the colspan technique. I think that in some juridictions, there are other clues about these sorts of transitions. In the UK, A14 would become A14(M), and they would place a colored header bar in the middle of the table to denote the change over. In Ontario, the freeway would be Highway 417, while the surface route would be Highway 17, which have separate articles. It's not uncommon outside of the US, but USRD might want to standardize something, within reason, as of the projects standards page. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I do the rowspans for Nevada articles as well. There's only about three pages it applies to though. I think I've seen it done in other states as well. -- LJ ↗ 23:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Highways that have both interchanges and normal intersections

This has probably been brought up before, but I don't remember what the consensus was. For routes with both exits and normal intersections, what should the title be? If you'll look at U.S. Route 36 in Colorado, the junction list title is disastrous. What should it be? Pzoxicuvybtnrm 03:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"Junction list" or "Major intersections". --Rschen7754 03:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It should be titles based on the majority of the highway's composition. If it's mostly a freeway, "Exit list" is appropriate. If it's mostly at-grade, i.e. it has "normal intersections", then it should be "Major intersections" or "Junction list" depending on state project guidelines. (Major intersections is the USRD-standard name.) Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge with U.S. Highways

Since this page seems to concern US road junctions almost exclusively, I see no reason it should not be merged with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (U.S. state and territory highways). Tony (talk) 01:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (U.S. state and territory highways). —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Apart from my efforts to include a British perspectice, ther appears to be very little attempt to internationalise things. Moreover my concerns about the issues concerning articles that are translated from a non-English source appear to have been totally ignored. In addition, apart from my mention of a few Australian highways, no mention is made of Ausrtalia, South Africa, India or New Zealand. Martinvl (talk) 08:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

What's so special about those countries? And what do you mean "little attempt to internationalise things"? --Rschen7754 08:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Indian editors have commented in past discussions. They have yet to develop articles that include junction lists at this time. We would welcome examples from their articles to include on the page. That being said, you have not been the only editor from outside the United States to comment on this guideline. Your claim that " apart from [your] efforts to include a British perspectice, [sic] ther [sic] appears to be very little attempt to internationalise things" is very overstated to the point of falsehood. I can't force disinterested editors to comment here, even after they have been invited several times. Imzadi1979 (talk) 09:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I have seen on numerous occasions (including at least 3 still open discussions on this very page) where input was specifically requested from non-US editors. Perhaps instead of whining about how US centric it is, you might actually consider participating in these discussions to suggest improvement. Dave (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Highway Rest Areas

Many highways in the United States have traveler rest areas, service plazas and welcome centers which are not currently part of Wikipedia articles but would be useful information to travelers accessing the page. I believe this should be added to the pages. We should discuss whether to add in the exit list or create its own section on the page to list this information. This information is usually readily available from State Highway Transportation Department's websites. Dforthofer (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)dforthofer

In the U.S. Roads Wikiproject standards page, it's noted that these are typically added through a "Services" section in the text of the article, not the junction list. This guideline, as currently written, allows service areas to be included in the junction list, but US articles don't do that currently. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

IMO, it is unnecessary to include rest/service areas in the exit list. In articles on toll roads, service areas, however, may be mentioned in a separate Services section. However, every rest area does not need to be mentioned in an article. ---Dough4872 02:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

In the United Kingdom section, motorway service (MSA) areas are included in the junction list because that is what our readers expect to find. Moreover there is an on-going safety campaign in the UK for not driving when tired. While it is not part of WIkipedia's role to actively promote road safety, Wikipedia should not sabotage road safety. Therefore I am sure that I speak on behalf of all the British editors when I state that MSAs have a place in British articles. Martinvl (talk) 08:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

And I know I've been personally supportive of including them in the junction lists of UK articles. We have a slightly different article structure, and our service areas are a little different in the US. Most highways and freeways in the US have rest areas, which only offer toilet facilities and a place to park. Some are a bit more convenient and offer vending machines. The closest equivalent to the UK's MSAs in the US would be some of the service areas along toll roads here. In Illinois, they built "Oases" that have restaurants and other facilities over the roadway, with parking areas and gas stations on either side. Other toll road facilities have service areas with gas stations and other services. In those cases, the service areas would be notable enough to mention in the junction list, or a service section in the article. Most roads though have the plain rest areas, which aren't really notable enough to mention. (We don't normally even write articles about the service areas in the US, instead any coverage if at all is in the highway articles.) Imzadi1979 (talk) 09:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

My personal opinion, I think listing service areas, rest areas, view areas, etc. in either the exit list or in a separate section is OK within reason. Obviously on a 3000 mile transcontinental highway, there's just too many to mention in an article. However, if a highway has 2 or 3, IMO that's fine. However, I CRINGE every-time I see this services section listing "And THIS service area had a McDonalds, but that one has a BURKER KING" Please omit that kind of crap. Just saying food service, etc, is enough. Dave (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I do think that listing the type of food service is reasonable, if tastefully done, like on Kansas Turnpike#Services (which was the first "Services" section USRD ever had). I believe there's federal restrictions on corporations operating outlets at highway rest areas, which is why you only see them on roads that get no federal funding (turnpikes). The stupid little loop off the freeway that most rest areas in the US are is definitely not notable enough for an article (unless it's notable for something else) and probably shouldn't even be mentioned in the exit list.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

MoS naming style

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Remove from the MoS

This is a project guideline is every sense of the word . Why should this be part of the MoS which is meant to deal with issues covering large numbers of topics and areas. Removing from the MoS doesn't not affect how this project uses this guideline Gnevin (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

This covers a wide range of articles on a global scale. As such, it is the past consensus that it remain a part of the MoS. Imzadi 1979 → 21:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes a wide range of articles but all part of WP:ROADS and as such is a project guideline Gnevin (talk) 22:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Are all subject-matter style guidelines being similarly proposed for removal? If not, then this one should not as well. Imzadi 1979 → 22:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes they have been removed Gnevin (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there going to be an analog to the MoS for a content-specific style guide, a central location for editors to locate content-specific guidelines for the dissemination of content? The advantage to being a part of the MoS is that compliance with these types of style guides was required for Featured Content nominations. Now they're floating out there without the primacy of the MoS stamp to guide their enforcement on "our finest work". Imzadi 1979 → 22:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The analog is Category:Style guidelines of WikiProjects and this guideline still takes its cue from the MoS. Removing this from the MoS doesn't affect Featured Content noms, FA noms should still comply with this guideline . I'm not sure I understand the rest of what your saying . Gnevin (talk) 22:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

So MOS:DAB, and Category:Science (Manual of Style) are also going to be removed, seeing as they are project specific? I personally oppose, as this is the first step backwards in unleashing a clusterfuck of vandalism to which we couldn't respond with a part of the MOS. Keep the status quo. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

No MOS:DAB covers the entire project and science covers a huge range of fields. How does this being part of the MoS or not affect vandalism ? Vandalism should be reverted on sight as covered by WP:V Gnevin (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) That's a valid point. I don't know what the actual practice for FA nominations is, but of course they should be checking articles with any applicable subject-specific guideline. Category:Style guidelines of WikiProjects currently has 96 members, and while some of them may be obsolete or badly maintained, I guess many of them should really be followed by FAs. I agree that there needs to be a way for FA juries to find all applicable guidelines. Unfortunately the method of simply marking everything as part of the MOS conflicts with current attempts to reduce the MOS to a size that allows everybody to understand it.

I am sure we can find a solution that works for everybody. I think it would be nice to have a central page pointing to all the project guidelines. It would also make sense for the project tags on talk pages to link to the project's guidelines. And ideally all WikiProjects should have prominent links to the specific guidelines most relevant to them. Of course we still need a way to distinguish between those project style guidelines that are considered binding and those that are not. IMO the MOS category isn't particularly good for that purpose, but I guess we must find or create an alternative before removing it here. Hans Adler 22:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

How about a content-specific addendum to the MoS? If the main MoS is to be much more generalized in the future, how about creating a companion, a "Supplemental Style Guide" (SSG)? This page could then be moved to WP:Supplemental style guide (road junction lists) along with other style guides that should have a greater primacy than simple wikiproject guidelines. A simple process to vet the promotion of guidelines into the SSG should be easy to put in place.

My one problem with some of the pruning goes to the argument about the size of the MoS. There's no need for editors not working in certain content areas to understand the applicable MoS sections for those areas. Since I don't edit scientific articles, there's no need for me to understand all the ins and outs of Category:Science (Manual of Style) on a day to day basis. If I'm doing a review of an article at FAC in a scientific field, I know that I can find a section of the MoS at that time to consult. If I'm correcting something in my random readings of Wikipedia, and the exact formatting is not right, someone should come along and tweak my edits to conform. The same should be true with editors that don't regularly edit articles that fall under this guideline. If they choose to review one such article that's been nominated at FAC, they should be able to find the applicable sections at the MoS, which has been the current central repository for style guidelines to be enforced on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 23:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Can we carry on this discussion here Gnevin (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• This page is not suitable for inclusion in the WP-wide Manual of style: its ambit is relatively narrow. There is no disadvantage in this change; the advantage is that the MoS has been sprawling and cumbersome for editors to negotiate. Tony (talk) 09:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

RFC which could affect this MOS

It has been proposed this MOS be moved to Wikipedia:Subject style guide . Please comment at the RFC GnevinAWB (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Colors

Just a comment to make. I was working with the colors for the UK's signage for a project, and I determined that the shades in use here don't match the shades in use on the marker graphics.

UK specific colors

Current	Proposed	Usage
blue/white	#1f4191/white	Motorways
green/yellow	#00693f/#ffd41c	Primary road
white	n/a	Secondary road

In the table, the key was set up using the current colors in the articles' lists, but I found that he shades shouldn't be the primary shades. Now, I know that the current section of the table has been commented out as the UKRD project hasn't signed on to the style guide yet, but I'm extending an olive branch to interested parties to help update the colors used to match the graphics in the articles. I'm making an assumption that the graphics match the signage (or as close as possible on a computer screen). I appreciate any thoughts on the subject. Imzadi 1979 → 22:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect to User:Imzadi1979, the colours used on in the column marked Current match those on use in the United Kingdom. An illustration from the text of the law itself (TSRGD 2002) appears here while an illustration from the official summary of the law (the Highway Code) appears here. Martinvl (talk) 04:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but then the marker graphics at the top of the motorway and A road infoboxes are in the wrong colors. Either the graphics are wrong, or the current colors on the junction lists are wrong, or possibly both are wrong. I was only hoping to point out the inconsistency, but you didn't need to be so rude. Imzadi 1979 → 04:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Check this out. This is from the source code from File:UK road A4.svg:

<![CDATA[
   .fil1 {fill:#00693F}
   .fil0 {fill:white}
   .fil2 {fill:#FFD41C;fill-rule:nonzero}
  ]]>

And this is from File:UK-Motorway-M1.svg

<path id="path4935_5_" fill="#1F4191" d="M8.954...

Martin, the colors that Imzadi1979 proposed are the same hex values used in files already used by UKRD. Plus, there is no specification listed on those pdf files (outside of blue and green) unlike those found on the MUTCD. —Fredddie™ 04:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

May I point out the unlike the MUCTD, the exact shade of green is not specified in British law. The text refers the reader to a diagram - the offical copy of which is on paper. I have not actually seen the paper copy of the law, but I have seen the paper copy of the Highway Code (neccessary reading in order to pass one's driving test). Neither of the two sources that I gave (both with a .gov.uk URL) accurately reproduce the colour that I see daily on British road signs. If we want to get the correct shade of green, we need a colour expert to compare the paper versions of the British law with the specification in Wikipedia and update Wikipedia. Until then, please accept that the shade in the Manual of Style does not accurately reflect the shade as specified in either British law or on British roads. Martinvl (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: As currently written, this MOS doesn't specify any colors for the UK road classifications. The colors show up in the documentation for {{legendRJL}} though.

In comparing to pictures I've seen of various British roadways, the colors used in the route images are a bit dark. However, what's listed here as being used in the template and for junction list table headers doesn't seem quite right either. It would make sense for both the junction list headers and route images to use the same color codes...the hex colors to be used should probably be determined by UKRD members before anything is done here. -- LJ ↗ 21:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The articles A1 road (Great Britain) and A3 road have photographs of British road signs. Martinvl (talk) 08:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

While I did compare the colors to what I've seen in photos, it's a completely different exercise to try and ascertain color values from photos. Lighting in the photo, age of the sign, etc. will affect how it appears when viewed on a computer monitor. I imagine that info is out there somewhere, but I couldn't find anything in a quick Google search... -- LJ ↗ 10:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

This reference lists the pantone colours for Britsh road signs. Martinvl (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion is to switch both the graphics and the headers to the same shades, once we agree on a hex conversion for the given Pantone colors. Imzadi 1979 → 16:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I have taken User:Imzadi1979's original table substituted the hex codes from the above reference. I also added the red and brown used on road signs as the reference was too good to loose. Should anybody else wants to check the numbers, the procedure that I used for the blue is:

In the reference, the blue code was given by: "R0 G121 B193"

Hex value of 0 is #00; hex value of 121 is #79; hex value of 193 is #C1

Required colour is #0079C1

UK specific colors

Current	Proposed	Usage
blue/white	#0079C1/white	Motorways
green/yellow	#00703C/#FFD200	Primary road
white	n/a	Secondary road
	#E31837/white	Warning signs
	#794400/white	Tourist destinations

Would anybody else who is familiar with British road signs like to comment before User:Imzadi1979 incorporates this into the relevant MoS page? The reference is probably worth noting as it also contains the RGB codes for red and brown.

Martinvl (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks and sounds good to me. If no one objects, I'll update the color key template, and I'll let UKRD members figure out updating the marker graphics, a project with which I'll be more than happy to help accomplish. Imzadi 1979 → 20:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Glad the color reference was found, as the new proposed hex colors look more like what I've seen. Might I suggest this color table and source link be placed on the WP:UKRD page for reference (or at some other location easily accessible for UK editors). -- LJ ↗ 21:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Fredddie and I have made some inquiries to see if there's a way to run an automated tool like AWB over the category of graphics to correct the colors. I have AWB access on Commons and here, so if there's a way to do it, I'm willing to convert the graphics to correct the colors. If there isn't an automated tool that will, I'm still willing to volunteer to help edit the graphics. I'm also willing to help run automated edits to convert the colors in the tables as well. Either way, I will defer to UKRD members, but my services are available. Imzadi 1979 → 22:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

To correct the SVGs, you'd have to download them, edit the color values in a text editor, Inkscape, etc., and reupload. It's not possible to change an image's source code with AWB; you can't do it through normal editing, and all AWB really is is an enhanced version of that interface. – TMF 23:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at wp:mosnum about metric units

Please see discussion at wp:mosnum about metric units. Lightmouse (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I make a proposal to hard-code into this style guideline that two columns for distances are not required, nor should they appear in articles. Imzadi 1979 → 04:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Full support, with the obvious exceptions for I-19 and the like. --Rschen7754 04:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

100% support. – TMF 06:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur. -- LJ ↗ 07:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

~7 days, no objections, adding to guideline. --Rschen7754 06:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Why are non-Americans being shut out of knowing about the distances on American highways? I'd have thought distances were a critical aspect of road-junction topics? Tony (talk) 10:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It clearly isn't, as many have expressed on WT:MOSNUM. – TMF 16:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The change also ducks the issues surrounding UK motorways and also I-19. Until there is an answer to these questions, then making additions such as this is premature. Martinvl (talk) 11:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The UK doesn't even follow this guideline, and Arizona is gradually converting all signage on I-19 (likely save for the exit numbers) to have imperial distances. – TMF 16:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Martinvl: [1] (specifically note the HTML comment) --Rschen7754 16:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted Tony1 because he doesn't have the consensus to move forward with his revert, whereas we do. Please do not revert again or you will be reported. --Rschen7754 16:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Full support here. Knowing how many kilometres you have to go in the US is pointless. The odometer is in miles, the control city signs show miles, and the speed limit is in miles. Same but vice-versa for metric countries. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Floydian's statement is not true for the UK.

If only one column of numbers is permitted, then the rules as to which units are used should be in that column should be totally unambiguous. For this reason I propose that this section read:

• Mile or km: The measured location of the junction. If the road uses a distance-based exit numbering system, then this column can be left out in favor of the exit number column, otherwise the following rules dictate which units of measure shall be used (in order of precedence):

1. Units of measure used on marker posts (if visible to the driver)
2. Units of measure used on lists published by the highway authority for general use
3. Units of measure used on lists published by authoritative motoring organisations
4. Units of measure used internally by the highway authority.

Additional columns with different measurement systems for the purposes of conversion are not necessary, nor should they be added to articles.

This proposal is aligned with WP:VERIFY, otherwise we could have the situation in the UK where some will argue that miles are the customary unit of measure, but the road marker posts and government-published documentation (such as this one) are in kilometers. How then will we satify WP:VERIFY?

Martinvl (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, WP:RJL doesn't currently apply to the UK, so this is moot. --Rschen7754 21:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I numbered the rules because I disagree with the order. I would support Martinvl's wording if the rules were ordered 2, 4, 1, 3. –Fredddie™ 22:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Some replies here: 1) this guideline should apply to the UK, and in fact only two changes are needed to get the idealized UK format to follow this guideline. The junction column would need to be shifted to precede the carriageway columns. As was discussed at Talk:M25 motorway for other reasons, the black background would need to be removed from the header along with any other color shade changes.

2) On the verification point, wasn't consensus amongst UKRD project members at the M25 talk page that both columns should be used? As I recall it's because the official sources are in metric but other signs are still in miles. The metric would be needed to to satisfy verification, but the miles should be used as the customary measurement. Now If the UK is coming in under MOS:RJL at this time, we'll need to discuss that issue, but before now, it hasn't been an issue because UKRD editors were disregarding this guideline and going on their merry way. The other dually marked tables would include Interstate 19 or Delaware Route 1, but those would have been covered as logical exceptions under WP:IAR.

3) My order of preference should be to combine 1&4. This would cover US mile markers as well as the UK's driver location signs and the logs thereof. If a different system is used for new construction project engineering only, that shouldn't imply that the measurement system should be used in articles. As an example, the plans for M-6 (Michigan highway) were specified in metric, but the Michigan Department of Transportation in general does not use metric for any other applications. I also believe that MDOT doesn't even engineer new projects in metric now. The second part would be the current number 2. Should the two diverge, as in the UK or Interstate 19, then two columns would be appropriate. The only case for number 3 is private toll roads that are separate from any public highway system, otherwise it should not apply. For all other cases though, it's unnecessary duplication and clutter. Imzadi 1979 → 00:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

In response to #1, it really should include the UK, but right now, the guideline excludes it. --Rschen7754 00:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I find the line of argument above to be disturbing. Nobody is arguing to abolish the mile here on WP, nor its relegation. All that people seem to want is an additional column in the table giving km distances. Whilst it is true that anyone armed with a pocket calculator can easily know what the km distances are in a British or American road signs stated in miles, that argument is surely missing the point. IMHO, to say that UK and Americans only use 'miles' and therefore we have no use for another unit of measure ('km') in the relevant articles is, forgive me for saying, terribly parochial. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not being said at all. The rest of the article contains conversions. Why add a second column of numbers that's completely redundant when the other MOS section doesn't require it? To quote MOS:CONVERSIONS,

Generally, conversions to and from metric units and US or imperial units should be provided, except:
When units are part of the subject of a topic—nautical miles in articles about the history of nautical law, SI units in scientific articles, yards in articles about American football—it can be excessive to provide conversions every time a unit occurs. It could be best to note that this topic will use the units (possibly giving the conversion factor to another familiar unit in a parenthetical note or a footnote), and link the first occurrence of each unit but not give a conversion every time it occurs.

In this case, it's been considered excessive to include both sets of distance measurements where there is not a specific reason like a US freeway that's marked in kilometers unlike the rest of the country's freeways, or the UK that uses both systems in different capacities on the same roadway. Imzadi 1979 → 03:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• While you may have a valid point, it doesn't seem to be focussed on the crux of this contentious inclusion. It just seemed from the above discussion that some editors above were vehemently opposed to including metric distances in UK and US road articles, which I see from you now does not seem to be the case. I also took issue with editors apparently issuing threats to browbeat. I'm glad Martin has reverted inclusion for now, so we have a more sensible discussion on the matter. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• This guideline doesn't affect the UK at all, so in fact, that diff that you pointed out does go along with the opinion that is being expressed here. Tony1 was reverting to a version that was not supported by consensus, so I warned him that he would be reported to another venue if he kept doing this. Repeated reverting to a version not supported by consensus is a serious issue. --Rschen7754 04:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Heavens: agressive. It appears there is a group ownership problem on this page. It will need to be sorted out. Tony (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The UK and its exclusion from this guideline

I'm not sure that other editors realize this, so I am starting another section to discuss this. Earlier this year when we revamped RJL, the UK expressed objections to this guideline that could not be reconciled to their satisfaction. Therefore, the UK was excluded from the guideline so that RJL could be applied to every other country's road articles in the world.

Now, if the UK editors insist on having a provision for the UK and their necessity for a miles and km column in the RJL guideline (which I do not oppose, nor has anyone else that has commented on the matter), then it only makes sense that the UK should be included in RJL. Otherwise, what this amounts to is "This is a guideline on articles relating to animals, except for lions and tigers. Articles on lions and tigers should use this particular infobox. But wait, this guideline doesn't apply to lions and tigers, so ignore what was just said." --Rschen7754 04:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Accessibility update

Recently Wikipedia:Accessibility#Tables has been updated. In short, the scope="col" needs to be added to table headers so that screen readers can repeat the column title while reading the table. Imzadi 1979 → 01:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this MOS really necessary?

I don't know about anybody else, but I'm tired of the arguing and the posturing. This guideline has always been one giant pissing contest, and I don't see that ever ending. US editors are set in their ways and UK editors are set in their ways; I don't see both sides ever coming together. I wonder if RJL is even necessary. So, I propose the following: –Fredddie™ 13:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

1. RJL be purged from existence
2. A guideline be placed on WP:HWY with regards to what content a junction list should contain (we can work that out easily since we really don't disagree on what goes into the junction lists)
3. Stylistic guidelines be devolved to the respective WikiProjects

Oppose: I respectfully disagree. As for moving anything to WP:HWY, that would only shift the conversation to another location. Imzadi 1979 → 13:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Extending my previous comments here, but this guideline is not US only. It is applied in New Zealand. It is applied in Canada. It is applied in several other countries. Rschen7754 (talk · contribs) has surveyed the majority of the highway articles on the English Wikipedia, and while it is true that some countries' articles do not use this guideline, in most cases that's because those articles are all stubs that haven't been expanded to the point that they'd have a junction list. Many countries' articles are lucky to have an infobox or even highway articles. Currently there are a few big exceptions to this guideline. The UK is an odd exception. They developed their own format, which isn't even consistently applied to their articles. Changes that were suggested months ago by their project, which had consensus by their project, have not been deployed. The other notable exception is Germany. Their articles are direct translations from the German Wikipedia, and they have the junction list as a collapsible section of the infobox. As the German editors finish translating articles, I expect we can see those articles translated to follow the MOS here in general instead of a quasi translation of the German Wikipedia's MOS equivalent. As for the question by Tony1 below, please see MOS:CONVERSIONS which does not require the continuous repetition of converted units. We're talking about a table at the end of the article. The infobox automatically converts a given length input into both outputs that are correctly formatted. All distances in the body text of an article should be converted. That other MOS section has been quoted several times already, but units of measurement for length are innate to the subject of highways. He seems to forget that Canadian and New Zealand articles don't include miles, nor are we asking them to. Arguably there's a larger potential audience of Americans reading about Canadian highways given that the country is right next door, and the US population is roughly ten times that of Canada.

I will say that there is a growing sentiment among some editors to not only scrap this guideline, but instead remove all junction lists from all highway articles. If rowspans are deprecated because there is no way to accommodate them for accessibility reasons, if there is continual pushing to insert geographic coordinates or duplicative measurements, then we would be better off not attempting to keep junction lists in any format. Imzadi 1979 → 15:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Might as well link to the survey: User:Rschen7754/World. --Rschen7754 17:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Support: rationalise and merge into a wider-scoped MoS subpage, or devolve to WikiProjects. I have said before that the fragmentation into US and non-US is most unhelpful. It was always going to create an elite little cabal that would own the page. It inhibits international cooperation and mutual learning by editors anglophone and foreign. It is not a good example of cooperation and collaboration. Next, we'll have different MoSes for AmEng and BrEng. No thanks: we need a homogenous project, dynamic in its encouragement of interactions between editors from all backgrounds. No one has yet answered my question as to why US road distances should be inaccessible to non-US readers. Are US RJ articles restricted to US readers? I hope not. Tony (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

See my extended remarks above. Imzadi 1979 → 15:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

From reading the guideline, where do you get the feeling that this is a US-centric guideline? --Rschen7754 16:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Even before 2010 RJL was used in a handful of countries outside the US, so saying it is a US-only guideline is a bit ridiculous. --Rschen7754 16:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Don't let one sour apple spoil the bunch. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I cannot devote the time required to fully think through this issue right now, so I will not vote. However, I would like to say a few things. It's pretty clear that some perceive this as a way to force global standardization when it is not required or desired. As such, it's equally clear to me that the environment is not right at this time to move forward with a global guideline. Would I like to have one, yes? There are a few highways in some 3rd world countries, that I am familiar with, and have pictures of, where no wikipedia article currently exists. I would like to have a guideline I can follow to help me write those articles. However, the approach taken so far to achieve this guideline isn't working. Dave (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, it seems that everyone else outside of the UK supports the concept of RJL. --Rschen7754 21:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I feel that a lot of editors are coming into this discussion that are confusing the issues. We have the issue of the UK inclusion in RJL, and we have the MOSNUM issue, which are two separate issues. --Rschen7754 21:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Apart from British and American editors, what other nationalies have been active in this discussion? Martinvl (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Canada, for one (Floydian). --Rschen7754 23:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll

I'm not sure that we understand each other's positions, and it'd be nice to see where people stand, so I have started a straw poll. This is not binding by any means, or intended to settle anything; this is just to see what people's opinions are. Think of it as a Gallup poll, or like the initial poll that you take once you enter the jury deliberation room. --Rschen7754 21:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Should we have junction lists at all?

Yes - and they shoudl be written in a way that they can be printed off if needed. Martinvl (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and printing format is irrelevant This is an encyclopedia, not a travel guide. Imzadi 1979 → 23:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. --Rschen7754 23:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes - No explanation necessary. (This will be the only vote I cast).Mitch32^{(Growing up with Wikipedia: 1 edit at a time.)} 23:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. –Fredddie™ 00:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. – TMF 03:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Dough4872 12:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and as an extension of what Martinvl mentioned, they should be printable like all content on wikipedia, but they could never be expected to fit onto one page. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you like the concept of a universal exit guideline?

This does not refer to this specific implementation.

No - they should be on a per-country basis because each country has its own characteristics. Martinvl (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a road is a road is a road. They all have a staring location, an ending location and some kind of junctions in between. Imzadi 1979 → 23:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes - because there really isn't enough differences in between countries to need different styles of junction list. --Rschen7754 23:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I've always thought junction lists should have a location, a distance measurement, the major intersections, and any notes which help explain an intersection. –Fredddie™ 00:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, per above. – TMF 03:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. While each country may do things a little differently, I think we can work on a compromise to get a standard junction list format. Dough4872 12:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you like this implementation of RJL?

No - It is US-biased and therefore irrelevant to the UK. Martinvl (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and UK editors assertions to the contrary it is not US-biased. Ask the Japanese, New Zealanders and Canadians how it works well in other countries. In fact as I will continuously state, the idealized format used in the UK works and complies with this guideline, if only one column's location is shifted. There are a few other, minor changes like adding a color key to comply with MOS:COLOR, removing the black background on the table header, per UKRD project consensus forged at Talk:M25 motorway, and updating the exact shades of blue, green and yellow to match the Dept. for Transport's colors as was discussed on this talk page previously. Imzadi 1979 → 23:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. --Rschen7754 23:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No. It feels like we've been arguing back and forth for two years. I know it hasn't been that long, but it still feels that way. –Fredddie™ 00:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

No: see my comments above. Tony (talk) 01:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Tony, your comments, while respected, are misguided on one notion here. RJL is not US-specific. It's the most globalized it has ever been. This isn't a US–UK argument here. The text of the guideline as written may need editing and tweaking, but the concepts embodied in that text are globalized. The UK editors have obstructed consensus. They've requested changes repeatedly to this guideline this year, and those changes get discussed and debated and compromises are forged... except that unless they're given everything they wanted they won't buy into the compromise. Of course they've come to consensus to implement changes to the lists in their own articles at their own project pages and not updated the lists to reflect their new consensus. I don't seem to understand what's so hard about compromise on this guideline. Each party gives and a little and takes a little.

If I can boil the entire text of this guideline down it's something like this:

There should be the following columns in a proper list. The first column or two is related to the geographic subdivisions appropriate to show the location of the highway. In countries or states that don't have an agreed system of subdivisions, skip them. If the highway is in a single subdivision, skip the column(s) and place a note above the table to that effect. Next comes the distance column. Use the measurement system appropriate for the location of the highway. If it's a freeway (North America) or motorway (other locations) the next column should contain the numbers for the exits or junctions, if numbered. The next column is for the interchange or junction names, if the freeway or motorway has names in common usage for these junctions. The next column is for the destination or roadway reached from that junction. The last column is for any notes. In the UK and other locations, it is appropriate to use separate columns for each carriageway of of a motorway or each direction of a highway. The notes column should not be used as the notes will appear with the destinations.

The rest of the guideline is restrictions on how to use colors as table backgrounds, and standardizing those colors. This is aimed to be consistent with MOS:COLOR. There are guidelines on how to use road marker graphics, intended to be consistent with MOS:ICONS, and the preference to use common abbreviations in the wikilinks generated in the table. That's basically it. It's designed to be flexible to regional variations while still being consistent in global usage. A few minor changes to the articles in the UK, and they fall in compliance. There has even been transatlantic offers of help sitting on the table waiting. Imzadi 1979 → 01:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Tony: Please support your allegations that RJL is US-centric. Can you point to any particular point where it is US-centric? --Rschen7754 02:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

In counterpoint, the examples given don't count. They can be changed at any time whenever additional articles around the world are updated with properly formatted (for that region) junction lists. Imzadi 1979 → 02:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, now that I've updated the examples, only 3 out of the 7 examples are from the US. --Rschen7754 03:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes - and the people who think this is US-centric need to pull their heads out of the sand. – TMF 03:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the current format could use some tweaks, including having distance columns in both miles and kilometers and making colors either required or not instead of optional. Dough4872 12:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Should we include the UK in RJL?

Not necessarily now, but you can state that if you wish.

No - Each country should have its own format. Martinvl (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as I stated above, the changes necessary are minor. At the speed that WP:UKRD updates articles to implement previous consensus in my experience, they can sign on to the guideline now and finish updating articles later this decade. Imzadi 1979 → 23:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Eventually, so yes. I think there should be some flexibility built in for regional differences. –Fredddie™ 00:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, when they grasp the concept that what RJL calls for in a junction list isn't that different from what the UK already uses. Since they haven't by this point, I doubt they ever will. – TMF 03:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we should be able to come up with format similar to what we have now that handles all of the UKs functions. Dough4872 12:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you support dual columns for each system of measurement in every road article?

It is up to each country to decide. Martinvl (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

In every article? No. Per MOS:CONVERSIONS it isn't necessary, but there are logical exceptions where two columns would be beneficial. Would I absolutely oppose it? No, because in theory all of Michigan could be updated at once by making the table templates add the extra column, but I think there are better ways to handle it. In some cases, like Capitol Loop, there are other considerations why doubling the columns is of dubious benefit. Imzadi 1979 → 23:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No. It's a lot of work (especially in California, where everything is hard-coded, and there are no templates (unlike Michigan) - see the code of Interstate 5 in California for an example. --Rschen7754 23:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No. –Fredddie™ 00:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hell no. I'm also against footnotes, but am open to a note above or below the table that provides a unit conversion. – TMF 03:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is fair to include distances in both miles and kilometers, as Wikipedia is supposed to be for a world audience. If done, there should be separate side-by-side columns for miles and kilometers. Dough4872 12:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you volunteering to help CA convert, if such conversion becomes necessary? --Rschen7754 17:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see adding conversions as being too hard as all it takes is adding another column and converting miles to kilometers. Alternatively, we could have the miles and kilometers together in the same column, with the main unit the country uses and then the other one in parentheses. In both cases, we should make it work so the units do not display. I do think that this is doable though, it may just take a little effort. If we do carry through with a way of doing conversions, I will try to help fix as many articles as I can. Dough4872 18:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You do realize that CA is entirely on hardcoded tables, right? --Rschen7754 18:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Most states other than MI use hardcoded tables, and I know that will be a challenge if we do implement this. Mass changes have been nothing new to USRD, such as with the recent infobox road change. Dough4872 22:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

We're talking at least 6000 articles (if not more), and it's not something that can be AWB'ed - it must be done manually. To put this in perspective, the major cities boxes (between 1500 and 2000 articles) took over 6 months to remove (even though it was just finding the box and hitting delete), and even then we didn't get them all. --Rschen7754 23:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

If we do carry through, it can be done one article at a time when we get around to it. Since it appears it may be more trouble than its worth, then I guess we can scrap the idea of including both miles and kilometers. I am fine with the status quo for distances. Dough4872 23:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you support dual columns for each system of measurement in the UK?

Regardless of whether it is in RJL or not.

Yes, as that situation makes sense. The distance signs, which would be the authoritative basis for the numbers in the table, are in kilometers while other roadway measurements are situated around the mile. It's similar to how I-19 in Arizona is set up. Both are logical situations to use double columns. Imzadi 1979 → 23:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. --Rschen7754 23:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No, but I would defer to consensus among UK editors –Fredddie™ 00:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

That's something for the UK editors to decide on. As such, I have no preference. – TMF 03:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Dough4872 12:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Any other comments?

This is just a general comment to editors outside the highway community who advocate for change. We respect your opinions, but our community of editors is the group that actually has to implement that which is decided. We get defensive when "outsiders" come, "dictate" changes and leave. We're a very small community, with maybe a dozen active editors in the US that specialize in specific states that struggle to cover the rest of the country. In addition there are a handful of editors for other countries, some of which also have regional specialization. It's a wide scope, perhaps wider than other wikiprojects with similar editor populations. Imzadi 1979 → 23:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• I would have to agree. I have been working on road articles on Wikipedia for over 5 years now, and over half of our problems come from editors who barge in and who tell us what to do. Are we resistant to change? No, definitely not. I can cite our implementation of WP:ALT, for one, as an instance of where USRD editors have worked with outside editors collegially and where a consensus was formed that was acceptable to both sides. I invite the editors pushing the additional columns on all the articles to a discussion where we can come to a consensus, rather than a dictation. The footnote idea was really not bad, and though there were legitimate objections to it, I think that some modification of that idea would work. --Rschen7754 23:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Seeing what people are saying, I'm going to propose something later that I hope will get most, if not everyone, on board. --Rschen7754 02:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up question

You say that RJL is US-biased. Frankly, I'm not quite sure where you are getting this from. Can you cite any examples? --Rschen7754 23:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If you visit this site, and click on a motorway, you will be able to see what the Dutch and the Belgian consider important information. You will notice that there is no mention of provinces anywhere, let alone municipalities (gemeente in Dutch, arrondissement in French), yet the deisgn of the RJL has been compromised to accomodate these columns. (The Brits also find these columns unneccesary). Among the compromises is squashing the exit information for both directions into one column, even though it might be different in each direction. This Benelux site as well as the UK version of the RJL and this British [site] all show twin columns, one for each direction. If you now look at the information on the new Dutch example in WP:RJL, you will see that almost all the information that appears on the Dutch web site has been sacrificed in order to accomodate the province and the municipality names. Martinvl (talk) 13:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I know in the US, there are a few roadgeek sites that have exit lists with separate columns for each direction, here is an example. However, Wikipedia does not need to base junction lists directly on how other sites present it. Dough4872 14:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand Wikipedia should be aware of what other sites present. The UK sites are based on what we see in road atlases and the AA handbook. From my own point of view, I sometimes print off the junction list if I am driving somewhere for use as a dynamic planning aid (in particular how many comfort breaks we should have). A single sheet of A4 is much better than an atlas. Martinvl (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this is more of a Wikipedia thing, not a US thing. The majority of US exit list sites have two columns, one for each direction (http://www.ajfroggie.com/triskele/, http://www.route56.com/exitguides/ out of the top of my head right now). Some of the US exit list guides have counties, but none of them have cities. On Wikipedia, we want to provide the context of the junction, as this is an encyclopedia and not just a roadgeek site. --Rschen7754 16:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Another note: The Dutch example was created in 2008, so it is apparent that the original editor felt that RJL (then ELG) was adequate for their needs. This was even before the 2010 revamp to make it international. [2] --Rschen7754 17:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, what information is it that you talk about on the Dutch site that has been removed on the English Wikipedia? I only see the speed limits and the exit diagrams, neither of which the UK has (I'm not sure of any country that uses either- except one of the South Asian countries and British Columbia have exit diagrams). --Rschen7754 03:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Martinvl, if you've read what I've stated here before, RJL does not preclude dual columns by carriageway! In fact it actually states how to do it! It also states that the location columns are not needed, where there is not consensus on what geographic subdivisions to use. My opinion is that adding some sort of county column to the UK lists would be beneficial, but until a lasting consensus can be reached as to what type of county to use, etc. etc., don't add it. Reading left to right, the standard columns are as follows, per the text of RJL:

Location 1	Location 2	Distance	Exit	Destinations	Notes
Blah	Blah	0.00	0	Sample Road	First junction in Foo
Concurrency terminus       Closed/former       HOV only       Incomplete access       Route transition       Tolled/ETC       Unopened

or

Location 1	Location 2	Distance	Junction	Carriageway/Direction 1	Carriageway/Direction 2
Blah	Blah	0.00	0	Sample Road east	Sample Road west
Concurrency terminus       Closed/former       HOV only       Incomplete access       Route transition       Tolled/ETC       Unopened

Some notes are in order. Location 1/2 are based on the particular geographic needs of the area in question. In the US, they're county/location. In Manitoba and Saskatchewan, they're rural municipality/location. For Japan they would be prefecture/municipality. In the UK, they could be just one column for county or region or whatever UKRD decided was best to help readers gain a sense of where in the UK the roadway is. Until there's a consensus on what geographic subdivision to use, don't use the column. What is noted as "Distance" above could be just miles, just kilometers or a dual set of columns for both. Consensus on which to use based on country, but the default is a single column with the measurement system appropriate to that country. The column for exit/junction number of course is dropped when it isn't a freeway/motorway or other roadway with numbered junctions of some kind. There's an optional column for interchange name that can be inserted next on roadways that have the interchanges named, like Pennsylvania Turnpike. The last two columns are either the Destinations/Notes setup or the dual carriageway or direction setup. The last thing to note is that if colored backgrounds are used anywhere on the table, then the color keys shown must be used. In fact, the {{legendRJL}} template was created from the start to include a UK-specific addition to the standard key using the |uk=yes parameter. These are the 4 standard colors set up for international consistency, but as you can see, there's no reason that additional colors can't be added for a specific country or region, as long as they are consistently applied and a key to their meanings is provided. Add in a few standards for how to use marker graphics if being used and some standards that the preference is to use the common abbreviations for roadway names in wikilinks, and voilà, that's RJL in a nutshell. That's what was created earlier this year. Imzadi 1979 → 16:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

On paper, how are highways represented in Britain? In Ontario, the website with the kilometric distances only shows one entry for each exit, regardless of the carriageway. Do the British papers show separate carriageways, or is this an invention of travel guides? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Floydian, it doesn't really matter though. RJL allows both formats. It has allowed both formats for months now. As long as a country is consistent, it doesn't matter which format is used, as both are perfectly acceptable. There's one case in Michigan where I almost switched to dual carriageway column formats: the M-10/Lodge Freeway. The exits and their numbers vary so much between each direction of that Detroit freeway. Unlike most US freeways where both carriageways can access every interchange, there are so many on the Lodge Freeway that exit only for one direction that I felt I could make a case to switch the format. I didn't, but that doesn't mean at a later date I can't. RJL prescribes how to do it and allows it, so I can make the switch. Imzadi 1979 → 17:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

UK proposal

M5 Motorway
mile	km	Northbound exits (B Carriageway)	Junction	Southbound exits (A Carriageway)
0.0	0.0	The North West, Wolverhampton, Birmingham (north & east), Walsall M6	M6, J8	Start of motorway
2.7	4.4	West Bromwich, Birmingham (north west) A41	J1	West Bromwich, Birmingham (north west) A41
5.4	8.7	Dudley, Wolverhampton, Birmingham (west) A4123	J2	Dudley, Wolverhampton, Birmingham (west) A4123
8.2	13.3	Birmingham (south west & central) A456	J3	Kidderminster A456
		Frankley Services	Services	Frankley Services
14.8	23.8	Birmingham (south) A38 Stourbridge A491	J4	Bromsgrove A38 Stourbridge A491
16.3	26.3	NEC, Birmingham Airport, Redditch M42, London (M40, M1)	J4a	Birmingham (south & east), Redditch M42, London (M40)
21.6	34.9	Droitwich Spa, Bromsgrove A38	J5	Droitwich Spa A38
		Worcester (north), Kidderminster A449	J6	Worcester (north) A449 Evesham A4538
		Worcester (south) A44	J7	Worcester (south) A44
		Strensham services	Services	Strensham services
39.8	64.2	South Wales, Ross-on-Wye M50	J8	South Wales, Ross M50
44.0	70.9	Tewkesbury A438 Evesham A46	J9	Tewkesbury A438 Evesham A46
48.0	77.4	No access	J10	Cheltenham A4019
51.2	82.6	Cheltenham, Gloucester (north), Gloucestershire Airport A40	J11	Cheltenham, Gloucester (north), Gloucestershire Airport A40
53.6	86.4	Gloucester, Cirencester (east) A417	J11a	London, Cirencester A417
		Gloucestershire Gateway Services	Services	Gloucestershire Gateway Services
60.3	97.3	Gloucester (south) (A38)	J12	Gloucester (south) (A38)
Rows omitted
157.6	254.2	Exeter A379 Sidmouth, Exmouth (A3052) A376 Exeter services	J30 Services	Exeter A379 Sidmouth, Exmouth A376 Exeter services
		Start of motorway	J31	Bodmin, Okehampton A30
		Bodmin, Okehampton A30 Non-motorway traffic		Road becomes A38 from/to Plymouth and Torquay
Data from driver location signs are used to provide distance and carriageway identifier information
Concurrency terminus       Closed/former       HOV only       Incomplete access       Route transition       Tolled/ETC       Unopened

Coordinate list

This is what I propose for the UK. It's really not that different from what M5 motorway already uses. It is basically the same table, brought into line with the MOS guidelines regarding italics, all caps, bold, and colors; it also has both miles and km, per your consensus (though if that were to change, then you would need to use only miles or km), and it has a legend, which FAC requires too. There really isn't any way to compromise any more, because you have to follow Wikipedia MOS guidelines regarding italics, all caps, bold, and colors no matter what you do. --Rschen7754 17:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I would state that the only difference between what is shown above and what RJL required, if currently applied, is that under the current version, the Junction column should be shifted one location left so that the two carriage way columns appear next to each other. Otherwise any additional changes that he made are to comply with other sections of the MOS, some of which MOS:RJL has attempted to address itself. Imzadi 1979 → 17:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

*sigh* I know, and I wish they would realize that, but maybe this will get them on board. --Rschen7754 17:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice if the display=table option could be used with {{convert}}. However I'm not sure if that would fit with the formatting being used. This approach could keep one heading as in this example. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

disp=output number only works better. –Fredddie™ 03:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It would probably be superfluous to keep repeating mi and km all the way down the column. Otherwise it would probably work. (If someone wants to change the example feel free; I don't think I'll get time until later). --Rschen7754 21:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. For one, the example table isn't using a template to create the conversions because the km value is in the given reference, but the project is putting the mi value first because that matches the rest of the signage. Using that template would require the column order to be reversed. Second, it's a bit redundant to have the same label down the whole length of the column. Imzadi 1979 → 21:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget about {{Mikm}}, which was set up to make mile-to-kilometer conversions for tables. –Fredddie™ 02:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Right but in that case, that template displays mi first and generates the km conversion. In this case, you'd need a template that displayed the mi conversion first and the km value second. Imzadi 1979 → 02:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Total nonsense! The template simply displays the units provided first and converts to the second! You get whatever order you wish. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, well that's the problem. The metric is the known value (the UK's driver location signs and the log of them are in kilometers), but the desired first value is miles because that what all the rest of the road signing uses. So, there would need to be a template created that lists the converted value (mi) first and the known/given value (km) second. Imzadi 1979 → 03:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems to work just fine... go for it :) Jeni ^(talk) 02:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Since there doesn't seem to be any objection, I'm adding the above example and removing the UK "exception" language from the guideline. Imzadi 1979 → 17:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Conversions issue proposal (for non-UK countries, as the UK is addressed above)

The solution that seems to have the most consensus is requiring a hatnote with the conversion factor, and requiring that only one column with the customary units of measurement for distance be used. It remains to be proven that the benefits of a second column with the extra conversion outweigh the costs. Therefore, I propose this solution. --Rschen7754 07:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I will also toss out the suggestion to have a table row at the bottom of the table, similar to the color key (and would appear above the key) to hold a conversion factor. In either case, I suggest that the text be: "1.000 mi = 1.609 km; 1.000 km = 0.621 mi" or similar. Imzadi 1979 → 07:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that would work as well. --Rschen7754 07:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I prefer this option over a hatnote, personally. Since (IMO) very few people - if any - are actually going to use the conversions, putting it in the footer makes more sense than having it in a more prominent position. – TMF 13:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I should add that I'd put the conversion and the color key (if the area uses colors) in the same row on different lines, not in separate rows. – TMF 13:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Would it be wise to place a ref in the header column? Then at the bottom of the table place the note? Such as...

Location	Mile[a]	Destinations	Notes

^a 1 mile is equal to 1.6 km

This would be a simple addition to {{Jcttop}} and the family of templates. Whenever unit=km is specified, it could say 1 km is equal to 0.61 miles. Again, we'd have to work on getting all states on board with the templates. I am entirely willing to help with that. –Fredddie™ 14:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I do think this conversion idea is easier than having separate columns for the junction list. I can help with adding the conversion template to junction lists if we do it. Dough4872 18:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Even if this could be totally automated through {{jcttop}} and {{jctbtm}}, I still prefer the table row option. – TMF 04:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It should also be noted that most junction lists have one or more references in the mile header as well. If the cell just has one footnote - one length reference - the width is fine. However, if there's anything more than that, it begins to get too stretched out horizontally. – TMF 23:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

No matter which location it is ultimately located, the best text gives both the conversion from 1.00 or 1.000 mi to km, and from 1.00 or 1.000 km to mi. It provides better perspective for both units. No matter the location, it will take one line of height, and even including both conversion factors should not make it wrap to a second line. The conversion should be given to at least 2, if not 3, decimal places because many of the articles have 2 or 3 decimal places of precision. Imzadi 1979 → 11:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'm currently running in favor of the table footer. My suggestion is that {{legendRJL}} and {{jctbtm}} both get modified to add this row. I'll set legendRJL not to display the conversion row for the UK, since those lists should be using two columns. In the interim, tables would only need the |} changes to call either template as appropriate. Imzadi 1979 → 17:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Rschen7754 20:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Can this be added to the guideline page (with the addition of the UK having two mileages, and prohibiting the use of two mileages otherwise?) --Rschen7754 01:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Added. There is now a section on the two kinds of required table footers, and the footers have been added to all of the sample tables that needed them. Imzadi 1979 → 01:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

A20 Motorway (Netherlands)

I suggest that this example be removed from the RJL as it is very poorly designed. The column "Province" is unneccessary - the entire motorway is in a single province. The column "Municipality" conveys no useful information - municipality boundaries are not usually signposted on Dutch roads - only provincial boundaries are. Also, where is the destination list? Martinvl (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The table has been fixed with respect to the province column. As for municipal boundaries, most township lines in Michigan aren't signed on the highways, but that doesn't make the location of a junction any less in that township. Shall I strip useful information from all the articles on that basis? The information still provides a geographic basis for the location of the junctions, which is the purpose. It's not purely a duplication of the road's signs. If we did that, this would be a travel guide and not an encyclopedia article on a road. Imzadi 1979 → 21:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

IMO, the junction list is a travel guide. The rest of the article is not. Motorway exits in the Netherlands are often named after the principal destination that one reaches from that exit even though they also have a number. However the name "Centrum" can be confusing - it depends on the city to which it refers. The A20, for example, allows traffic from the ferry port at the Hoek van Holland to by-pass the city of Rotterdam, so "Centrum" refers to "Rotterdam (Centrum)" (as opposed to "Rotterdam (Noord)", "Rotterdam (Zuid)", "Rotterdam (Oost" or "Roterdam (Wes)"). Martinvl (talk) 07:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There is substantial opinion from outside of the community of highway article editors that WP:NOT includes the fact that WP is not a travel guide. The key of course in dealing with that opinion is to present the content of an article in an encyclopedic fashion. The fact that you might print out a junction list on a trip isn't relevant to the fact that it should be provided in an encyclopedic fashion. A junction list in an article has a distinct role: it catalogs the locations of the major junctions as a condensed method of locating where this roadway is in a state, country or the world. It's really a supplement to the route description, which as you've indicated isn't supposed to be a travel guide. That it has a possible secondary role for some readers isn't my concern, and it shouldn't be yours. We're building an encyclopedia here. There's always Wikitravel if you disagree. Imzadi 1979 → 09:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

How is WP:RJL US-biased?

This discussion was on my talk page. Since a second editor joined in, I feel that it should be made public:

I would appreciate it to me if you could explain why you see WP:RJL as US-biased. You have offered little proof to back up your assertion. --Rschen7754 08:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I have made a proposal to include the UK in RJL at WT:RJL. --Rschen7754 00:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rschen7754. I saw your proposal. By and large it looks OK, but I think it best that somebody else form the UK groups has some input. If nobody else does, then it might well just end up being ignored.

I think that the real reason that the UK editors do not appear to be cooperating is that the promotes of the RJL have taken the US model as being the start point of discussions, rather than putting the US model and the UK model alongside each other and taking the common points as the start point. I get the feeling that earlier discussion have annoyed UK editors to the extent that they are just boycotting RJL discussions.

May I put one item into perspective. I have read a number of John Grisham books and I get the feeling that every US country has its court house and that the judges and politicians at county level have considerable power. The UK is much more centrally administered. I don't know the name of the chairman of our District Council (which serves a population of 80,000), not of our County Council (which serves a population of just under 1,000,000). You will probably find that this is true of most Brits (apart from Londoners where the mayor does have some power). This reflects our lack of interest in county boundaries. It also explains why we get hot under the collar whe we are told by outsiders what is important in our own country. Martinvl (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Are there any other active UK users currently? In response to your other points, WP:RJL (then WP:ELG) has been in force worldwide since around 2007, before the current UK model was developed. --Rschen 7754 19:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

There are a few, but as I have said, they have probably had enough of the RJL debate and are ignoring it. Martinvl (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Well... it will probably be implemented then, if nobody from the UK objects. (Not that it's a huge change anyway, it just sets Wikipedia MOS guidelines and your own project consensus regarding miles and km into the guideline). --Rschen7754 20:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Martin, you're right to a degree about every county here having a courthouse and power-wielding judges. Anyway, do you have any objection to adding cities to junction lists? Last time around, I asked about it the logic was since some junctions were out in the middle of nowhere, and obviously wouldn't have a location, that no junctions should have a location. I, for one, would like to know where M1 and M25 intersect, not just that they meet at J6a on the M1. –Fredddie™ 21:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I see the need for localities in junction lists as being important - the UK concept of a "city" is different to the American concept - historically a "city" in the United Kingdom had a bishop. The UK roads group ensures that the only localities quoted on the junction lists are those that appear on the roads themselves which is why we have different lists for each direction.

BTW, I think that the M1 and M25 intersect in either the Watford or the Hertsmere district (I have not checked which). Does Hertsmere mean anything to you? Probably not. That is why we don't use district names on our junction lists. Martinvl (talk) 06:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I object to the tone of the article. It tells me that the American version is the refernece version and any other country's version is a variation of the American version. Either this article need a total overhaul so that it is really international or it needs to be renamed "Manual of Style (United States road junction lists)". I therefore request that the article be reworked to state that it does not cover the United Kingdom. Martinvl (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This is quite late to start an objection, after it has been implemented, and when you have had several days to bring it up. Not that it's outside of proper Wikipedia procedure, but just that it's a bit rude. Consensus supported the readdition of the UK into RJL, and it has already been carried out. --Rschen7754 20:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It has been discussed before to copy edit the guideline. That's fine if you have suggestions, but consensus was to make the changes that I made. Imzadi 1979 → 21:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Btw, is the format references in the sample not what the UK currently uses? There are a few changes made in some of the text formatting, but that is to comply with the rest of the MOS. The only real addition, is the color key at the bottom of the table, which is to comply with MOS:COLOR. Otherwise, it is the format that UKRD uses, at least what that project's consensus has been to use. Imzadi 1979 → 22:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Martin, the consensus was that the guideline has been implemented as discussed above, it works, it pleases all parties. Exactly what is the issue? I'm struggling to work out exactly what the objection here is? Jeni ^(talk) 23:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Jeni, the introductory sentence to the column description states: " The following columns appear from left to right in the following order:" The UK junction lists do not follow the order specified. The English-language description of the Dutch junction lists tried to follow the order and made a right dogs breakfast of the list (it did not have space for a destination column!). I would like to see the introductory sentence replaced with "The following columns can appear in the junction list. The identification of appropriate columns for a particular country and their ordering should be done by the national group." Thereafter we could internationalise some of the text (replacing "city" with "locality" and the like).

My fear is that if we don't sort it out properly now and get a consistent text, we will have the same argument again in six months time!!!!Martinvl (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Mea culpa. I forgot to update the intro sentence to the column section to read "The following columns should generally appear from left to right in the following order:". We're trying to place less exceptions in the text at times and removing references to Wikiprojects. The same aims can be accomplished with better language choices, or rational usage of WP:IAR. As for the word "city", it's used four times in the text. One is in the examples (Lake City, Florida). Two of the usages are for "independent city" and "consolidated city-county" in discussing that these types of location should span a county and a location column. This is because in a case like Baltimore, Maryland, Baltimore is both the city and the county and shouldn't be repeated needlessly. The last is part of a list in the description of the "location" column: "the municipality or equivalent within which the junction lies, whether it be a town, city, or village." Therefore your objection to the word "city" is baseless because it's part of a list of types of locations, an actual location or an exceptional type of location.

Your note about the Dutch example though is also without merit. The Oklahoma SH-88 sample is using "Roads intersected" instead of "Destinations" because non-freeway roadways in the US won't have a junction that isn't a road listed. Unlike the freeways that have several exits that list only the destination location instead of the intersecting roadway. The Dutch example is using a "Roads" column. I think some variation in exact titles is permissible under WP:IAR without the need to add more exceptions to the text.

There have been other updates to the text recently, like specifying that table footers are required to address the issues concerning distance conversions, unless the situation already calls for two distance columns. You'll note that samples have been added. I wouldn't consider those sample footers to be the only acceptable formats. New York articles only use the grey color for closed junctions, meaning the other three colors are omitted. Once again, a logical variation. Imzadi 1979 → 15:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Imzadi1979 said that he should have had the introductory sentence "The following columns should generally appear from left to right in the following order:". I thank him for making this statement - it certainly shows that at least we are progressing along the correct lines. May I suggest that the following phrase be appended to this sentence, "though any national group may, at their discretion, vary the selection of columns or column order for junction lists within their country". I think that this would be the first step to bringing things into line. I plan to question a number of items in more detail at a later stage, drawing on my experience of having lived in two different countries and worked in another three.

Ideally, the test of a good Manual of Style will be the number of chnages (other than translation) that Wikipedia groups writing in other languages will need to do to get a good working document. Martinvl (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think a more concise way to say this is, "Generally, the following columns should appear from left to right in the following order. Please check with the appropriate WikiProject for preferred usage." –Fredddie™ 00:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer to excise all mentions of Wikiprojects, partially because there aren't highway projects for every country or continent. I think it's perfectly fine though that local projects supplement MOS-specific items in their article standards by consensus. If a localized practice is challenged at FAC/GAN/etc, then the supplemental standards page should be enough to say, "there's some flexibility in the MOS page, and this is how we've implemented it." Especially if the article follows the relevant example. I don't know of any other MOS section that references Wikiprojects at all. So long as the text isn't too restrictive, local guidance can supplement this. Imzadi 1979 → 05:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with User:Imzadi1979 on this. If we refer to local Wikiproject pages, then we should move all examples from this article to the local Wikiproject pages. Martinvl (talk) 06:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

New table colour for "Freeway gaps & at-grade segments" - request for addition

I feel this is one of the missing concepts of this guide and is in need of being added. There is currently no way to tell a freeway gap/non-grade separated segments & intersections from a regular freeway section on most exit lists, so I would like to request that a colour be added to represent that. Since I am new to this whole development the colour can be changed if one wishes (I have currently proposed the use of #aaf0d1). I strongly urge it becomes a permanent part of this manual of style. Deltanalliance (talk) 06:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You can use textual notes such as colspans or notes in the notes column to do this. (Look at the California articles for an example). --Rschen7754 06:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec):I have reverted your changes. I object to this color for one simple reason at first. The color you've chosen is too similar to the concurrency green. As for the issue of telling where there's a freeway gap, there is a way to indicate that. If the transition point between freeway and at-grade corresponds to a junction, add a note to the junction. If that transition point is between junctions, add a line for it. See U.S. Route 31 in Michigan for both methods in use. Imzadi 1979 → 06:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. If this concept is implemented, say for transition points that don't correspond to concurrency termini, etc., then what I suggest is that a shade of pastel yellow be used only for the transition points between freeway and at-grade segments or lone at-grade intersections in the middle of a freeway. Remember, this guideline is in use for completely at-grade highways, completely freeway roadways or highways that are both. We aren't going to color a completely at-grade highway's junction list yellow. Imzadi 1979 → 07:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I feel that doesn't give enough attention to both freeway gaps & at-grade intersections (the latter of which may be especially common on such routes), and that a table colour should be used at least in addition to colspans. Colspans also take up considerable space in exit lists that should be short and concise. In addition to all of that I find that the use of notes should be limited in some areas as it can really clog up exit lists and make them very confusing to readers. If the colour I have chosen (I picked a random one from WP:COLOR, I wasn't sure if it would be such an issue) is not satisfying another one can be chosen.

- Deltanalliance (talk) 07:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

My issue is with highways that have very few or no grade-separated interchanges - say California State Route 90 for example. There, most of the table would be colored, which really makes the use of the color futile. --Rschen7754 07:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

And in the US 31 example above, the highway enters MI as a freeway, has a gap along Napier Avenue, follows the I-94 and I-196 freeways until Holland, gap to Grand Haven – Ferrysburg, and then freeway to Ludington. From Ludington north, the road is not a freeway, and rarely even divided until it ends south of Mackinaw City. I could color-code the transition points, but I won't color half of the table. Imzadi 1979 → 07:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be considered a compromise between U.S. roads and some international roads - roads that may be divided and high speed but offer intersections rather than interchanges. Take, for example, the Trans-Canada Highway through pretty much all of Central Canada - thousands of kilometres of road comprised of mostly at-grade intersections. The new colour could be especially useful for such situations rather than having "At-grade intersection" under almost every entry in the notes column - combined with other required notes this can be very horrendous and confusing. In addition, the note column [in the list in the CA-90 article] seems confusing and improperly formatted. It is nearly impossible to tell an at-grade intersection from an interchange (with even the random placement of the words "interchange" all around the list) and there appears to be only one at-grade intersection and one gap on there. Perhaps the colour can be applied to at-grade intersections only rather than gaps, or a separate colour for that?

- Deltanalliance (talk) 07:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

@ User RSChen7754: If one is worried that the colour would be overused in exit lists, perhaps a rather less noticeable colour could be used? For example: #ffffff or #e7feff.

- Deltanalliance (talk) 07:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That use violates WP:COLOR - for the benefit of color-blind people, you *have* to have textual notes or some other sort of backup. Also, I don't think we want to have to color 75% of the California State Route 1 table. You miss the point - when you have to color almost the entire table, the color loses its meaning. Not to mention the extra work. --Rschen7754 07:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with rschen here. There has been considerable debate about the usage of color, In fact, for a period of time from last fall until this spring, all colors except grey were officially banned from exit lists. All usage had to be stripped out, period. It was allowed back in when a better method of creating a color key was developed. Now, when the colors were stripped, any indications as to the meaning had to be replaced with text notes. When they were allowed again, those textual notes had to be maintained. Not just for color-blind readers, but readers that have monochrome monitors or readers that print out the articles on paper. (Some browsers strip the color coding from the table on printing. Some software does not.) Imzadi 1979 → 07:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps an alternative to a colour can be proposed then? Delegating the status of at-grade to the notes section can be especially clogging in some notes. A new column called "design" or "design notes" could be useful, though I understand a new column could be especially frustrating on some lists that aren't very wide. I also realize that this potential compromise could end up a good one:

P.S. If this concept is implemented, say for transition points that don't correspond to concurrency termini, etc., then what I suggest is that a shade of pastel yellow be used only for the transition points between freeway and at-grade segments or lone at-grade intersections in the middle of a freeway. Remember, this guideline is in use for completely at-grade highways, completely freeway roadways or highways that are both. We aren't going to color a completely at-grade highway's junction list yellow. Imzadi 1979 → 07:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

- Deltanalliance (talk) 07:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I oppose any additional columns being added to the table. Period. Let me also add that for a most at-grade highway, the color could be used as well to indicate an isolated interchange. One example that pops to mind is the M-11 junction with Chicago Drive (old M-21) that is grade-separated on a highway that otherwise is urban arterial city streets. Imzadi 1979 → 07:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If there is a way to colour up the entire table background easily and painlessly (i.e. a slight variation of colours that still complies with WP:COLOR), it can be used to differentiate a freeway from an expressway (using the California definitions of a freeway being completely limited-access and an expressway for being partially limited-access). That or a coloured bar on the very top just like on the U.K. style exit lists could do the trick. Otherwise it would be fairly hard to differentiate an at-grade route with some interchanges and a freeway route with some at-grade segments.

- Deltanalliance (talk) 07:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Outside of the UK, colored table headers were soundly rejected in the revamp earlier this year that converted ELG to RJL. Even if the table background color were defined in the header, there would need to be a text note someplace and the colors would need to be added to the color key to comply with WP:COLOR and accessibility requirements. I reject that option because honestly, the tables would look ugly and unprofessional. Btw, lists with freeway segments, or freeway lists should have an exit number column unless the exits are not numbered at all. That should be your first clue. If the exit number cell for a row is blank, it's not an exit. If it's a dash like — then it's just unnumbered, but still an exit. Imzadi 1979 → 08:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a need for this at all. No matter which approach you take - whether it's coloring interchanges or at-grade junctions - it would result in entire tables being colored, and that looks awful for the reasons stated above. Additionally, there wouldn't be any corresponding text for the color, a violation of WP:COLORS, also as stated above. Lastly, I don't see how any confusion can arise at all. In the US, junction lists use different section headers based on whether it lists at-grade intersections or interchanges. In cases where it lists both, one of the two is used and - at least in tables I've made - the at-grade/freeway change is clearly noted by way of a cell spanning the mile, destination, notes, and if need be the location columns. If everyone else does the same thing, I don't see any problems here. – TMF 17:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a combination of section headers, exit number cells and imzadi's original pastel-coloured concept could work? That or a very small column between "km" and "destination" with small pictures for easier identification of whether something is an intersection, interchange or even partial interchange; though it would work I doubt this would pass WP:ACCESS at all. Going back to the CA-90 article, the exit list is still very confusing to read even if the header does say "major intersections", because one of the sections is a complete freeway whilst other is just an arterial road, and the only way to tell the sections apart is to scroll back up to the header of the article; if the exit list was used as a reference, say, in another site, there would be no way to tell these apart and as a result, no way to tell whether something is at-grade or grade-separated. Do keep in mind that some people are not willing to read the rest of the article and will go straight to the exit list to use as a reference, likely for travelling.

- Deltanalliance (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That's their loss then. The junction lists aren't really intended to be standalone entities; they're primarily designed to supplement the prose of an article. This is the second time in recent days that I've seen someone mention using exit lists as travel guides, and that's not what we're doing here, at least not explicitly. – TMF 06:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't consider the transition from a freeway to at-grade intersections to be notable. In the past, we would have separate a exit list sections for freeway segments. I'm in no way advocating going back to that era. Instead of a colspan, a note in the notes column, and nothing more, should suffice for noting the beginning and ends of freeways. –Fredddie™ 21:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I much prefer colspans over notes since IMO a freeway doesn't begin or end at a particular junction, it ends somewhere in between the first/last interchange and the first at-grade intersection before/after it. On that note, I do consider the transition to be significant because we list every junction on freeways and just major ones on surface roads. In New York, the exits on limited-access state routes - save for a few continuations of Interstate Highways - are unnumbered. Thus, unless colspans showing the beginning and end of the freeway segment are present, there's no easy way to show what parts of the route are limited-access (and what parts of the route we're listing every junction for). The two alternatives I can think of are saying "Interchange" for every exit (excessive and repetitive) or having an exit number column filled with dashes for the exits (excessive and unused for the at-grade portions of the route). – TMF 06:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This could be the cause of some controversy: here in British Columbia and in such other places, there are some at-grade intersections that have numbered exits - i.e. the Nanaimo Parkway on Vancouver Island.

- Deltanalliance (talk) 02:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Then they really aren't exits if they're at-grade? Label the top of the column "Junction". If the junctions are really signed as "Exit", then that's what a good note above the table is for. Not everything needs to be spelled out in the table itself if a concise explanation can be written above the table. The guideline need not express details for every possible exception. Common sense and the proper application of WP:IAR can deal with the rest. Imzadi 1979 → 04:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Split exits

There's been a slow-motion edit war at Interstate 87 over how to format the split exits, primarily the ones that are split in both directions. The guideline currently implies that the unsuffixed number should be listed in the exit number column and the split should be listed in the notes column when the exit is split in only one direction, but there's no guidance regarding the "right" way to present exits that are split in both directions. – TMF 03:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've always split them in OK. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I only split them if the A and B are physically different interchanges. If they're only A/B based on direction in the same interchange, I note the split in the notes column and leave them merged, as the guideline says. Imzadi 1979 → 04:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Displaying road continuation past terminus

I was wondering what the standard is (or if one even exists) for displaying the contination of a road (under another name/number/etc.) past its terminus. For example, the road continues at both termini for NJ 52 under different names - either 9th St or Laurel Drive. While the Route 52 designation ends, the actual road still goes on. Should this be listed as a road "intersected"? Should this be listed along with its mile marker? Another example lies in Pulaski Skyway (which is a specific section of a highway on US 1/9. At both ends of the Skyway, the highway continues at US 1/9, but should that be displayed the same way that an exit from the highway is? I was hoping for some clarification here, and hopefully explain this some how on the main MOS page. –Dream out loud (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I just include a note in the notes column "Roadway continues <direction> as <name>". Imzadi 1979 → 03:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

In New York, if the road continues as a state, Interstate, or U.S. Route, then the continuation is listed in another row in the table (see New York State Route 385). If the road's continuation is a county road or an unnumbered road, it's typically not listed at all. The only exception to this is if the route's terminus is at a intermediate point on the highway instead of at an intersection with another road. – TMF 03:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This issue definitely needs to be addressed; it has come up in California multiple times. --Rschen7754 20:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Well then let's all take initiative and address it, and hopefully add it to the main project page. Take a look at what I did to Pulaski Skyway and let me know what you think. –Dream out loud (talk) 02:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't like the colspans. It would be just as easy to use "
US 1/9 south" as the intersecting road and "Roadway continues toward [[Newark Airport and Elizabeth" as the notes. Ditto the northern end. I only favor colspans for bridges, tunnels, toll plazas, and service areas where applicable. The other time I favor them is freeway to surface highway transitions that don't correspond to a junction of some kind. As a side note, I think that the table in that article should be shifted to its own section. Article and project standards have evolved a bit since the article went through FAC. Imzadi 1979 → 02:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but the only reason I like the colspans is because not using them can lead to confusion since techinally they're not intersecting roads, they're just continuations. Here's what I've come up with. I've realized that there are four different types of termini that can be implmented in the RJLs and they should all be handled differently. So below is a few examples I came up with. Then I took at the look at the RJL for Interstate 93 and it looks like we need to discuss more than we thought. How do we all feel about using a table heading style in the middle of the RJL, such as in the I-93 RJL? I personally am not a fan and want to stick with what I have below:

Type	Suggestion	Example
Route terminates at junction with another road (no continuation)	Same procedure as for other junctions, except state "Northern terminus", etc in notes column	NJ 73 (RJL top)
Route terminates at junction (but road continues)	Have the mile column span two rows, one with the junction at which the route terminates, and one with centered text spanning two columns stating "Continues as Main Street towards Anytown", etc	Pulaski Skyway (RJL bottom)
Route terminates but with no junction (eg: toll roads, or articles for routes in one particular state such as US 1 in NJ)	Same as above, except with only one row stating the road's continuation	Pulaski Skyway (RJL top)
State border	Have the roads intersected/notes column span two rows with the state border info centered and spanning both column; include state/city/county/mile info for both sides of the border	Couldn't find an article using this, but can be applied to the article for any short US or Interstate highway article that spans 2-3 states or so

–Dream out loud (talk) 02:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I disagree with that whole table. For state line continuations, I've always used the highway/road that's across the line. If it's an Interstate or US Highway, that's meant using the jct template with the other state so it links to the state-detail article for the other state. For instance, on U.S. Route 41 in Michigan (a FA), the state line crossing lists the location on the Michigan side of the state line (Menominee), a zero milepost and for the road "
US 41 south" with the note saying "Wisconsin state line". If you think about it, each state's Interstate or US Highway is a separate highway, but with a common number. If it's two state highways, then use the appropriate number and direction.

For situations like I-93, see how I did U.S. Route 8. For dual-state highways, I've done like U.S. Route 131 or U.S. Route 141 with a single colspan for the state line, with the state line milepost(s). I avoid using "<direction> terminus" as a note as completely redundant. I avoid your situation #2 above because you have a road junction and a note combined when they have separate columns. That defeats the purpose of separate columns. Imzadi 1979 → 04:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

For me, if the road continues whatsoever as another road, I use a standard row followed by a full column. I put a shield for the road it transitions to at the end of the line (example). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 06:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Markers should always appear in front of the road's name though for consistency to comply with MOS:FLAGS. Imzadi 1979 → 06:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

MOS FLAGS doesn't even mention where, just when. I think its something we should approach the MOS team about - The appearance is FAR cleaner with the icons on the outside of the text as opposed to forking it in half. If it is mentioned in the MOS, the visual benefit (seeing as they're purely decorative) is a good reason to call WP:IAR on this one. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This guideline says icons should only be used at the beginning of the line in accordance with MOS:ICON. I generally agree that the route shields are unnecessary in multi-column rows. If allowed, icons should be at the edges not in the middle of the text, and the icon should not be a substitute for the (abbreviated) name of the highway being in that text. -- LJ ↗ 04:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Roads intersected

This edit changed the "Roads intersected" header in {{jcttop}} to "Destinations", citing this page. I guess this is fine for states that list control cities for at-grade intersections, but what about the ones that don't (which outnumber the ones that do by a significant margin)? Having "Destinations" as a header for a column that contains only shields and route designations seems wrong. – TMF 19:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

In the event of a junction list, I think that "Roads intersected" is more appropriate. Dough4872 02:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Reverted. – TMF 03:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Should European Junction lists be separate articles?

I beleive that there is a good case that European junction lists shoudl be separate articles in their own right and that they should not be translated into other languages, but rather there should be cross-language links. Thus, the English language article on the Italian A1 would have a link to the junction list in the Italian language WIkipedia.

I propose this only in respect of European junction lists. What do people think? If there is a genreal consensus in favour, I will see what other language Wikipedia editors think of the idea. Martinvl (talk) 11:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose—Bad move, in my opinion. I don't speak Italian, so any notes in a junction list hosted only on the Italian Wikipedia just became inaccessible to me. Additionally, the article here would be missing information, and thus wouldn't be considered "comprehensive" in coverage. I'm going to post over at WT:WikiProject Highways/Europe since that is the new European Task Force for the global Highways project. Imzadi 1979 → 17:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Fails being comprehensive, seems like just another attempt to avoid RJL entirely. Also, at least on the English Wikipedia, articles that are just exit lists have been subject to deletion. --Rschen7754 19:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

  IIRC, the last attempt failed, miserably. Jeni ^(talk) 23:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per Imz and Rschen --Admrboltz (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose since non-English language RJLs might be inaccessible due to language barriers, and cross-language links would introduce a great variety of style, detail level, accuracy etc. It would be better to translate and reformat the RJLs.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Dashes and or emphasis in RJL

RE: [3]

Denelson83 (talk · contribs) added a dashed box around Truck Scale in the RJL for BC 15 because thats how the sign appears. I couldn't find anything in the MOS either in RJL or formatting, but I do not believe emphasis like this is necessary. We are not a travel guide, or a truckers guide. --Admrboltz (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Remove the dashes. Our job is not to replicate the signs' appearance, it is to replicate the necessary content. In this case, the content is that there's a scale there. It doesn't matter how that word is stylized on the sign. Imzadi 1979 → 03:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a case of Bold, revert, discuss. I already undid the addition, and brought it here for discussion since this is a potential MOS issue. --Admrboltz (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The other issue is that not all browsers may be able to display that stylization, and there's no explanation in the article for the stylization, making it useless to anyone that's not a Canadian or not a trucker. (Assuming non-trucker Canadians know what it means.) Imzadi 1979 → 04:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

RFC: restructuring of the Manual of Style

Editors may be interested in this RFC, along with the discussion of its implementation:

Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS?

It's big; and it promises huge improvements. Great if everyone can be involved. Noetica^Tea? 00:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Sub-section on coordinate templates

I'm against the additions to this guideline for the following reason: Having that section in there makes it seem like RJL endorses including coordinates for every single junction in the table. The guideline does not, for very good reasons. --Rschen7754 03:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I recently added a sub-section, "Coordinates ", which said;

If including geographical coordinates, use {{Coord}} for each set; and one instance of {{GeoGroupTemplate}} per page.

This has been removed, supposedly because there is "no consensus". This is patently absured. {{Coord}} is the standard template for coordinates on Wikipedia; with well over half a million instances. The above wording says nothing about whether or not coordinates should be added to articles, just how to implement them if they are used. We even have an example of such usage in this section of the MoS; all my wordings does is tell people which templates to use to achieve this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates/Linear says it best:

There are a number of ways in which coordinates relating to linear features can be added to Wikipedia. As yet, there is no single method which has achieved consensus.

So, until there is consensus at WP:COORD, it has specifically not been included here. –Fredddie™ 18:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I have added a hatnote on the M5 example pointing editors to WP:COORD for more information. –Fredddie™ 18:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

That's insufficiently prominent, I've removed it until discussion is resolved here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, which is why I suggestd no single method (of those discussed or similar); however, they all involve the use of {{Coord}}. that is consensus at WP:COORD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

But, we don't want coordinates in junction lists. --Rschen7754 23:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

There is currently a full family of templates that can be used to generate RJLs for the US and Canada: {{jcttop}} for the top of the table, {{jctint}}, {{jctco}}, {{jctbridge}} for the body of the table and either {{jctbtm}} or {{legendRJL}} for the bottom. The guideline text only strong suggests ("should") using coding for the header row that complies with MOS:ACCESS in the template or table coding. The section on the table footers states that there are two templates that exist to generate the standardized table footers, but assuming that someone hand-coded that row of the table, it would comply with the guideline. In short, there has never been a requirement to use templates, and it would be somewhat controversial to do so, even if there are numerous benefits.

As for coordinates, there is no consensus to even include them, there is no consensus here to exclude them. The issue should be left unaddressed by this guideline at this time. (WP:USRD's informal consensus has been to remove coordinates from project articles outside of tagging single landmarks or roadways that are so short that one terminus is basically visible from the other. In other words, the largest single highway project doesn't want them, but we don't care if other countries use them.) Imzadi 1979 → 01:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The change I made left the issue of whether to include coordinates unaddressed; it merely said how to include them if they are included. Furthermore projects don't OWN articles and can't make policy on such issues, either way. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's an analogy for how we roads editors see it.

At the top of a skyscraper, a seasoned skydiver (that's you, Andy) has posted instructions for how free fall without a parachute and not die (stuff about coordinates). The instructions are spot-on correct and nobody questions the skydiver's credibility. The building supervisor (that's us roads editors) sees the instructions and takes them down because they read like it's OK to jump off the building. Then super puts up his own sign saying not to jump off the building because you may die (hatnote on M5 example). The skydiver objects because his instructions were correct, but the super counters by saying he doesn't want anyone jumping off the building (this discussion).

I admit this is a bit of a stretch, but I hope you got a chuckle out of it. My point with the analogy was to demonstrate that both sides are arguing two different points. –Fredddie™ 11:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Jumping off skyscrapers may be prohibited; adding coordinates to articles about roads is not, so your analogy doesn't help us. BTW, I'm a "roads editor", too; but in any case, members of a single project, or other group, have no special privileges. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Who is this "we", Rschen7754? You don't speak for me; and you shouldn't attempt to enforce your PoV by restricting other editors' access to information on how to do something you DON'T LIKE Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Andy, take a big step back a moment. We have two issues at work here. The first is the traditional rejection of geotags on road articles. Unless there are new site-wide concepts in tagging linear features, consider that issue closed. It's not "optional"; the involved WikiProjects have rejected adding the tags, and their members remove them on sight at the moment. That could change in the future, of course.

The second issue is that MOS:RJL has been officially neutral on template usage. There is a whole set of templates ({{jct}}, {{jctint}}, etc) that can be used in the creation of a road junction list. The only ones mentioned are the two that generate the required footer rows that contain the color key and unit conversions. If an editor hand-coded a template footer that complied, we wouldn't use MOS:RJL to tell that editor to use the template.

Your addition made this guideline, which is officially neutral on the geotagging issue, address the issue. There is no consensus on tagging linear features yet, so it's premature for a section of the Manual of Style to address the idea at this time. Imzadi 1979 → 13:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I have traditionally opposed adding co-ordinates to the junctions table, as when they were first being added to European road articles, the additions looked hideous. The co-ordinates took up the bulk of the table, and were often marked up with colors. This effect made the articles look more like they belonged on a roadgeek fan site and less on an encyclopedia. I think the strong reaction from the US editors comes from that, combined with the fact that many transcontinental highways in the US have significantly more junctions than the average European highway, meaning the junctions list takes up a significant portion of the article even without additional markup. (see U.S. Route 101 in California, Interstate 10 in Texas, Interstate 5 in California, U.S. Route 89 in Utah to name a few) However, if I understand what Andy is proposing, it is to LIMIT the use of co-ordinates on articles that use them in the least visual impacting method currently available. I'm not opposed to that. I agree this could open a can of worms by implicitly endorsing coordinates. However, this method isn't that bad, even on most US highway articles it would fit in the notes column without becoming too much of a visual distraction. I have concerns, but I don't see the need to be absolutist in screaming no. Dave (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Could the template being used to list coordinates as footnotes below the table be modified to have the list of coordinates be collapsible? If this was a collapsed list I would be OK with endorsing this method of geotagging. However, on the above mentioned examples, even as footnotes, the coordinates would bloat the table.Dave (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no "traditional rejection of geotags on road articles"; and so I won't be considering any issue closed. As explained above, "the involved WikiProjects" (whatever they are) have no ownership, so cannot decide policy as you suggest; which would indeed be contrary to this guideline. The addition is not premature, as also explained above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Andy: of the nearly 14,000 US highway articles, less than 1% of them have coordinates. Of the 220 for Michigan, I can name only two that use {{coord}}: M-107 (Michigan highway) and M-108 (Michigan highway). The former has a tag for the location of Lake of the Clouds and the latter is so short that while it was in existence, you could see one terminus from the other. Outside of the UK, so I'd say that there has been a rejection of including coordinates tags in highway articles. In fact, like many of the others who have commented here, I do summarily remove them from articles on my watchlist when added. So, none of us WP:OWN the articles, but consensus has been upheld so far. Highway articles in general have not been tagged.

Dave: Andy's proposal had nothing to do with limiting tagging. It would only have prescribe what template to use to tag an article. In fact, {{coord}} displays a full set of coordinates linked in full blue text somewhere in the article, which is the very problem many of us have with the concept of geotagging the articles. Unlike the hidden metadata added to biographies using {{Persondata}}, adding the coordinates into the articles is very visible to the reader. The UKRD method of footnoting them below the table only shifts the clutter out of the table into a list that increases the length of the article. Imzadi 1979 → 18:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Cluttering up the article with colorful distractions is my concern as well. I did propose that the coordinates be placed in a separate table that is collapsible, expanding on the footnote templates that Andy is pushing above. Do you think that would resolve the clutter issue? or would that remain? Dave (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The issue with WP:BEANS still remains. If we have a section for coordinates, people will begin to insist on them being there in every highway article. And, that is just not feasible for most of the US articles, if not worldwide. --Rschen7754 18:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

When I was adding Driver location signs distances to British motorway articles, I also rationalised the way in which coordinates were handled - the article M6 motorway probably has the most coordinates of any British RJL. BTW, the UK has its own format for handling junction lists. Martinvl (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

What is the criteria for the features worthy of listed coordinates? I did look at the M6 motorway article, and the criteria seems arbitrary. I'm really torn by this, as there are times I wish US road articles did have some co-ordinates on some features. However, I can easily see how this can get out of hand in a major way. Dave (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

We don't have a formal criteria, in practice however it appears to be a junction (or bridge) that is sufficiently noteworthy to warrant its own article in Wikipedia.Martinvl (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't exactly inspire confidence of a manageable system. There are times I would like to see co-ordinates on road articles. I don't think we are at a point where we can include guidelines in our style guide of how to list co-ordinates, unless we also have guidelines for what features should and should not have co-ordinates. Dave (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, very arbitrary and very inconsistent. There are service areas that have articles, but aren't coordinate tagged in the M6 junction list. There are many other errors in that table that hardly make it a model for a best practice. Imzadi 1979 → 03:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreeing with Dave. Stating how to format coordinates for entries in the junction list, but not having any guidelines on how those coordinates are selected creates a lot more ambiguity than is needed. Without such things spelled out, articles will lead to inconsistencies on application and use, which is what I think many want to avoid. This MOS page went through some contentious revision not too long ago, in an attempt to eliminate inconsistencies and formatting issues and close loopholes and ambiguities in this guideline that had led to out-of-hand junction lists on some articles. The proposed language about coordinate formatting opens things up to problems that editors were trying to eliminate. In addition, I didn't see any discussion on this page that the proposed way of formatting coordinates had achieved any consensus. I'm not completely opposed to coordinates (as an optional feature), but there's gotta be some discussion on how that would be implemented in a clean and standardized way before I'd be willing to endorse it on this page. -- LJ ↗ 09:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"I didn't see any discussion on this page that..." - then you need to re-read my initial, and other, posts in this section. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Andy, your initial post in this section states that {{coord}} and {{GeoGroupTemplate}} are the standard way of providing coordinates on Wikipedia, and I don't think anybody is denying that. Here's the problem: How are the coordinates placed in an article or junction list? Your wording does not provide those specifics. Where has the issue of how to display coordinates in tables and lists in junction tables been discussed? It certainly doesn't appear to be anywhere on this talk page. The proposed wording cites use of GeoGroupTemplate, yet the example on this page (plus a sampling of articles: M5 motorway, M6 motorway, M6 Toll, M62 motorway) don't use that template. Many editors question the usefulness of adding coordinates to junction lists at all--leaving the usefulness issue aside (which is a whole other ball of wax), this does nothing to quell concerns others have about coordinate implementation. The overall point is that you added this sentence to this MOS page with no discussion whatsoever. That is the main problem I see. What you added doesn't provide the right amount of specific detail. This MOS page underwent significant revision to implement specifics in formatting and remove ambiguities through careful wording. And that process was undertaken through a significant amount of lengthy discussion/debate to make sure everyone concerned was on board. -- LJ ↗ 11:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The pages you mention use {{kml}}; which redirects to {{GeoGroupTemplate}}. The issue of where to place coordinates, if they are given is addressed by the inclusion of the M5 example as part of this guideline. If, as you contend, what I added "doesn't provide the right amount of specific detail", then the remedy is to provide the right amount of specific detail, not remove what I added. Please point to the requirement to discuss edits before making them; and, as that is "the main problem [you] see", please also note that a discussion is now taking place. Please can you tell me where the wording currently imposed on the M5 section went through "a significant amount of lengthy discussion/debate to make sure everyone concerned was on board"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the MOS is supposed to set the design standard used on articles across Wikipedia. Maybe it's just me, but I wouldn't presume to add something to the MOS that would affect numerous articles/editors without bringing it up first on an appropriate talk page... But there is discussion now, so lets move forward then. -- LJ ↗ 10:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

From the top of the page: "Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus." It is quite clear that your edits to RJL do not reflect consensus. That's why we discuss before making such a controversial change like that. Moreover, you reverted quite a few times after people reverted your change on grounds of "no consensus". That was even worse than your first addition. --Rschen7754 23:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Please retract that lie. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

it tells a story - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 11:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for providing evidence to back me up; which tells the story that the accusation is a lie. I'm waiting for Rschen7754 to retract it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I refuse to retract that statement until you show where there was explicit consensus for you to add the section that you did to the Manual of Style. It is clear that consensus is against your additions to this page. In order to add *anything* to *any content or behavioral guideline anywhere on Wikipedia* that might be controversial you need to start a discussion. --Rschen7754 00:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that two separate issues are being mixed up:

Firstly - are coordinates permitted on RJL's? In the UK, the answer appears to be "yes" - the coords in question have been there for several years and possibly predate the RJL MOS guidelines.

Secondly - if "yes", then what are the criteria for including them? In the UK, the criteria appears to be editor consensus.

Martinvl (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a third question: "If coordinates are included, then how should that be done?". That is the only question which the disputed text addresses. Nobody has suggested any different answer to that question, so including that text should not be problematic. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I have to retract a bit. I, personally, am not opposed to adding coordinates along roads at all. I do think the junction list is the best place to insert coordinates; however, I don't want to see it done half-assed or done arbitrarily. I want there to be a community-approved guideline on how to add coordinates to roads and then apply it across the wiki. Since we don't have that just yet, I don't want to see it in this part of the MoS.

I don't see this discussion as being fruitful in the end, so I'm willing to start fresh and try to work on something that we can all agree on. –Fredddie™ 22:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• comment Just my opinion and motive, but when I find a single coordinate assigned to a road and showing at the top right of the article, I remove it. Coordinates are for a point. Roads are not points. No point on a road can be objectively determined to be the most important. Because of the nature of roads and the fact that they are a network, and not a simple tree of linear features (like a watershed is), a point in the middle does not accurately reflect the nature of the road. I am opposed to any use of the coord template on road articles. I'd be happy to work out a solution that could work with our exit lists, similar to what I have set up on Ontario Highway 77. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  • But there you have every junction having a coordinate, and that just doesn't work for a lot of US roads. --Rschen7754 02:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
    • The problem now is that Andy has TfD-ed {{shc}} which Floydian used to tag the junctions using a template that suppressed the display of the coordinates, which was the closest thing we'd get to a compromise to the visual clutter issues. The problem with {{coord}} is that it displays the coordinates to the reader, which adds an additional blue link in a table that's already full of blue links already. Even if the coordinates weren't linked, you'd get the visual clutter of additional text that is of marginal value to the end reader. The UK solution is to footnote the coordinates, but that increases the length of the section, which is already long enough on many articles as is. Floydian's method is by far the best so far, but if if the template is deleted, I'll have to go back to endorsing no tagging over any other scheme. Imzadi 1979 → 17:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Indeed. This was just a quick setup of a bare bones framework to get the minimum functionality. I didn't bother with metadata, and all that other stuff beyond just making it work. Highway 77 is rather short, so its not a hassle to tag every junction. The beaurocratic side of things, in figuring out how to implement it in various situations, would require a bunch of separate discussion to arrive at a happy compromise. Of course, all this assumes we don't go back to step one. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to support the concept of coordinates, but unfortunately, we have too many editors in the US who would abuse the system just like they abuse a lot of our other systems. Any implementation needs to be manageable. --Rschen7754 03:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

When to have Coordinates

Many editors, myself included, have said that if we are discussing the formatting of coordinates we also need to discuss when coordinates should and should not be used. So let's have the discussion. Below is a bulleted list of possible features with my comments, please feel free to add or comment differently.

Cases

• Termini
  • In most cases Dave (talk) 20:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, unless the route is under 0.5 miles or 1km. –Fredddie™
  • Yes. --Rschen7754 23:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes - this can assist the reader in actually finding the route on a map. Martinvl (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Absolutely positively not. There is no significance in the coordinates, its just another attempt to change what isn't broken. Mitch32^{(God Bless America, Let Freedom Ring)} 18:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree with Fredddie in sentiment. If a roadway is under 1 mi or 2 km, I'd switch to using the midpoint coordinates at the title location, otherwise the termini would get tagged. (Remember we have List of state highways in the United States shorter than one mile, which is why I'd bump the minimum to 1 mile.) Imzadi 1979 → 01:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• the 5-10 most major intersections (i.e. the ones also listed in the infobox)
  • yesDave (talk) 20:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, per Dave. –Fredddie™
  • Yes. --Rschen7754 23:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, if they are special. Martinvl (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • No. Per my statements in Termini. Mitch32^{(God Bless America, Let Freedom Ring)} 18:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • This would be the best way to determine which intermediate junctions get tagged. Imzadi 1979 → 01:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Numbered freeway exits
  • no, too many Dave (talk) 20:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • No, per Dave. –Fredddie™
  • Hell no. --Rschen7754 23:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Is there a different way of saying no. Martinvl (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • No. Per my statements in Termini. Mitch32^{(God Bless America, Let Freedom Ring)} 18:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • No, per Dave as well. Imzadi 1979 → 01:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Change in cardinal direction of the highway (for jurisdictions that formally assign cardinal directions to highways)
  • Nope- IMO these are trivial Dave (talk) 20:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Depends. There is one route in my mind where it would be a good idea. –Fredddie™
  • Eh... I'm not really enthusiastic about this one. --Rschen7754 23:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Only if it is notable for some other reason. Martinvl (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • No. Per my statements in Termini. Mitch32^{(God Bless America, Let Freedom Ring)} 18:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • These should probably be one of the 5–10 junctions in the infobox anyway. Imzadi 1979 → 01:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Highest/Lowest point of the route
  • Only if this is both sourced and is otherwise a notable feature (such as a mountain pass or tunnel)Dave (talk) 20:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Only if it has an article. –Fredddie™
  • No. --Rschen7754 23:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Only if it is notable - I could not justify a Dutch highway cataloging its lowest point as being 1 metre below sea level and its highest point at 1 metre abover sea level.
  • No. Per my statements in Termini. Mitch32^{(God Bless America, Let Freedom Ring)} 18:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • No, unless those points already correspond to a feature listed in the table. Imzadi 1979 → 01:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Named bridges/tunnels/mountain passes/mountain cuts
  • Yes- within reason, features must be notable enough for their own wikipedia articles, on highways with detail articles only on the appropriate detail article.
  • Only if it has an article. –Fredddie™
  • No. If it's notable enough to have an article, the article will have the tag. --Rschen7754 23:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, if it has its own Wikipedia article. Martinvl (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • No. Per my statements in Termini. Mitch32^{(God Bless America, Let Freedom Ring)} 18:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Only if it has, or should have, an article, otherwise it shouldn't even be in the table anyway. Imzadi 1979 → 01:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Rest/View/Service areas/toll booths
  • Only if notable enough for a wikipedia article. I would perhaps consider view areas for highways that have been designated scenic by an official agency. Dave (talk) 20:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Only if it has an article. –Fredddie™
  • See above. --Rschen7754 23:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • See above Martinvl (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • No. Per my statements in Termini. Mitch32^{(God Bless America, Let Freedom Ring)} 18:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Same as bridges/etc above unless we're dealing with a toll road with full-service areas vs. parking lots with bathrooms. Imzadi 1979 → 01:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Points of historical interest
  • Only if the highway has been designated historical by a respected or government organization
  • Only if it has an article. –Fredddie™
  • See above. --Rschen7754 23:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Only if they are noteworthy from the point of view of the motorist. Martinvl (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • No. Per my statements in Termini. Mitch32^{(God Bless America, Let Freedom Ring)} 18:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • These aren't normally listed in the junction list unless they correspond to a junction, so no. Imzadi 1979 → 01:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Endpoints of special designations (i.e. memorial highways/ national scenic byways, etc.)
  • No- potential for too much clutter
  • No, per Dave. –Fredddie™
  • no. --Rschen7754 23:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • No. Per my statements in Termini. Mitch32^{(God Bless America, Let Freedom Ring)} 18:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Only if this corresponds to a junction already. One of M-35's memorial highway designation termini corresponds to a county road junction, and it is listed in the table. I would not insert a row in the table for a county line location that serves as memorial highway terminus just to get the coordinates tagged. Imzadi 1979 → 01:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

• This list is not definitve but is indicative of what can be identified with coordinates; in all cases the addition of coordinates is subject to consensus. Martinvl (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to add anything I might have missed. Dave (talk) 20:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I found a common theme in my responses. –Fredddie™ 22:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

What you missed is the notification of this poll to other interested projects; or better as a centralised discussion. The poll is also orthogonal to the section under which you have nested it, which is not about whether to include coordinates, but how to present them if they are included. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see it as a poll at all. Right now, this feels like a brainstorming session that goes on before a proposal is written, commented on, and put up for a vote. –Fredddie™ 23:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to have a list or table of features of a road, why would you elect not to provide coords for any feature sufficiently notable to be in the list? By all means discuss what features are sufficiently notable to be in such a list, but are you really suggesting that having listed them, you would wish to ensure that a user cannot use a link to find the said feature on a map? --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Too much clutter. Poor signal-noise ratio. --Rschen7754 23:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

That's somewhere between very weak and completely feeble. In a table, if you are to have any coords, then you have a column that can store coords for each row. In a list, you can achieve much the same by user of a regular pattern of information. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you considered contributing to the discussion rather than insisting on having it "your" way? And to be clear, we are not adding in coordinates for every single junction on Interstate 5 in California. --Rschen7754 00:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

1. In so far as I have to date merely asked questions as to why you are considering not doing something, I think that a) I have entered the discussion and b) and I have not by any stretch of the imagination specified "my" way. I find your tone offensive and your logic crepuscular. 2. I note that in the same post, you say "And to be clear, we are not adding in coordinates for every single junction" as if you are some sort of god king tyrant. Again, offensive and, given the first part of your post, deeply deeply stupid. Yours is no way to make progress on wikipedia. I think it behooves you to take some time out to consider your position. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to include the longitude and latitude along with a link to display a coord in various map services. The link does just fine, using a non-invasive and space conserving globe as the link. Nobody cares about the numbers because they aren't going to use their technical gps for highway navigation, but please feel free to tell me that everyone does in fact care about the numbers because I'm sure the geotagging project has an agenda that it will slam against other wikiprojects whether they like it or not. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 10:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

" Nobody cares"? When you surveyed everyone who's ever used or might use Wikipedia, you forgot to ask me. Or perhaps what you meant to write was "I don't care". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry we forgot to deliver a personal message. Where was my notice when the community at large "decided" that coords with latitude and longitude should be used as opposed to a simple link to page that not only displays the latitude and longitude at the top, but then provides access to a plethora of map services that then visually show you the location and its surroundings (as opposed to a GPS, which at best will display the non-satellite layer of Google maps). It's clutter. It's pretty clear from the several discussions ongoing right now that it is more than I who finds them useless in this situation. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 11:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

{{centralised discussion}}; but then I have never claimed that "everyone" wants that; merely that there is consensus, in the Wikipedia sense. BTW, WP:DONTLIKE applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Floydian, comments such as "I'm sure the geotagging project has an agenda that it will slam against other wikiprojects whether they like it or not" is neither accurate nor helpful, and I'd remind you to assume good faith. FWIW, in tables of road attributes - and unlike my esteemed colleague Mr. Mabbett - I would be happy with your suggestion of the use of the globe sans numerical coordinates, ideally based on a modified {{coord}}. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It's merely an opinion. Obviously the agenda of the geotagging project is geotagging every article that can be (but I stand to be corrected here). I'd assume that's the primary focus of that wikiproject at this point in time. As for slamming; yes, it has been a very aggressive campaign by the members of said project to institute the process the way they have planned out. When a group complains that it is being forced upon them without compromise (ie removing the bulky text that needn't be there), the rhetoric is that "there is consensus by default" and "Well you just don't like it". Ya, I don't like it. It's ugly, its cluttering, its redundant, it's pointless. This is a valid rationale, and not simply a statement of "I don't like it" (which unfortunately outnumber the ILIKEIT's). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

For what its worth I also think having Geocoorcinates on major features are fine and these days many, many people care. How do I know this? Because they have GPS's in their cars, they have GPS on their phones and they frequently Geotag their pictures when they take them and upload them to thinkgs like Facebook, Flickr and others. If they didn't care, they wouldn't be using these things. I should also mention that when it comes to projects with their own agenda who tend to strong arm other projects into submission or to enforce their agenda US Roads is right at the top of the list in the eyes of a lot of editors. --Kumioko (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed compromise

Add something akin to this:

Geotagging of features in the junction list (i.e. junctions, bridges, etc.) is out of scope of this Manual of Style entry at this time. The decision on whether to use and how to place geotags should be determined by the consensus of involved editors. Where used, geotags shall comply with WP:COORD.

This would essentially kick the can on which features should be geotagged down to the individual country WikiProjects (so if UK wants geotags in their RJLs they can have them and make their own guideline on where to put them, whereas if the US doesn't want them they don't have to have them). Meanwhile it would also include Andy's desired pointer to WP:COORD and ensure that any use of geotags complies with that style guideline. Thoughts? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose—I have some comments to make, and a proposed solution if {{shc}} is deleted, or if its basic functionality isn't added to {{coord}}. Until that TfD closes though, I won't be proposing the solution because my preferred method is based on that template. Sooner or later though, if the roads editors (in other words those that actively write, edit and research highway articles as their main editing activity) don't come up with a set of guidelines on how to format these, some other solution could be imposed. Imzadi 1979 → 01:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

This sounds interesting. I've gotta run, but more later. --Rschen7754 03:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The current wording of this makes me a bit uneasy. If it was limited to something explicitly mentioning the UK, it would be more of something I could live with. As far as coord versus shc... Coord does reflect the current consensus. My personal preference is using shc. I see Scott's solution as more of a stopgap measure for now - I would anticipate needing to go back and change this when we decide what to do with coordinates in highways. --Rschen7754 03:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the idea would be that RJL remain coord-agnostic as long as coords follow the standard coord guidelines when used. Instead each project could decide how to—and whether—to implement them and document that decision as one of their project-specific standards (so for USRD, it would be added to WP:USRD/STDS, or even individual state standards pages if USRD wished to punt it to the states). This allows individual countries to use coords as they see fit and avoids the trap of specifying one monolithic standard that we have to quibble about the details on because of different circumstances and densities of features. So if UK wants to tag every junction, let 'em, if USRD doesn't want anything tagged, that's cool, if France wants to tag some things and not others, whatever. As long as everything is done consistently within one set of articles I don't really see why we can't cater to local conditions.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a huge fan of the local solution here because a) we could theoretically wind up with a lot of different tagging guidelines, and b) this seems to be more of a partisan debate than a regional debate here, as Martinvl and Floydian seem to be roughly on the same page with the US editors. --Rschen7754 04:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's the basic issue, at some point if roads articles are going to have coordinate tagging added, the best place for these linear features to hold such information is in the one part of the article that treats the subject as a purely linear feature. MOS:RJL already deals with how to format wikilinks (specifying abbreviations like I-59 and A1 over Interstate 59 and A1 road) and how to use highway marker icon graphics in relation to highway names. Specifying how and where to locate coordinate data is analogous to those other specifications, and this is the proper place to deal with that. Dave's list of potential tagging locations and the discussions around them (excluding Mitchazenia's insistence against any coordinates tagging) already shows that the basic agreement is that the following should have geotags:

1. The termini except for very short roadways
2. The junctions that are important enough to be listed in the infobox
3. Significant features already in the table that are notable enough to warrant separate articles or inclusion in the table
4. Other cases that address the specific needs of a specific article per consensus on that specific article

As Rschen said, there isn't a regional schism over these points. The question will be at the end of the day: "what is the best method to accommodate the addition of these tags that addresses the clutter issues at play yet still provides the requisite functionality to interested readers?" Andy's original addition only specific two templates, but not where and how to use them, and without those two questions answered, his addition created more problems than solutions. Imzadi 1979 → 21:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about anybody else (besides Mitchazenia), but I fully agree with this, the where question of implementing coordinates. Now we need to figure out the how. –Fredddie™ 22:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

For how, may I suggest that you look at the M5 example on the project page and work from there. I agree that the selection of coordinates on that page is a little random, but I think the format is worthy of consideration. Martinvl (talk) 06:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's definitely one of the options on the table. --Rschen7754 06:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

Okay, we've spent enough time discussing and we've had some inactivity, so let's start proposing something. Here is a proposed addition to WP:RJL:

==Coordinates==

The following locations on a road should be tagged in the junction list:

1. The termini except for very short roadways. If the road is very short, use the midpoint instead.
   1. In the event of a loop road or other circular road with no terminii, use the zero milepost/kilometrepost /marker instead.
2. The junctions that are important enough to be listed in the infobox (no more than 10 at most)
3. Significant features already in the table that are notable enough to warrant separate articles or inclusion in the table
4. Other cases that address the specific needs of a specific article per consensus on that specific article

Note that not every junction needs to be tagged; furthermore, not every junction should be tagged if there are more than 10 junctions. specific attention should be given to the number of tags needed to represent the route without providing too much visual clutter, both in the article and in the resulting coordinate map. Under no circumstances should every junction be tagged if this results in more than 20-25 coordinates, or lower depending on the length of the route.

===Implementation===

The details of this are still being discussed; for now, using {{shc}} or a functional equivalent that hides the coordinates, or using {{coord}} in a footnote is preferred.

Note that won't actually go in the guideline

As a sidenote, in regards to phasing this in, this would likely be an A-class requirement to begin with; obviously, coordinates are not part of the GA criteria, and there's too many B-class articles to tag them all in one fell swoop.

This isn't a "straw poll" per se, but please be clear as to if you support or not and why so we can get things moving. --Rschen7754 02:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

SupportSounds good to me. Once we determine if {{shc}} or its functionality will survive TfD, we can hammer out the exact method to tag. Imzadi 1979 → 02:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Amending my previous comment since I misread the exact text, but I too agree that the "no more than 10 at most" is too limiting. We should start with the 5–10 listed in the infobox as the starting point. If a road has 11 junctions (in addition to the termini) spaced out apart, there's no reason to leave one out for the sake of complying with an arbitrary limit. The most major junctions listed in the infobox (and many countries list in excess of 10) should be the basis to start weeding through the numbers. Imzadi 1979 → 18:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I've made some edits; do they address your concerns? --Rschen7754 03:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Based on the usage of open-source, linear data from OpenStreetMap, I no longer support the addition of discrete data points for linear features. Please see #Better solution below. Imzadi 1979 → 02:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Support. --Rschen7754 02:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Support. I supported above, and I still do. –Fredddie™ 03:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I no longer support adding any coordinates and now only support adding data from OpenStreetMap –Fredddie™ 01:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, maybe the text should read "The following locations on a road may be tagged in the junction list:" (emphasis mine). I still support the principles at hand. –Fredddie™ 03:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Why do you say so? If we need wiggle room, MOS is a guideline, not policy. --Rschen7754 03:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Support - Provided that in respect of UK roads the format in use is continued. However I agree with Freddie that the word "may" be used rather than the word "should", especially as many UK motorway articles list more than 10 other roads in their infobox.. Martinvl (talk) 07:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Since the UK uses coords in footnotes, I believe that the "implementation" section already covers that. As for the number, I agree that the 5–10 number should be a starting point, but I disagree that every junction on every article needs to be tagged. The intent is to provide a framework and a guideline that reflects that a properly tagged table need not have coordinates for every listed feature to be considered "done". In fact, my Plan B implementation solution is a modified version of the UK's method: it puts the list of coordinates, and the one template that isn't consistently used in the UK in a collapsed line of the mandatory footer that is supposed to appear at the bottom of the table. (Note, the UK and the US have both been slow to implement that footer, but it's still required by the MOS, in part, to comply with MOS:COLOR and MOS:CONVERSIONS.) Imzadi 1979 → 18:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I was under the impression that the 5-10 junctions in the infobox was a worldwide thing; I guess it's not. Could you provide an example so I can see what you mean? (One thing I do know is that in Germany for example, all the junctions are listed in the infobox because they were imported from an older infobox; we don't want to tag every single junction in the infobox there). --Rschen7754 03:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Support the general principles presented, with possibility to touch up or further clarify the language wording later. -- LJ ↗ 09:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Follow-up comment: Perhaps an explanatory sentence regarding the nature/purpose of coordinates as it relates to highway junction lists is appropriate. Then a statement such as "If coordinates are added to a junction list, the following entries should be geotagged." In my opinion, we should not 'compel' editors to add coordinates, but if they want to add them then it should be done so according to a standard policy. -- LJ ↗ 09:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Until we are clear on what the implementation will be, I think it unwise to set rules for how many things will be tagged. I can conceive of concerns about the length of a list of footnotes, if footnotes are employed to display coordinate links or information. No such length concern arises if a {{coord}} or {{shc}} type coordinate is used within a table of junctions. If {{coord}} or {{shc}} are used within the table it makes no sense to prohibit adding coords to junctions that are not in the infobox, or to other features; rather, the MoS might confine itself to determining a) what features should appear in the junction list and b) the method of geo-coording them. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but as consensus above shows, the vast majority of editors do not support tagging every single junction if there's a lot of them. I would ask that you consider what is likely to be passed (this proposal) rather than what you want and won't be passed (all junctions being tagged). I mean, I'm sure that you would prefer this proposal over no tagging at all, right? It's making a compromise. --Rschen7754 03:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

What an extraordinarily arrogant post: agree with us or the kitten gets it. I live in hope that you'll one day recognise that views that do not accord with yours may still be legitimate. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not a threat. I'm simply stating what I honestly believe will happen, in hopes that we can come to an agreement that would result in a positive outcome for both parties. I have worked with some of these editors for years (most since 2008) and I know where they stand on issues like this one.

And a kind request, would you please tone down the rhetoric. Instead of helping us resolve the dispute, you're just making it worse. --Rschen7754 23:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice try, but there is no "consensus above" - and this discussion cannot form one, without wider involvement. I'm with Tagishsimon. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

What other form of discussion would you suggest, then? This is the proper way to propose changes to the MOS, see [4]. Or, do you have an alternate proposal, if you believe that there is consensus to tag every single road junction? --Rschen7754 23:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Support with severe reservations as I don't feel the proposal is ready for prime time. Here are my two-cents worth:

• Point 1: If coords are included at all, then the termini are a no-brainer. However, the current proposal doesn't address how to handle fully closed Interstate loops or other urban beltways that have no terminus.
• Point 2: Unless the proposal is modified to include coords in only the infobox and not RJL's, then the coords shouldn't be limited to 10. Ideally, all two-digit Interstate and non-bannered U.S. Route intersections would be geolocated on national routes in USRD. Primary state routes would only provide coords for other state route and national routes. Only secondary state routes would provide coords for other secondary routes.
• Point 3: Any significant feature along the route notable enough to have its own article presumably should have coords on its own article that don't require repetition on USRD.
• Point 4: I don't expect to see editors wasting much time discussing consensus of specific needs regarding coords on specific articles.

The bottom line is that I really expect to see coords added only to A and GA articles in USRD in the short term and maybe new article by experienced, thoughtful editors knowledgeable about how to obtain geolocation info in the first place. The truth is that the project is better served by its own emphasis on stub elimination and even adding mileposts to RJLs lacking them, which are legion, before coords becomes a priority. Even when there is an overall normative way of dealing with coords for linear features and a truly accepted policy regarding coords on USRD, the overwhelming majority of articles will still lack them for years to come. Fortguy (talk) 05:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• In regards to point #1, that is true. Infobox road uses the zero milepost to deal with that situation - would that work here?
• National route articles... such as U.S. Route 50? For them, maybe, but for routes like California State Route 99 that would be an absolute nightmare.
• I agree fully on #3, but apparently other people didn't.
• Yeah, I agree that coordinates aren't a priority - they should be among the "finishing touches" of an A-class or a FA. We technically can't require coordinates at the GA class anyway because coordinates are not part of the GA criteria. --Rschen7754 05:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Fortguy, keep in mind that this is a MOS proposal affecting all highway projects and articles, not just US roads and the USRD project. With that said...

• Re #1, there shouldn't be any problem using the 0 milepost/kilometer post/exit for the "terminus". If an official zero point cannot be found on a belt loop, the termini clause shouldn't be required.
• Re #2, removing the "No more than 10" clause but keeping the emphasis on including the most major of intersecting routes.
• Re #3, I can go either way on this. I don't see tagging significant features as a big problem, and that will allow the feature to show up with other geotagged locations when using the "map of all coordinates" feature (if that is to be implemented as part of this).
• Re #4, There may not be much discussion, but I do think this is an important point to leave in should it become necessary down the road.

-- LJ ↗ 09:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Went ahead and added it. --Rschen7754 23:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Your point 3 is a false assertion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Why do you say so? --Rschen7754 00:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support I have a feeling this will need clarification as time goes on, but is at least a start. Despite the grumblings of a few above, this is a perpetual proposal that has been debated for years in a number of forums. It's about time we tried something to move the debate forward. Dave (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't see why we need coordinates on highway articles at all. I think they look tacky and add a lot of clutter to articles. In addition, it is subjective to pick out which points along the route get coordinates as people will constantly revert each other as to which coordinates should be included. In the past, USRD used to have a major cities list and this was removed for the same reason as there was too much subjectivity to what cities were included. I think that MOSRJL should be amended to ban coordinates from road articles. Dough4872 01:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Like I've said above, this isn't my first choice option. However, I'd rather have no coordinates at all rather than tagging every single road junction, so this would be my second choice option. --Rschen7754 04:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
    • If we have to have a way for coordinates to be presented in road articles, I would prefer the option of using footnotes in the junction list and I would prefer for it to be optional and not a requirement for every road article. However, I prefer the option of no coordinates over having them in any form period. Dough4872 18:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose unless the line:

"Under no circumstances should every junction be tagged if this results in more than 20-25 coordinates, or lower depending on the length of the route."

is removed. I personally prefer to tag every entry on the table if {{shc}} is kept or merged, and I see no problem with doing that. If one author only adds the major junctions and then another comes along and tags the rest, it is only an improvement. I cannot support any proposal which serves to limit this. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Scenarios like this are why we want to keep this out of the United States. I'm not dismissing this suggestion entirely, but I don't want to have problems in the United States either. I have an idea for a solution in mind, but I'd like to toss it around in some informal channels before posting it here. --Rschen7754 06:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of a hard numerical limit myself. Unfortunately, our experience with the "major intersections" in the infobox has shown that some kind of limit has to be set. In the case of the infobox, we've got people listing a junction with an unsigned 2 lane highway in Mypodunktown, NJ as a major junction. Undoubtedly the same will happen here. To be honest, that's my biggest concern about opening this can of worms, is the exit list being flooded with the coordinates of trivial locaitons. Dave (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Dave and Floydian: we're moving the numerical limit down to the WP:USRD/STDS level. --Rschen7754 23:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

How on earth can you change the proposal after all of the "votes" above? You have changed the very thing that people were either supporting or opposing. What validity do their expressions of support or opposition now have, given that the thing they were supporting or opposing has been changed. This makes no sense.

Further, you're now arbitrarily fractionalising the policy such that one bit sits here, another there, another somewhere else. You say here "we're moving the numerical limit down to the WP:USRD/STDS level" ... the proposed policy says no such thing. With much regret, I must say I find that not a good faith move but rather Machiavellian.

Again, sorry, but this whole thing stinks of WP:OWN. One way or another, you'll get the result you want. Get challenged on limits here: move limits somewhere else so that this policy gets through. Get challenged there: move the policy to the page, and so on. It's just not right. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Knowing the editors on this page, I'm sure they'll notice the changes (I actually talked to Imzadi1979 about the changes). And moving the limit to the WP:USRD/STDS moves it to a nationwide level, meaning that it no longer affects countries outside of the U.S. Please WP:AGF and either offer constructive feedback, or take your pooh-poohing of a genuine attempt to achieve consensus somewhere else. P.S. Floydian is a Canadian editor. --Rschen7754 23:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

"Knowing the editors on this page" - You appear, once again, to be under the misapprehension that this is a page, or a matter, for a subset of Wikipedia editors. It is not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a page on the internet, and the signatures are the editors. Therefore the signatures represent the editors on this page. Stop playing with semantics, stop insinuating drama, and start working towards a compromise, because you can't always get what you want. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

What I want is to be able to add encyclopaedic information to an encyclopedia without someone telling me IDONTLIKEIT. The current proposal arbitrarily limits the number of coords that can be placed on a table. Even though it purports to be a style discussion, it is in fact solely concerned with limiting content. It ducks entirely the implementation issue - and I suggest that without agreeing the implementation we cannot sensibly discuss limits. It's allegedly predicated on a fear of "clutter", but mandates the creation of typographically illiterate gap-toothed tables in which some entries have coordinates and some do not. It's being run as a cabal by a couple of ringleaders who - see above- have decried any constructive suggestion made that falls outside their preferred approach. There's not very much to like here. The constructive suggestion is to treat this as a matter of style and not of content; to agree how coordinates will be placed in the tables, and not to arbitrarily limit their number. The constructive approach is to produce mock-ups so that we can evaluate the (for me, baseless) fear of clutter. As you probably know, I've done this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates‎, only to be met with the most bizarre response (that small coordinates are 'cheating', that tables _must_ use a bloated, inappropriate, and in the context of this venture, a completely suboptimal style, because a style that actually works would mean that we could have coords without limit, and that is not the aim of this proposal. I've been dismissed as an outsider, FFS. Exactly how much of this is one supposed to take before deciding that the process is deliberately corrupt? --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support - As Dave mentioned above I think this will need to be refined as time goes on but this seems like a reasonable start and compromise. --Kumioko (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: I have one observation to make. Several editors who actively edit articles on highways and roads don't like various concepts related to geotagging highway and road articles. When we express our opinions, we're told that it is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT situation. At the same time, some editors pushing for geotagging highway and road articles disagree with us and don't like our position, yet they have not recognized that theirs is also a WP:IDONTLIKEIT position as well. Please, folks, simmer down and let's come to some kind of resolution here. Imzadi 1979 → 23:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's the difference. The argument for providing coordinates for every junction in a table include:

• Location is objectively a primary attribute of a junction (along with things like number, mileage, which roads intersect, etc, that are already in the tables). It is encyclopedic information. We should make arrangements by which we can collect, store and disseminate such information.
• Geo-tags enable users to verify the information in the table by linking them to a map against which they can check.
• Geo-tags enable users to visit maps to see the junction. This is useful. Providing information on a junction and denying users an easy means of seeing that location on a map deliberately degrades the service we are capable of offering.

Against that, the only two arguments I've seen against geo-tags are:

• IDONTLIKEIT, and
• Clutter. And on that there are several counterarguments:

• one person's "clutter" is another persons incredibly useful information and/or functionality (i.e. the dissemination of primary attribute, provision of link to the map)
• "Clutter" is a subjective view, one shared mainly (in my analysis of the above comments) by people who have decided that they don't like geo-coordinates.
• "Clutter" - to the extent it exists - can be overcome by better table design

I cannot see any way on God's earth that the two arguments can be thought equal. One is progressive, positive, utilitarian, and furthers our mission. The other is regressive, negative, parochial, selfish and does not further our mission.

We are more than capable of adding a single additional column to a table to store useful information. Arguments that this is not possible are absolute bunk. We can point to any number of places this has been done, successfully, on wikipedia.

Frankly, so far as tables are concerned, the only discussion I think worth having is whether we display the coordinates as numerals per {{coord}} or use an icon per {{shc}}.

--Tagishsimon (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

If the junctions are tagged with a template that only takes up a small amount of space, you are correct. Every junction can be tagged and the additional space/clutter can be managed. If I understand the intent behind the shc template, it is to do exactly that. However, I could not, in good faith, endorse a proposal where every junction is tagged using a template that displayed full coordinates. I'm waiting to see how Imzadi's proposal to use OpenStreetMap pans out. If the OSM proposal is deemed not to be acceptable, I think I could support your idea providing a template such as shc is used. The nice part about letting the OSM project take care of this is that is a dedicated resource for these things. On OSM, every culvert and bolt on a milepost sign can be geotagged, if one so desires, while avoiding the "clutter" for those that view it as such. Dave (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

But it requires hours of work that very few people would benefit from. That's a serious problem. WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information. --Rschen7754 17:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, my concerns are the opposite, that as soon as we say, "OK roads articles can be geo-tagged" we'll have an army of people flooding the exit lists with coordinates. Much the same as we have everybody insisting the junction with their driveway is a major junction now. Maybe that's the silver lining, maybe these obsessive editors will have something more constructive to do with the time by geotagging =- ) Dave (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

As with everything else on Wikipedia, it requires nothing at all; it's optional for editors to add data to Wikipedia; those who feel it worthwhile will do so. Arguments about workload thus have no merit. Those, such as you who fail to see the value, are entitled to abstain. And the coordinates of noteworthy features are not indiscriminate information. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

So we (the roads editors) are supposed to shut up and take it while a couple of editors who have no interest in editing roads shove coordinates done their way and their way only down our collective throats? –Fredddie™ 01:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm Rschen7754 and I endorse Fredddie's comment above. --Rschen7754 02:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll point out once again that "the roads editors" are not a homogeneous group and that you have no remit to speak for them all. Furthermore if editors have an interest in adding coordinates to articles about roads then by definition they have an interest in editing articles about roads. your reference to "a couple of editors" is unsubstantiated scaremongering. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

New proposal

As the proposal above is increasingly becoming derailed as past comments are stricken and new votes made, it is clear that a compromise is not going to be reached at this moment. I suggest that we vote to end this now as "no consensus to use {{coord}}", pending the outcome of the {{shc}} deletion discussion. Consider this a challenge to the geotagging team: Come up with some method of utilizing the directions feature available on many map providers to provide a single tag highlighting an entire route. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Many articles currently provide precisely that mapping functionality through {{Google maps}} or {{Bing maps}} accessed through a citation in the lengths_ref parameter of {{Jcttop}}. Fortguy (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, but it would be a big step if geohack could figure out how to use that information on the other map services. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Unlike {{Google maps}} or {{Bing maps}}, {{Coord}} allows the user to select a mapping service of their preference. Also, I note that {{Jcttop}} claims to be "WP:RJL-compliant". In which case, how does one add a column for coordinates? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

There has been no consensus to add a coordinates column to RJL, ergo it is compliant. Please note that the only experiments that have added coordinate data to junction lists have used other methods that don't require a specific column added to the table. Imzadi 1979 → 22:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus that a coordinates column may not be used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (road junction lists)#Standard columns does not contain a coordinates column. There has been no consensus on including a coordinates column into that list. Imzadi 1979 → 22:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Nonetheless, there are tables in articles about roads, with coordinates columns; since WP:RJL does not prohibit them, they are compliant with it. Nor are they "experiments". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no, they are not compliant. "Coordinates" is not a valid column in MOS:RJL, or it would be included. Any article that has included a non-standard column, as an experiment, is not compliant with the style guideline as written. Even the lone example on the page that has coordinate data does not use a separate column. The only column set up that isn't explicitly defined in terms of nomenclature is the section on "geographic columns", which will vary based on the nation, state, province, etc where the roadway is situated. Some US articles have up to three such columns (state, county, location) while most have two (county, location). In some US subdivisions, "parish", "borough" or "municipality" are used in place of "county", and if a roadway only passes through one county (or equivalent), the column is dropped. Otherwise, the columns are standardized. Imzadi 1979 → 23:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The applicable section in WP:RJL is titled "Standard columns" and opens "Generally, the following columns should appear from left to right in the following order". Clearly, it is not an exhaustive list and a coordinates column or indeed any other deemed appropriate, is not contrary to it. The examples are illustrative, not prohibitive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, why isn't coord capable of showing linear data on a variety of map services, as it does single points now? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It is - with {{KML}}, and one instance of the former per significant point. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The points aren't connected, they're still just individual dots on a map, not a line. I believe that's the point Floydian was trying to make. Imzadi 1979 → 22:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Then he was tilting at windmills. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what that saying means, but I'm taking it to mean "No, we can't and I'm not prepared to attempt to". KML is only good for Google Maps, no? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If only there was an on-line encyclopedia, where you could look up idioms you don't understand, rather than leaping to foolish and erroneous conclusions. And no. Perhaps you could refrain from decrying templates and data standards, until you understand how they work? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Close this discussion as "no consensus"

• Support iff below - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support –Fredddie™ 01:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support  VC  01:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support iff RJL is changed to say "There is no consensus for the use of coordinates on highway articles at this time." --Rschen7754 02:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Rschen's iff. Imzadi 1979 → 02:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support although I think Imzadi1979's OSM template looks promising. Fortguy (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support with Rschen7754's if. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 23:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment

Pretty obvious that there's no consensus for using coordinates on highway articles at this time. This discussion is starting to run around in circles; time that all moved on and started being productive. --Rschen7754 23:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't get to close an ongoing discussion when it's not going your way; nor with a biased summary As there's "no consensus", the status quo pertains; coordinates may be used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The status quo has been to not use coordinates at all. No additional columns for them, nothing. At best, MOS:RJL has tolerated footnote-style additions of coordinate data, but nothing else. Imzadi 1979 → 23:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave others to ponder your self-contrary and thus pointless comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the section above this one, there are six signatures from users who disagree. –Fredddie™ 23:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

In summary, coordinates may be used. They won't be tolerated by the above list of editors. A coordinates column is contrary to RJL. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Those editors don't have a veto; and please cite a specific part of RJL to support you assertion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Although the UK roads group is not very active, I think that all editors on this side of the pond are happy with the format used in the M5 example in WP:RJL. I would like to add a note of clarification to the M5 example - something of the form "Until a project-wide consensus can be reached on geo-coordinates, the format shown below is acceptable for UK junction lists". Martinvl (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

That's already implicit; and as I say above, there are also perfectly good articles about roads with coordinates columns in their junction tables. Until and unless wider (i.e. with a centralised discussion, outside any one project) consensus is reached, I'll be opposed to any wording (which would be a change to the status quo, not a clarification) which suggests or implies that coordinates are prohibited, on any article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Add your lone oppose to the vote above then and we'll see how this turns out. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You have failed to show how there is consensus anywhere for geotagging, rather than "a lot of articles have the tags." There is no {{guideline}} that approves of coordinates. Therefore, we don't have to tag any of our articles. --Rschen7754 20:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Your attempt to ban the use of coordinates has failed; ergo, the status quo pertains. Nobody has said that "you" [sic] have to tag any of "your" [sic] articles; indeed, I've clearly stated the opposite. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me be blunt: Is there any discussion of any form or any guideline of any form that mandates the use of coordinates on road articles? Where does your interpretation of the "status quo" come from? --Rschen7754 21:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Funny, because on the deletion discussion for {{shc}}, you take the opposite stance, arguing that any progressive changes must be made after consensus is seeked. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The pertinent question is "Is there any discussion of any form or any guideline of any form that prohibits the use of coordinates on road articles?". I'm sure you already know the answer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Better option

Geographic data related to Paul B. Henry Freeway at OpenStreetMap While I respect the work that the people behind WP:WikiProject Geographical coordinates have put into geotagging articles about single fixed locations, for a linear object, discrete points don't make as much sense. The folks behind WP:WikiProject OpenStreetMap and OpenStreetMap have a better option: {{Osmrelation}}. By looking up the relation number for M-6 (Michigan highway) on OSM, I was able to add {{Osmrelation|271833|Paul B. Henry Freeway}} to the external links section of the article, which produced the box at the right. That linked "relation" has linear data available for the full length of that 18-mile (29 km) highway here in Michigan. Since this possibility exists, I won't support the addition of coordinate data using {{coord}} to roadway articles unless the highway is so short (under 1 mile, 1.6 km) that the midpoint scenario discussed above makes sense. Imzadi 1979 → 02:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

How do you find the number? --Rschen7754 04:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

What Rschen said. I'm willing to listen to anything that would render moot both geotagging and the WP:IDONTLIKETHATYOUDONTLIKEITTHEREFOREIWIN attitude some editors above have. –Fredddie™ 04:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm definitely interested. I'd like to do some research before I can commit to supporting, but this looks promising. --Rschen7754 05:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The OSM project and link template are a fantastic resource, in their own right; but do not provide the same benefits to our users, who may wish to find a specific point on a map, or download the metadata onto their own device, as do {{Coord}} & {{KML}}. You're comparing apples to pears. You also presume that all roads in Wikipedia will be adequately mapped in OSM. This is not necessarily the case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Any roads that would likely have coordinates added to them would be in OSM. That's a bold statement to make, I know but - looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Countries, there's very few road articles in Africa and Latin America, where most of the holes in the data would be. I'd expect every notable road in the US and Canada and Western Europe to be in OSM, and that's where most of the articles are. --Rschen7754 17:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Here are the steps that I used to find the relation numbers for M-6, US 131, M-28, M-35 and Capitol Loop:

1. Navigate to the roadway on OSM, zooming in pretty close. (it doesn't matter where along the roadway you use, I used the US 131/M-6/68th Street interchange area for both M-6 and US 131.)
2. Click the blue plus sign icon on the right.
3. Check the box for "Data". A pane will appear.
4. See if the roadway desired appears. (It may appear under the local street name instead of the highway name.) If not, click "Manually select a different area " and drag a small selection box over the specific roadway.
5. Click on the roadway once the name appears on the list.
6. Click "Details"
7. On the page that loads, it will pull up all of the various geographic information about that roadway segment.
8. Look through that page to see if it gives the relation as a "Part of" or similar. That relation will have the number in parentheses after the name. If you click the lick for the relation, it will load a specific page for the relation that also contains the number. In some cases, the OSM editors have added the link to the Wikipedia article on that roadway to the relation's data as well.

That's now I did it. Imzadi 1979 → 20:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I'm not making a "is this your final answer" statement. However, I like the general idea of linking to OSM instead of us trying to tackle the co-ordinates problem within the article. Any features not currently supported by OSM that are currently implemented in the Wikipedia templates surely will be added as both projects mature. Add that to the fact that the OSM database is opensource so surely there are toolbox servers out there to add features not directly supported by the project, just as there is with Wikipedia. Dave (talk) 23:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is the crowd-sourced, open-source online answer to a traditional encyclopedia, then OSM is the equivalent answer to an atlas or online mapping service. There is a wiki devoted to OSM, and there are WikiProjects on it already for various regions. The articles I OSM-tagged already had links to their enwp articles already in the relation data. Imzadi 1979 → 23:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a question but you would still need to individually tag specific points like intersections, key historical points, start and end points of the roadway, interchanges, etc right? --Kumioko (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Not really. If a relation isn't set up for a highway (Brockway Mountain Drive isn't set up yet, and the relation for US 41 in Michigan includes Wisconsin) then one on OSM will need to be created to join together the various segments of a single highway. That's something done in OSM itself, not Wikipedia, but for M-6, US 131, M-28, M-35 and the Capitol Loop, relations were already created, so I could add the template already. Imzadi 1979 → 23:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks that makes sense. Question though, isn't OSM considered a Wiki type site run by volunteers like Wikipedia? If so does it meet the reliable reference/external links criteria? I'm not that familiar with the site or the OSM project so forgive me if these questions seem stupid. --Kumioko (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:EL says to avoid "links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked." I've seen external links to several wikis in Wikipedia articles, like Memory Alpha on Star Trek-related articles. I don't think OSM links are problematic under that content guideilne, or the {{OSMrelation}} template would have been sent to TfD years ago. As for the US, OSM is based on TIGER data from the US Census Bureau. Other similar datasets from other countries are used in its creation, meaning that the core data isn't unreliable. Imzadi 1979 → 23:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

A new proposal

This endless discussion must end. This debate has spread to too many different forums, period (full stop). Both sides are not going to budge, and there won't be a compromise solution. In the end, the best answer at this time is the status quo. One side will argue that allows coordinates, and the other will argue it doesn't. My solution is that this MOS page takes no position on dealing with coordinate-tagging at all beyond what it currently says: "At the present time, there is no consensus to tag, or not to tag, any roads article with coordinates." (Bold text is a modification.) Adding additional columns not specified in the guidelines is not compliant with the guideline. Using footnotes of any kind in the table for any purpose is not forbidden or encouraged. If those footnotes contain coordinate data, references, annotations, whatever, this guideline will not take a position on it. Imzadi 1979 → 22:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

What's the rush to end? --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

We... want to work on articles. --Rschen7754 22:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Please: do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Both sides have made their positions clear, and no one has budged from those positions in days. If anything, the "roads editors" have retreated from a potential compromise. We could discuss this for two more days, or two more months, and things aren't going to change. Better to stop arguing, and move on back to other activities than waste more time and effort here. Imzadi 1979 → 22:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

No. Whilst you are blocking the inclusion of obviously encyclopedic content the discussion needs to and will continue. You are welcome to duck out of it if you feel you have better things to do. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The guideline suggests columns; it does not prohibit them Those articles which have a column for coordinates are not in breach of it. And this guideline does take a position on the use of coordinates - it allows them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

What column in the current list is for coordinate data? "Notes"? Imzadi 1979 → 22:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess until a dedicated column is provided, that'll have to do. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Your question does not follow on from my comment; I fear you have misread it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me be clear: As one of the editors who wrote RJL, the intent was to only have those columns. Nothing more. The wording should be changed to "Generally, only the following columns should appear from left to right in the following order:". --Rschen7754 22:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me be clear: As one of the editors who wrote RJL, my intent was no such thing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't see where you contributed to the RJL discussions (especially as the origins of this were in the WP:USRD project); can you clarify? --Rschen7754 22:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Coordinate section proposal

After another pissing contest, the section regarding coordinates was removed. If it is to be re-added, I propose it read like this.

At the present time, there is no consensus as to whether or not roads article should include coordinates; consensus should therefore be reached on highway WikiProject talk pages or other relevant nationwide talk pages.

This is most of the last version before it was removed. I think it would be wise, at this time, to not include a mention of the M5 example. –Fredddie™ 22:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Full support though "nationwide talk pages" could use some clarification so people don't think we mean Talk:United States. --Rschen7754 22:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

No. It would be better to say nothing that say this. I well know Rschen's keeness to move his prohibition of enclyclopedic information to another forum he thinks he can control better than this one. No support for this whatsoever. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you opposing because you don't like the wording or because Rschen is supporting? –Fredddie™ 22:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This first of these. Rschen is an irrelevance. There's a lot wrong with the very few words you've typed. For instance, the discussion was about coordinates in road junction lists, no coordinates in articles - the two are distinct. Neither has there been a discussion of, and so there is no mandate for, the suggestion that cconsensus should be reached on "highway WikiProject talk pages or other relevant nationwide talk pages". --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I actually typed very little of that. It is simply the last version of the text before it was removed. I'm going to go have a drink or five to relax. I suggest everybody who reads this page do the same :D –Fredddie™ 23:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that was Rschen7754's corruption of the preceding version, which is what I quote below. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I will respectfully ask that you either a) file a WP:RFC against me if you believe that this is the truth, or b) cease making these accusations unless you can back them up without singling me out. --Rschen7754 22:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Dave and Floydian: we're moving the numerical limit down to the WP:USRD/STDS level. --Rschen7754 23:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC) --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Because we only wanted it to apply to US articles. US != worldwide. --Rschen7754 23:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

All of us have an interest in all of the articles. Who is this "we" of which you speak? Your "we" does not own RJL policy, either in the US or anywhere else. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems like you have satisfied yourself that I'm misbehaving. So, I ask that rather than cluttering up the discussion here with your accusations against me, where these accusations won't do any good, that you would rather take them to a user conduct RFC. --Rschen7754 23:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm satisfied that you think you own something that you do not. I'm buggered if I'm going to stroke your ego by taking out an RFC. And I deplore the AN/I you took out on Andy. Shameful. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Please make yourself familiar with WP:OWN and especially WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that WP:V is a policy, and that references to maps such as are provided by {{coord}} and {{shc}} satisfy WP:V, I guess WP:LOCALCONSENSUS represents game over for this attempt to ban coordinates. Good-oh. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I did mention the point, at the top of this section - on 8 August. ;-) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This would only be true if there was an established consensus to use coordinates on every article, and not just an assumed consensus due to WP:silence. Guess what? Somebody is speaking up! We (that being the collective group of editors who primarily focus their efforts on road articles, just in case this still hasn't been established), as a group, have opposed this now. Until more than two of you (I'll clarify you in one sec) can step in and push your agenda, consensus is against Pigsonthewing and Tagishsimon (that's "you"). Constantly opening new proposals won't change anything but semantics: If you add coordinates to a road article in North America, you will fight a long uphill battle. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Please make yourself familiar with WP:OWN and especially WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Please list the "policies and guidelines [which] reflect established consensus..." on this issue. As I understand it,there is no policy or guideline to implement the inclusion of coordinates on articles. WP:V only states that information that is included in articles must be verifiable. It does not state that anything verifiable must be in an article. (That my street exists does not warrant inclusion in an article. That a specific set of geographic coordinates exists may not warrant inclusion as well.) Imzadi 1979 → 23:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

"Please list the "policies and guidelines [which] reflect established consensus..." on this issue. As I understand it,there is no policy or guideline to implement the inclusion of coordinates on articles.": WP#RJL. HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Which does not advocate the use of coordinates at all. WP:STICK. --Rschen7754 19:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Did I say that it does? That wasn't` the question. And the dead horse flogging is all yours. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I am very familiar with both policies actually, especially WP:CONSENSUS, which I have studied very thoroughly to know where I stand when I make statements. I'm sorry that you feel, since this discussion is not going the way you planned and allowing you to brute force your way without any compromise whatsoever, that we are guilty of WP:OWNership. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

"you feel, since this discussion is not going the way you planned and allowing you to brute force your way without any compromise whatsoever" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please show all of us where you have tried to compromise. I sure can't find it. –Fredddie™ 18:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Alternative

(ec)The above proposal is contrary to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. The wording should be:

At the present time, there is no consensus as to whether or not roads article should include coordinates; consensus should therefore be reached on individual article talk pages. See the M5 example for one way to include coordinates where such consensus is reached.

with the M5 example, which is part of the MoS included. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is there's over 15,000 highway articles; do we want to have 15,000 discussions? --Rschen7754 23:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Where does anyone say that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that it will be neccessary to have 15,000 separate discussions. In most cases editors will recycle a format used elsewhere which will not provoke a separate discussion unless there are specific issues pertaining to that article (too many columns, inappropriate junctiosn beign tagged etc). For the record, I introduced the "M5 style" geotagging when tidying up some UK articles. Martinvl (talk) 06:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The alternative wording implies there was a discussion where the addition of coordinates to the M5 motorway way was held. Did such a discussion actually take place? The talk page for the M5 motorway has 1 post from 1 editor about the subject that I can see. Dave (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that the example is part of the MoS, it's clearly acceptable to use the style elsewhere. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

…and should also refer to WP:LINEAR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't WP:LINEAR say there's no consensus on how to add coords to roads? –Fredddie™ 18:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Your point being? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It is contradictory to say "Here's an example where consensus was reached," but then link to a page where it's clearly stated there is no consensus. WikiProjects should be giving clear directions on how to do things, not give mixed messages. –Fredddie™ 18:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Nobody said "Here's an example where consensus was reached". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I feel like I'm dealing with a dyslexic now. "See the M5 example for one way to include coordinates where such consensus is reached." That is pretty damn clear. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that we should clarify - in 2007 the UK roads group agreed to the addition of coordinates. In 2009 I added Driver Location Sign information and as I felt that the way in which the coordinates were presented took up too much space, I reorganised the format and posted a message here. Nobody from the UK group commented (not even User:Jeni), so the format was accepted by the UK group by default.

However the world-wide group has not given an opinion one way or the other. From the point of view of the UK users, I think that we are quite happy adding a limited number of geocoords above (or below) junction numbers as per the M5 example - if other wish to follow our example, feel free to do so - and please feel free to use the M5 example as a template - if you want to do it some other way (or not do it at all), again feel free to do so - we will watch and decide whether or not that other way has merit. My over-riding concern has been to minimise the number of columns without sacrificing information and also to keep colums showing junction numbers and distances as short as possible. Martinvl (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

So I haven't commented on this issue in several days. Since that time, I'm seeing that the debate here is getting nowhere, editors on all sides of the issue aren't really backing down or reaching compromise, and the arguments are becoming repetitive and uncivil. I would like to suggest that we completely cease and desist all conversation on the topic of adding coordinates to road junction lists for a period of at least one month. In the meantime, the guideline should be restored to how it was before Andy edited it, i.e. no mention of coordinates whatsover save for the existing M5 motorway example.

The last time this MOS page was being revised, there was a significant break before issues raised by the UK road editors were worked out. I would hope that a month's break from this discussion would generate similar results. In the interim, perhaps the interested editors can start sandboxing their ideas on implementation/display of coordinates in RJLs, so if/when this discussion resumes there are working examples to start from. I'd like to see cooler heads prevail so that consensus can be reached and everyone can get back to the main business of editing this encyclopedia. -- LJ ↗ 20:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Support. --Rschen7754 20:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Support  VC  20:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

This has already been tried, and failed, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits

Hmmm. Good point. I guess the better solution is to stop responding to you so that this discussion ceases. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

So you think you can stop me and spit in my eye
So you think you can love me and leave me to die
Oh, baby, can't do this to me baby,
Just gotta get out, Just gotta get right outta here
Nothing really matters, Anyone can see
Nothing really matters to me...

— Queen, Bohemian Rhapsody

--Rschen7754 03:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, a month only lasts 3 days...ugh... -- LJ ↗ 18:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Continuation of discussion

Copied from Freddie's talk page, where he started to censor comments Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Fredddie has volunteered his talk page as a place to discuss things in the interim, since the DRN has closed. I've copied the last few things said there over here. --Rschen7754 07:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Because you've totally misrepresented our position. We, the roads editors, are not anti-coordinate. So why would I make arguments against coordinate tagging when I don't even hold that position? I, in fact, added coordinate tags to the article for my former high school. But, if done improperly, poor coordinate tagging is worse than no coordinate tagging. We would like to tag the articles, but we want to do it in an orderly way. Can we both agree on the following? It's not much, but it's a start.

1. In some form, we want coordinates on road articles.
2. Improper coordinate tagging is worse than no coordinate tagging at all.
3. We need to be pretty darn careful on what gets tagged on a road article; we don't just want to tag random points on the road.
4. Selecting what points get tagged on a road article may involve compromise; we can't just put coordinates every 500 feet. --Rschen7754 01:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I apologise. It is easy to misread your position as being anti-geo-coordinates, not least from statements such as "5. The US Roads project does not want them; "decided at WT:USRD back in 2008"'. I'm unsure what you mean when you talk of "Improper coordinate tagging". No-one has suggested that we should have coordinates every 500 feet, that I know of. The suggestion that has been made is that each road junction listed in the table of road junctions should have a coordinate. The basis of that suggestion is that these are to points of interest in a road junction list. I think you know that that is the nub of the argument, but if not, I would ask you to proceed on the basis of that understanding. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

For example, look at Oklahoma State Highway 74. Tagging the midpoint would be a very bad idea here, because the road exists in two pieces. Also, look at California State Route 99. It would probably take several hours just to tag every single junction in this article, and for what benefit? Very few people will want to save the coordinates for the intersection of SR 99 and Laval Road - does anyone even exit there!? (Sometimes in rural areas, the DOT is required to put a junction at a certain location to provide residents access - that doesn't mean that the location is notable). A better option would be only doing 10-15 coordinates, tagging the most major junctions (and the most likely to be searched for) and the viewer can still get a somewhat accurate representation of the road. Basically, it's marginal cost and marginal benefit from economics. Will a first coordinate tag be worth the time it takes to find the coordinate on a map and insert it into the article? Yes. How about the second? Yes.... How about the 16th? Probably not, so we shouldn't add a 16th tag.

One more example - Interstate 10 in California. Does it make any sense to tag every one of the first 8 junctions since they are so close together, when they all can be viewed quite reasonably on the same map? --Rschen7754 01:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

"8 junctions… so close together": All the more reason to geocode them, then; that way, our readers can zoom into a map, with the KML overlaid, and see which is which. In attempting to determine "the most likely to be searched for", you're ascribing your own views or needs to others; you - nor I or anyone else - can't know what they will want. And if a junction isn't notable, why is it in the article in the first place? If someone wants to spend "several hours just to tag every single junction in [an] article", we shouldn't stop them; Wikipedia does not have deadlines. Besides, they may have the data to hand, from a reliable source. That said, it's good that you now seem to appreciate the benefits of coordinate templates, and I look forward to working towards a solution which is acceptable to all concerned. Perhaps this discussion should now go back to WP:RJL? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa. Please slow down. We're giving an inch and you're taking a mile. Any solution mandating or even allowing every single junction to be tagged on a long route is not going to get anywhere. It's been stated already; if you refuse to accept past consensus discussions, look at the present - there will be strong opposition. And yes, I am speaking for all the roads editors - I am one myself, and I've sat in #wikipedia-en-roads for years - I'd venture to say that you get to know someone's Wikipedia views decently well if you talk to them on IRC for a few years. If you insist on tagging or allowing the tagging of every road junction, then we might as well shut this discussion down. It's on a user talk page for a reason.

But virtually everyone's on board with tagging the 10-15 most important junctions / landmarks on a route. It would be a shame to not go through with it just because 1-2 editors effectively state "I want to tag every single junction and I will settle for nothing less, opposition be darned." Can you swallow your pride and agree to compromise here so we can get a solution that furthers the encyclopedia, rather than furthers Pigsonthewing? --Rschen7754 13:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I know for Interstate 10 in Texas, the number of instances of {{Jct}} in the junction list alone went over Mediawiki's template counter and the last 20-or-so instances were broken, that is, they didn't produce the route marker graphic. So that page, unless there is a non-template way to add coordinates, is going to be really hard to tag. –Fredddie™ 14:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Adding one, or three, sets of coordinates would be really hard how, exactly? besides, we don't make decisions on how to write the majority of articles based on a few extreme examples, which can be dealt with if and hen they arise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying if you add coordinates for every junction on I-10, it will break the page. Pure and simple. I also removed your name calling and the flat-out lies. You don't seem to be reading what Rschen is typing. –Fredddie™ 15:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I've read and responded to what Rschen7754 has written; feel free to demonstrate where you think, I've "flat out lied" or called anyone names. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not taking anything; nobody's calling for mandating the use of coordinates, and their use is already allowed, as has been pointed out to you many times recently, and denial of which (including your claims of local project consensus), you have been unable to substantiate. Once again you quote hyperbolic proposals which I'm willing to bet you can't substantiate. The stauts quo is the compromise you claim to want. Your ad hominem attack is once again beneath you as an admin. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I have highlighted in red the lie and the name calling in blue. I didn't see this until now, otherwise I would have replied on my talk page. –Fredddie™ 21:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, highlighting is by me, Fredddie.
"I'm not taking anything; nobody's calling for mandating the use of coordinates, and their use is already allowed, as has been pointed out to you many times recently, and denial of which (including your claims of local project consensus), you have been unable to substantiate. Once again you quote hyperbolic proposals which I'm willing to bet you can't substantiate. The stauts quo is the compromise you claim to want. Your ad hominem attack is once again beneath you as an admin."
— User:Pigsonthewing 10:35, August 31, 2011

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. This was brought up on my talk, and this will be my only comment here. –Fredddie™ 15:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:AGF and calm down, man. You're overreacting here. --Rschen7754 19:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and the kicker... that you haven't pointed out even a discussion where this supposed allowance to use coordinates was determined. Before you ask, the wording you used was "their use is already allowed", which infers that there was some discussion reaching that conclusion. There is no substance to your claims, and your counterclaim is that we can't provide a discussion overturning the discussion that you haven't shown exists! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Use of coordinates is included in WP:RJL. As has been pointed out, multiple times, above. And once again what you say I have said is a misrepresentation.. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

"It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the—if he—if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement" - Bill Clinton. --Rschen7754 21:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I assure you it is a direct quotation of what you said. Using WP:RJL to back up your position is a circular reference, and you should know we (as in wikipedia) don't accept those here. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

A direct quotation of what I said? Then you'll have no problem providing a citation, will you? Do so, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Why should he, if you'll just twist/ignore what he says? --Rschen7754 22:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

This feels as fruitless as wiping a kittens nose in its pee to get it to stop peeing on the floor. If you can't be bothered to address basic points of debate, including but not limited to understanding what you yourself have posted, addressing points raised by others, and backing up your consensuses, then you are a waste of time.[5] - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring a lot of the crap above, Interstate 10 in Texas will likely never have every one of its junctions tagged with coordinate data. There are 370 junctions in that list. The table alone broke once upon a time just using {{jct}}. You'd seriously want to dump 370 more templates onto that page and see how far down the table the template limits are hit?
Now, I've never said I was anti-coordinate. I'm anti-wasted effort and pro-intelligence. The FAC directors have already indicated that they won't micromanage articles through that process for coordinates. Now, I'm all for adding coordinates to 10–15 or so junctions, if we can develop a method that doesn't add more blue links into tables that already have plenty of blue links. We've had WP:USRD articles at FAC where the reviewers wanted all of the "shield" graphics purged from the junction list table and the junction list in the infobox, and we're constantly reminded and reminding about WP:OVERLINKing issues. Adding {{coord}} unintelligently will compound the issues related to a "sea of blue links" and "too many icons" in use. That's why I'm in favor of limiting the total number of junctions tagged with coordinate data, if coordinate data is added.
Whether or not you (Pigsonthewin) like it or not, several other editors here have an opinion on "visual clutter". If you're willing to compromise on quantity of coordinates added, I know that I'm willing to compromise on how to display them. (I personally like a variation on how the UK is doing it with footnotes in a list.) If you're not willing to compromise, if the only solution to our discussions and debates is to give you only and exactly what you want, then there will be no deal. Imzadi 1979 → 01:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Who has said they want to "dump" 370 templates on an article? as I've already said we don't decide policy on a single (or few) extreme examples. If your concern was genuinely about the number of transclusions, you would be lobbying for a cap affecting all articles with lists of coordinates, not just those about roads - as it is there are articles working properly, with over 200 - and to limit the number of instances of {{jct}}. Whether or not you like it or not [sic], we already have a compromise; that's the status quo, as reflected in the state of WP:RJL, prior to the edit war discussed above. The only change I want - for which no cogent opposition has been made - is a small addition to the wording of WP:RJL; outlined above, about the use of {{Coord}} and {{KML}}. Why does that require a limit on the number of coordinates which may be used in an article? And since when did Wikipedia require the making of deals? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and there's nothing in WP:OVERLINK to prohibit the use of multiple instances of {{Coord}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

No, but there is in WP:NOTDIR: #8 - A complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.[4] Treat verifiable and sourced statements with appropriate weight.

In treating the 370 verifiable sources with appropriate weight, it is clear some are overdetailing. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome to make that point at WP:GEO/ WP:COORD, or in a centralised discussion noted there, to try to overturn the status quo. Until you do, there is no restriction on the use of coordinates on that basis. And please turn down the hyperbole; as noted above, no-one has proposed using 370 sets of coordinates in an article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you therefore advocating that there are certainly cases where we must forbid the tagging of every single junction, if not for the visual sea of blue text, than for the technical inability of Wikipedia to handle such a situation? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I-10 in TX is an extreme example, but it is one that needs to be considered going forward. I don't care about other articles on Wikipedia with lists of coordinates, so I'll leave it to WP:GEO to figure out how to deal with articles that could hit the transclusion limits by using {{coord}}. I do care about the general quality and consistency of Wikipedia's articles on highways and notable roads. And, no, we don't have a compromise already. If you want my support for your initiative, you need to first acknowledge that my opinion (and it's shared by others) has value, and you need to work to address it. If not, there is no compromise here. As for overlinking, there are many, many editors who hold the opinion that the total amount of "blue ink" should be minimized in quality articles, and the examples in WP:OVERLINK are just the start. Imzadi 1979 → 16:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:GEO, WP:RJL, WP:COORD MOS:COORD and WP:LINEAR are all the results of compromise; one that already accounts for extreme edge cases like I10 in Tx. I have never failed to acknowledge anyone's opinion; whether I consider them to have value is for me, not you, to decide. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

That's funny. As an editor of linear features, I was never contact about this supposed compromise building. However, I can see that it is clearly the work of you and User:Tagishsimon.[6]. WP:LINEAR is practically pointless, the creation of two biased editors pushing their bias. WP:RJL can't be used to argue against itself, as that is circular logic. WP:GEO is a wikiproject, which apparently has no bearing on anything (at least per your stance and your interpretation of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). WP:COORD is a redirect to the same target as WP:GEO, but nice try attempting to provide more substance to your substanceless position. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't let reality cloud your prejudice, Floydian. I see I have made precisely 7 edits to that page, adding circa 19 words, and reverting a change you made. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you, or I, wrote every word of it. It's been around for three years. Plenty of other editors have reviewed, and discussed, it; with remarkably little dissent. It still includes a contribution made by, er, Rschen7754, in 2008. It's linked to by the MoS. Floydian's accusations are just ad-hominem mud-slinging, as a substitute for valid points and rational debate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

And it's a draft. Nothing official about it. --Rschen7754 21:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyone less charitable than I would call you a liar. The second item from last on the very edit history you cite is one made by you, in 2010. Now it's time for me to ask you for citations again. Please provide evidence of me using WP:RJL to "argue against itself"; and of me saying that "wikiprojects [have] no bearing on anything". Given your failure to provide citations which prove a dingle one of the many other things I've challenged you on, I won't be holding my breath. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Your "charity" is pathetically laughable. I don't know why I continue to waste my effort. Prove where I lied (but don't copy my post or I'll be an anal retentive prick because I have nothing better to do with my life). In reponse to your requests:

Stating that wikiprojects can not form a consensus (which is necessary to change things and not have them reverted), per your interpretation of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS - [7]

Using WP:RJL as an argument against changing WP:RJL, and as an example of consensus (circular referencing) - [8]

I admit there are better examples of the latter, but I can't be bothered to look through the two dozen venue that you forum shopped at, attempting to get your way (we'll take this as an interpretation on my part. Don't ask me to prove it).

As for your rebuttle regarding WP:LINEAR, my edit was to remove M6 example, which was added by User:pigsonthewing on December 13, 2008 [9]. My edit was reverted. Is that what your idea of compromise and collaboration is? Just because I edited it, two years after you created it, does not mean I was consulted nor that there was any attempt at compromise. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes; I said that wikiprojects cannot form a consensus; I don't and have never denied that; because it's correct. I asked you to cite your accusation that is said "wikiprojects [have] no bearing on anything"; once again you do not and cannot cite your claims. The diff you cite, as anyone but a fool can see, does not show me using WP:RJL to "argue against itself"; once again you do not and cannot cite your claims. I'm not going to respond to your empty rhetoric. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, that doesn't mean you've argued any case against them though. You've also failed to address the compromise issue with regard to WP:LINEAR, so if you're ready to walk away and accept defeat then we would be happy to move on without your constant bickering over every minute detail, your every assertion that is besides the point, and your every attempt to obfuscate the process that we could possibly conceive and more. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Pre-RFC straw poll

This will only pass if it is unanimous, since... well, it's pointless to have a RFC if people won't abide by it.

Question: If we start a RFC regarding the question of coordinate tagging roads and have an uninvolved editor close it, will you abide by the results of the RFC?

(To clarify "abide" - Wikipedia is a volunteer project and Wikipedia can't force you to do anything. "Abide" means you're not going to revert over someone implementing the results of the RFC or continue to agitate over the issue at hand).

(To clarify "editor" - a post will be made on WP:AN, so probably an admin will be closing it out).

Yes

1. Rschen7754 20:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
2. –Fredddie™ 20:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
3. Martinvl (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
4. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 12:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
5. --Kumioko (talk)
6. -- Sure, futile efforts can be fun! =-) Dave (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
7. As Dave said, futile efforts can be rewarding. Just ask anyone facing assimilation by the Borg about futility. Imzadi 1979 → 16:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
8.  VC  18:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
9. Sure. -- LJ ↗ 18:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
10. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 19:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
11. Dough4872 01:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
12. Fortguy (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

No

Abstain

1. Please provide a link to the policy requiring unanimous support for starting an RFC; and, if there is one, define "agitate over". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

   There isn't. It's only to let me know if it's worth it. If you won't abide by the results, then why have it in the first place? By "agitate" I mean complaining about the outcome of the RFC in every place possible and screaming abuse and forum shopping everywhere. Once the RFC is done it's time to disengage. --Rschen7754 09:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

2. Very undecided, I'm not going to do anything depending on the result, so I can't say yes or no.Mitch32^{(God Bless America, Let Freedom Ring)} 22:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Brief description of the RFC

Basically, editors are free to write their own proposals. Editors are free to support or oppose as many proposals as they want, and they are also given the opportunity to mark first choice, second choice, etc. We ask that lengthy comments and replies to comments be done somewhere else to keep the page manageable. The RFC will remain open between 14 and 30 days, depending on level of activity.

New proposals may be added after editors weigh in; it's the editor's responsibility to monitor the page for new proposals to support or oppose. Minor edits to proposals already existing should be clearly noted; again, it's the editor's responsibility to monitor the page for any changes that may change the editor's opinion. (However, major edits should be done with an entirely new proposal).

Any instances of canvassing / votestacking / etc. are not allowed. Please review WP:CANVASS; notices should be kept neutral. Any alleged instances should be noted in a place where the closing editor will notice and take this into account. Serious violations will be reported to the appropriate venue. Please remain civil; it's a volunteer project for goodness' sake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rschen7754 (talk • contribs)

Question to User:Pigsonthewing

Andy, what exactly do you want out of this? I mean, what would it take for you to be satisfied with the outcome so we can move on with our lives and get back to doing whatever we do? I, personally, am considering the above to be tl;dr, so I won't bother trying to find it there; instead spell it out here. You might be surprised by the results! –Fredddie™ 02:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

As I stated clearly at the very top of this section: I recently added a sub-section, "Coordinates ", which said;

If including geographical coordinates, use {{Coord}} for each set; and one instance of {{GeoGroupTemplate}} per page.

This has been removed, supposedly because there is "no consensus". This is patently absured. {{Coord}} is the standard template for coordinates on Wikipedia; with well over half a million instances. The above wording says nothing about whether or not coordinates should be added to articles, just how to implement them if they are used. We even have an example of such usage in this section of the MoS; all my wordings does is tell people which templates to use to achieve this.

— Andy Mabbett 10:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC) — (continues after insertion below.)

I said I wasn't going to dig through everything, even if it was on the top. So thank you for posting this. I won't respond to the bottom because it's just going to lead to more pissing and moaning. –Fredddie™ 12:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

That's the only reason I posted here, and a massive over-reaction led to all the above drama. That said, the editors who clearly seem to think they own this style guide, or all roads articles, or a set of roads articles in their geographic area of interest, MUST understand that they do not. That's not simply what I want, it's core Wikipedia policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)