Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Road junction lists/Archive 6

Junction lists

I know this has been discussed in the past, but I can't remember what the consensus is. I think juntion lists should follow the same format as prescribed in this guideline. Is there any reason not to? The main issues I see is if the highway exits at-grade and as a freeway, you end up with articles looking like this, which looks terrible. The secondary issue is you have two different formats for junction lists, one for at-grade highways and one for freeways, which just makes it more complicated for editors when it doesn't have to be. --Holderca1 ^talk 20:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hybrid major intersections table

I have moved this discussion from WT:USRD as this is a more appropriate place to discuss the issue. Basically, there is an issue regarding "hybrid" Major intersections table for roads that have both freeway and non-freeway segments. I feel that one list is acceptable for these type of roads, as seen in New Jersey Route 29. However, another style exists in New York State Route 104 in which the major intersections section is split into three, with an exit list for the freeway portion and two junction lists for the non-freeway portions. The reason it is split as such is because the ELG prohibits exit lists form having colors indicating concurrencies. A third style can be seen in U.S. Route 31 in Michigan in which one table is used similar to what is seen in NJ 29. However, it uses colors to indicate concurrecies and has a legend at the bottom to indicate what the colors mean. Personally, I feel that colors indicating concurrencies are not needed in junction or exit lists. However, since others feel different about this, I am opening a discussion to see if consensus can be reached in establishing a uniform convention to see if one list can be used for routes with freeway and non-freeway portions and if the ELG can be amended to possibly allow for colors in exit lists in a similar fashion to what is seen in U.S. Route 31 in Michigan. Dough4872 (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. What do concurrencies have to do with splitting an exit/junction/intersection list into different sections? I think unless there is significant overlapping (see the I-380 junctions at Avenue of the Saints for an example), the exit list should be complete and not have any breaks. I do agree that colors are not needed. --Fredddie™ 23:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason they are split into different sections for freeway and non-freeway portions is because exit lists are not allowed to have colors for concurrencies in them per the ELG. Therefore, the junction list, which allows for these colors to be used, is needed for non-freeway portions while an exit list is needed for the freeway portion. This is why I opened a discussion to see if we can just use one list, with the exit list format and no colors, for routes with freeway and non-freeway portions with possible amendments to be made to the ELG if consensus wants to keep the colors. Dough4872 (talk) 23:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I've always assumed exit lists and junction lists were the same thing and thus fall under ELG. --Fredddie™ 00:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Technically, no. Practically, yes. The distinction has eroded as more and more junction lists are built in accordance with ELG, but it still exists, partially over the color issue. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm just curious, is there a MoS for junction lists? --Fredddie™ 02:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No, but IMO we really do need one, whether it be an extension of this or something else. – TMF 02:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I for one disagree with the prohibition on colors. If done appropriately, I don't see why colors are a problem. The problem I have is that most other states where I've encountered colored backgrounds in lists don't have a key. That means the color is only a clue that someone could hover their cursor over the line in the table for more information. The only other hope is that there is a clue in the notes. In Michigan articles that don't have concurrencies, the table is omitted completely as unnecessary. I will argue that the colors 1) add information when used properly, i.e. a key and a note in the notes column for the colorblind and 2) add visual interest to the article. Otherwise the tables are staid blocks of information with no opportunity to break them up visually beyond the shield graphics used. Part of my background is in page design and page layout. While Wikipedia isn't a traditional publication where the exact output can be controlled on a printed page or computer screen, a lot of the MOS does deal with layout and image placement as well as other attributes of how the articles should look. If nothing else, colors should be optional if they comply with the rest of the MOS, not be prohibited by this part. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to ignore most of your post, but I just wanted to pick out one point in particular. In no instance should the color be the sole indicator of an overlap/unbuilt road/closed road; they should always be accompanied by a note in the notes column. – TMF 02:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you distilled one of my points done to a single sentence. I agree fully. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

For the record, the MOS prohibits using color alone as an indicator (i.e. color can be used, but must be used in conjunction with something else) [1]. I work in an industry where, by law, color alone cannot be used as a status indicator on safety critical functions, for the very same reasons as given in the MOS. As such my preference is to not use color at all, however I recognize that's due to the bias that's been drilled into me from work. However per the MOS, color is acceptable as a SECONDARY indicator, still there must be an alternate indicator that does not depend on color (I.E. concurrency stated in the notes column also). I see MANY, MANY, MANY road articles (even some GA's and even FA's) that are in violation of this policy, and any codification of the guide should be in compliance with the wikipedia wide guidelines.Dave (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

So, in other words the MOS matches my stance on the issue above. =) – TMF 15:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I just say have all junction lists follow this guideline. No need for separate formats. --Holderca1 ^talk 17:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree since a junction list MOS would have a significant amount of overlap. However, an issue is that the junction list colors themselves violate the ELG as this page is currently written. I think that's the key issue at stake here; I know it was on NY 104, which is where this issue initially came to light. – TMF 13:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Why does a junction list need color, many states including California and Texas don't use color on their junction lists. --Holderca1 ^talk 17:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Do they need them, no, but that's why I suggest making them optional. There's no reason not to allow them as a secondary indicator of information. There's also no reason not to modify this guideline to codify this for both exit lists and regular junction lists. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I've stated my preference above. However, there are passionate people on both sides. I can see an argument as bad as WP:SRNC if we as a community push for an absolute standard. (i.e. colors will be used or colors will not be used) As such I think Imzadi's "compromise" is the only logical solution (i.e. colors are optional).Dave (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

And then we get the editors who will revert war over optional stuff. We need an absolute standard. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

OD-I have seen some situations in the MOS that basically say, two standards are acceptable, stick with whatever the first author did unless there is a compelling reason for change. Something similar could be done here. I'll support whatever, but to be honest there will be childish edit-warring regardless of what we do.Dave (talk) 01:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rschen, we need to have one fixed standard in dealing with how the major intersections table should be constructed for routes with freeway and non-freeway portions. If anyone wants to start an edit war because they don't agree with the standard, then we need to lay into them that it is per the ELG and take the appropriate action in further edits continue. Since there seems to be some disagreements over what to do, particularly with using color in the exit lists, we may need to take a straw poll to get a majority vote on what the standard should be. Dough4872 (talk) 02:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for consolidating the tables into one if we can come up with some change to the ELG, whether it be to outlaw colors from junction tables or modify the ELG to permit them. Who wants to start the "formal" poll? – TMF 02:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I can list the various options below and have users sign up under which one they favor. Dough4872 (talk) 02:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

OD-An edit war over the usage of colors, or the lack thereof, would be the same as an edit-war over British/Commonwealth vs. American English spellings or the usages of metric vs. American measurements outside of the guidelines based on geography. Or in another way, an edit war is an edit war is an edit war. Either way, there are already options in place to deal with them. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Poll

• Separate exit lists for freeway and junction lists for non-freeway with colors

• Separate exit lists for freeway and junction lists for non-freeway without colors

• One exit list for freeway and non-freeway with colors

1. I believe that this is the best choice for the United Kingdom where motorways are always denoted by blue backgrounds and non-motorway primary roads by green backgrounds. I am reluctant to suggest how other countries should handle motorway/non-motorway exits on the same road - in many cases the distinctions is not as clear as in the United Kingdom. Martinvl (talk) 10:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• One exit list for freeway and non-freeway without colors

1. Dough4872 (talk) 02:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Rschen7754 (T C) 03:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
3. --LJ (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Updated to clarify support for keeping the provision of dark gray color for future/closed junctions. --LJ (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Colors give improper weight to overlaps, when other junctions may in fact be much more important. --NE2 05:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
5. I am not 100% clear of the intention of the poll, but my "vote" here is for one set standard on all exit and junction lists without color. For example, all junction lists would follow this guideline as well as exit lists. --Holderca1 ^talk 12:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
6. This is probably best. Also supporting the total removal of coloring from junction lists except for the unbuilt gray (which has been in the ELG for a while). Not sure if that's covered by "voting" in this section, but it can't hurt to be detailed. – TMF 15:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
7. Also officially add non-freeway lists under the scope of ELG. --Fredddie™ 01:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
8. If done right, colors could add visual appeal. Given the exit lists history with juvenile editors, probably best to keep it simple. Dave (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
9. I like TMF's proposal, there are a few useful colors still.Mitch/HC32 16:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Other (please describe)

• One list standard for both exit and junction lists, colors optional

1. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
2. If I have an opinion, it has to go here! Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 23:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Since we seem to have a consensus, should I close the poll and should we start working on changing the ELG standards based on the results? Dough4872 (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest we wait. There's an issue that TMF brought up: ELG has permitted the gray. Are those voting for no colors aware that this is changing something already in practice, and not just tossing colors off the junction lists and merging them into ELG? There are some USRD regulars who haven't commented here, nor have any UKRD or CRWP regulars commented. Since this is part of the MOS, it does affect more than the USRD articles. In this case, a poll != consensus, at least not a consensus we can really enforce given the global nature of the changes proposed. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

In that case, should I notify both CRWP and UKRD? Also, what other USRD "regulars" have not participated in the discussion? Dough4872 (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The UK exit list doesn't use colour coding in the way that is being discussed here, so from our perspective, there is nothing we'd realistically add. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That's true, the coloring issue being described here seems to apply more to US and Canada articles, so the UK exit lists should be excluded from this poll. Dough4872 (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not true. The current iteration of the junctions list on M62 motorway uses color coding EXACTLY as being discussed here. Not to mention numerous other violations of the WP:MOS, including WP:ALLCAPS and WP:MOSBOLD and WP:V.Dave (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

In that case, the UK should be included in this poll. Dough4872 (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

In which case I will edit the M62 entry when I get back, logically the M60 will also have the same issue. I haven't got round to removing all the bold from the UK exit lists, but it has been on my todo list for some time. WP:V has nothing to do with anything in this regard. Actually. Now that I think about it, the usage on the M62 page doesn't violate the MOS in regards to colour, as colour alone is not being used to convey information. Jenuk1985 | Talk 18:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you voted in the above poll on what to do with the exit lists? Dough4872 (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I misspoke about the color in violation of the MOS. The bold, allcaps and verifiability are issues, but for another discussion. Back to the point, I agree with Dough's stance. Please join the discussion and let's see if we can come up with a standard that is flexible enough to work for everybody. As the M62 is an FA, featured on the main page a year or so ago, I know there are other UK roadgeek wikipedians out there. Do you know what happened to them, so we can get more opinions and avoid one person speaking for the entire project?Dave (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

If I'm honest, I have no opinion on the use of colour in the US exit lists, I trust you guys will find a compromise that suits you all. As it stands, the UK Roads WP is dead, the editors currently editing the roads aren't part of said WikiProject, which isn't really an issue, there is no rule that says you must be part of a wikiproject. If you are desperate for some opinions I can try to drum up a few users.

No one has voted for over a month in this poll. What should be done at this point? Dough4872 (talk) 13:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the result of the poll is obvious. I just think it's sad that is has come this far. It would be nice if all wikipedia editors were mature enough not to edit war over 3 bytes of code in the exit list, then this wouldn't even be necessary. Sigh. Dave (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

So at this point is it okay if I change to the ELG to prohibit color (with the excepiton of unbuilt gray) as called for by the majority of voters? Dough4872 (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The proposed wording concerning the inclusion of junction lists is being discussed at WT:USRD. Dough4872 (talk) 22:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Consolidated jurisdictions

This is resulting from a situation with Interstate 70 in Colorado, a certain editor has now repeatedly listed Denver twice, in the city and county columns. I have politely asked him to stop or at least discuss first, but this was ignored. I would like to have this codified so I can have a standard to refer to...

The unwritten rule has so far been, if the city and county (replace those jurisdictional names as appropriate) are literally the same thing (such as Denver, Colorado, San Francisco, California and Carson City, Nevada) they should only be listed once, with the entry spanning both columns. However for situations where there is an identically named city and county, but they two are separate entities, such as Sacramento, California or Los Angeles, California, they should be treated as separate entities in the exit list. Any objection to formalizing this? Colorado seems to be the only state in the US where this is an issue, other states where this is an issue, the articles have been stable. Examples:

• Interstate 80 in California (an example of each, San Francisco and Sacramento)
• U.S. Route 101 in California (an example of each, Los Angeles and San Francisco)
• U.S. Route 50 in Nevada (Carson City)
• U.S. Route 395 in Nevada (Carson City)
• Interstate 15 in Utah (Salt Lake, an almost identical circumstance except "City" doesn't appear in the county name)
• Interstate 70 in Missouri (Kansas City)

Dave (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Wow, when was the last time California's exit lists were right and other state's were wrong =-) Dave (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC) P.P.S. I don't want to make it sound like I'm bashing. This user's contributions to the article have been positive, aside from this issue.Dave (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead... this is how it should be. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep...Dave, you nailed it pretty well. If the jurisdictions of the city and the county are coterminous (so an independent city basically), there's no need to duplicate it in both columns. – TMF 02:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

For independent cities such as Baltimore, the two columns should be merged (see Baltimore–Washington Parkway as an example). However, if the city is coterminus with a county, as Philadelphia is with Philadelphia County, then there should be separate city and county columns (see Interstate 95 in Pennsylvania as an example). Dough4872 (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

For independent cities or consolidated governments, one box spanning the columns is correct. For cities that are just coterminous with the county, they should be separate. 03:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Dave's statements. --LJ (talk) 05:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

updated Dave (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Location

Does the wording for locations imply that unincorporated areas with a well established names should not be listed? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the intent of the wording to stop people from listing every podunk place that the freeway comes near. I would say the challenge of "unincorporated areas" is there is no defined limits, so there is no way to show the freeway actually enters the area. I've usually not listed them, except for when it's clear the freeway actually does enter what any rational person would conclude is inside this "area" and this area has significant population. Just a hunch, you're referring to the unincorporated holes within the Las Vegas Valley? I would say most would be ok to list, as they would be considered suburbs in most other places, and in most cases they are completely surrounded by LV city limits, so even though they don't officially have limits, it would be pretty clear what they would be.Dave (talk) 05:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm fairly certain that many towns in Clark County, NV do have defined boundaries. This is likely do to the existence of Town Boards that have limited governance on certain issues and/or act in an advisory capacity to the County Commission (such as in urban planning issues). The unincorporated townships within the Las Vegas Valley (Enterprise, Paradise, Spring Valley, Summerlin South, Sunrise Manor, Whitney, and Winchester) all have defined boundaries—and incidentally are all also census designated places. None of these are fully surrounded by city limits of Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, or Henderson. In fact, they account for a significant portion of the urban Las Vegas area; Paradise, in particular encompasses McCarran Airport, UNLV, and the majority of the Las Vegas Strip. However, the majority of Las Vegas Area citizens do not know this. Those residing in these townships still have postal addresses of "Las Vegas". Most are not aware that they aren't city residents until they have to deal with county departments/services or they go to the polls and realize they can't vote for mayor.

To steer this back on road articles: In this particular instance where the townships have distinct boundaries, it would not be improper to include those in the location column of the junction lists. On articles I have worked on or added a junction table to, I have tended to leave the location column blank where the route passes through a Las Vegas area township somewhat due to their relatively unknown nature. I've also tended to not use them within the infobox road template. That said, I would not be opposed to their inclusion, but I feel there should be some distinct mention in the route description or elsewhere as to the nature of these locations. It's a stance that works for this particular instance, but probably cannot be adopted globally for purposes of this MOS standard. --LJ (talk) 06:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the valid summaries. Could we use the words, unincorporated areas with defined boundaries to cover this? The in the case of Vegas, the Clark County web site actually has maps for these townships. Actually most of these townships have categories in Category:Las Vegas metropolitan area which include building and structure lists. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(OD)I think so, how about "The location of the exit, wikilinked, whether it be a town, city, village, or any municipality with defined limits. If the location is indeterminable, this should be left blank."? Dave (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

We had a discussion about this subject at WT:USRD, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 14#Location field on exit/junction lists. Dough4872 (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Abbreviating road names

Does it matter, in a junction list, whether the words "avenue", "boulevard", etc. are abbreviated? For example, is "Gold Boulevard" more acceptable than "Gold Blvd" or the other way around? Pzoxicuvybtnrm 02:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The former; that is, the full name is preferred over an abbreviation. Generally, though, most junction lists won't have local roads unless the road in question was once part of a numbered route. – TMF 02:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What about names like "6th Avenue"? Should they be written out as "Sixth Avenue"? Pzoxicuvybtnrm 02:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Typing out something like "Twenty-Second Street" is somewhat unwieldy and not as clean looking as "22nd Street", so I usually use the number. I suppose either form would be acceptable where the numbers are small (10 or lower, maybe up to 20), although I would use the ordinal (number) form in all cases for consistency. --LJ (talk) 02:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Other icons in the exit list

FYI, there is a discussion going on at WT:USRD, specifically [2], about the use of other icon type images in this list. The consensus forming so far seems to be that shields for intramodal connections (i.e. airports, bus terminals, train depots, etc.) are probably ok, other types of shields (i.e. hospitals, etc.) not-so-much. As I'd like to see this codified, if you have any differing opinions please chime in there.Dave (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

USA != Rest of the world. Let them have their own standards. If the discussion is about changing policy, it should be broadcasted to a larger audience than the talk page for the guideline (likely not watchlisted by many) and the US Roads Wikiproject (likely not watchlisted by residents of other countries). Exceptions exist, and certain items (i.e mile marker images instead of a number) are pretty straightforward, but others may not be (ie additional signs that appear alongside route reassurance markers. To outright say "nothing but highway reassurance/junction markers" is foolish given this is a subject that can vary immensely from one country to another. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

ELG applies to all countries as part of the Manual of Style. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

For the benefit of user:Floydian, I wrote the following at WT:USRD: I am a British Wikipedian who has never set foot in the US. For what it is worth, may I suggest that if the icon exists on the road sign, include it in Wikipedia, if it doesn't, then don't. I think that my suggestions are applicable to the USA as well. Martinvl (talk) 06:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Nobody's pulling the USA superiority card here. The discussion is taking place over there, only because what started the discussion was an article about a highway in Texas. I requested the discussion continue to take place over there, to avoid duplication. Similarly, I would not expect someone to kill a discussion about verifiability just because the discussion originated in WP:Canada. Dave (talk) 06:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Bottom line: If you are going to take a proposal from a project and make it part of the manual of style, then you contact the wikiproject for every state and every country so that EVERYONE is aware of the discussion. I am not pulling a superiority card here, I'm applying common sense to the creation of a guideline that is supposed to cover every country. The guideline itself even says it was made from two discussions at the US roads wikiproject! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what the problem is. It seems like you're making a fuss for the sake of making a fuss, just because you hate ELG in general. It is not possible to contact every state and project - there's too many pages. --Rschen7754 07:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

We've already established in the past that this MoS has as much international consensus as doing a world wide find and replace on colour => color. 99% of other countries don't follow it and aren't about to start. To all intents and purposes this is "Manual of Style (US exit lists)" and nothing more. Jeni ^(talk) 08:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

We have? --Rschen7754 09:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

de facto, yes. If you look at a British motorway junction list you will notice that the equivalent columns for county and state columns have been dropped as they have little or no relevance in the UK. You will also notice that services (or rest areas as you call them) are fully logged. In short, they catalogue items of interest to British users.

If you look at the junction lists for other countries (France, Italy, Netherlands) you will see that every country has its own another look and feel, often reflecting the look and feel of the country concerned. Martinvl (talk) 11:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ditto per the infoboxes, every country outside of America and Canada use their own infobox, if not two or three separate infoboxes. If you aren't going to notify every country's road project, then don't think for a minute that ANYBODY outside the US will follow this "guideline". This is a bloody joke.

In fact, I'm going to take this to the village pump, see who qualified this as a guideline, and hopefully remove it as such (or change it to say specific to the US) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

"Exit list guidelines" unclear

I suggest that the title of these guidelines be changed to add "freeway," "highway" or somesuch. Maurreen (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It should say that it is for junction tables on roads of all sizes. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

"Junction tables" is more confusing than "exit lists." "Junction tables" sounds like something that might be used in electrical engineering. Maurreen (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

What about Manual of Style (road junction lists)? Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. This would reflect the fact that WP:USRD has already adopted this exit list standard for all road junction tables. --LJ (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That's better; thanks. Maurreen (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

So now this will be WP:RJG? :P --Rschen7754 20:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

MOS:RJL or MOS:RJG would be better. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Another thought: In the interest of clarity, would this be better titled as Manual of Style (road junction tables)? I only ask this because the guideline (as currently written) only covers lists presented in tabular format. USRD (and maybe others, I'm not sure) uses bulleted lists of junctions on national route articles (such as Interstate 95) with detailed tables as described here on state-specific pages (such as Interstate 95 in New York). --LJ (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we could make a small extension to this page to cover bulleted list versions. WP:LIST and WP:EMBED cover lists that are both bulleted or tabular. The summary lists on the summary articles could be covered here in brief, since both variations have the same aim, just at different levels of detail. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Scratch my thought above then. MOS:RJL it is! --LJ (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

MOS:RJL sounds good. Exit list gave me an impression that list of criteria to make a road article as a featured article :P --naveenpf (talk) 01:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If we do rename this part of the MoS, I suggest that we wait until any other changes being discussed to better globalize the guidelines are being implemented. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. All the current discussions on globalization and improvement should be completed before the page is moved. --LJ (talk) 02:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Removing the origin of this guideline

I'm going to remove the section about the origin of this guideline. It's irrelevant, and I don't think it fits the wikipedia style. I don't see a section on WP:V that claims the guideline started because of some hoax or false fact that made it to the main page, because it doesn't matter how it started, it's there now. Dave (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Attempt to cover up the non consensus nature of the "guideline" more like! Jeni ^(talk) 01:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

And your basis for that accusation is what? For the record, this guideline pre-dates me. I was not present for the debates of its creation. You will not see my name in any of those debates. Therefore, any accusations of me being part of any "good-old boys club" are quite laughable. I'm just a person trying to constructively improve things. Dave (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

For the record, only a few USRD editors date back to the era of 2006-2007 when ELG was created. Two of the main editors behind ELG are now inactive. The other two are User:TwinsMetsFan and User:Scott5114, and TMF tends to stay away from international issues. While I was somewhat involved in the creation of ELG, I tend to stay away from the more technical aspects; exit lists aren't really my focus. However, as this issue is pretty serious, I decided to get involved. --Rschen7754 01:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Naming

Why it is called Interstate 90 why not Interstate 90 (United States of America) ? For our National Highway we have a naming convention of National Highway ## (India) and for State Highways we have convention of State Highway ## (Kerala or Maharastra)--naveenpf (talk) 01:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Long story. Don't ask. Article names was a very contentious battle about 4 years ago. We still get headaches over it. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know there is only one Interstate 90. There are many highway systems that use the term National Highway x. This discussion is more appropriate for WT:USSH. --Rschen7754 01:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to try to restore order to this page

I propose archiving sections 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, and this section. These parts of the discussion are not controversial or have died or have been expanded upon many times. Any objections? --Rschen7754 03:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If there are no objections I will do this Wednesday morning PDT. --Rschen7754 03:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Leave section 8 out of this, further discussion may be warranted. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No objection here. Good idea. --LJ (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Is this guideline valid, or should it be made a subpage of the US road wikiproject?

This policy was created several years ago by editors of Wikiproject US Roads, after discussion solely on their talk pages. When created, it was already assumed as a guideline of the manual of style, applying internationally across Wikipedia. Amendments continue to be made to this worldwide guideline from US centric discussions (as is the case in the topic above this) that are not watchlisted by many outside of the US.

I am challenging the validity of this as a guideline. Very few, if any, editors outside the US have adopted or even read this guideline. I personally refuse to use it until any changes to it are discussed with all the wikiprojects that it effects, and not just the US Roads project.

Basically put, is this a valid guideline, or has a very narrow demographic forced it upon the world at large? If it's the latter, then this should be moved to a subpage of WP:USRD - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
EDIT: Note that this is not a straw poll. It is a country by country request for commentary. If 30 editors all from WP:USRD (which dominates in terms of number of editors) support it, and 6 users reject it, then it is being rejected outside of the US. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• No (or very few) other countries follow this guideline which was produced by a subset of American editors who then attempted to impose it on the rest of the world with no discussion. This is not a valid guideline beyond its use within the US because of the US-centric way in which it was implemented. Suggest move to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (US exit lists) and edit accordingly. Jeni ^(talk) 19:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Perhaps a less confrontational and more practical approach besides throwing the baby out with the bathwater would be working with other countries to create a universal guideline. --Rschen7754 20:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I have some questions for both sides of this discussion:

1. This guideline started as a subpage of the old Interstate Highways project, and then was further developed at USRD. How did the move to Wikipedia policy/MOS come about? I see no discussion in this page's talk archives concerning this.
2. Can it be shown that members of USRD "forced" this policy on other road projects? Did other projects have established junction list guidelines before the ELG became a MOS page? Did other road projects exist prior to ELG?
3. Was there wider discussion on Wikipedia about this page becoming part of the MOS prior to that happening?
4. Just how many projects does this guideline affect, anyway? Do any non-US road projects have established guidelines (on project pages or wherever) for exit/junction lists that are vastly different from the ELG? How many other projects even have junction/exit lists on road articles (even if not compliant with ELG)? For example, we all know the UK roads articles use very different tables from the ELG, but I didn't see any documentation about the tables on their project page.

I guess I'm looking for links to previous discussions, edit histories and the like in order to get a sense of the history and proof of statements made above. (For the record, I am a member of USRD but started editing road articles after the ELG had been made part of the MOS, so please excuse my naivete.) It seems to me that this page should remain the de facto junction list policy if there are no other guidelines in place. If there are other documented guidelines in place or other convincing evidence is shown, I wouldn't be totally opposed to renaming this page as Jeni suggests. --LJ (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It's difficult to reconstruct something that happened almost 3 years ago (when I've forgotten exactly how it happened!), but I'll try to answer your questions.

[3] - This guideline started as a subpage of what was WP:IH, then it became a subpage of WP:USRD, then it got moved to the current location.

The guideline has had consensus at USRD ever since then.

Northenglish (now Kacie Jane, who is no longer involved with USRD) moved it per [4] in April 2007. At this time on Wikipedia, this was sufficient consensus for such an action. Does this mean that this guideline's status should be disputed? No, not unless you want to take down every other guideline that was made before 2008.

At the time of the move the guideline was only relating to US roads. USRD was (and still is) way more developed than the other road projects - WP:CRWP had over 75% of its provincial projects deleted in 2007, leaving just SK and the poorly developed WP:GHR. WP:UKRD was not founded until May 2007. The India project was founded sometime in 2009 or 2010.

There have been several attempts to make ELG more global; you can look through the archives of this talk page. One example is [5].

There have been several attempts to involve other countries in the development of ELG; see WT:HWY and WT:CRWP and WT:UKRD and all the associated archives. You will also notice that other countries have not given much input, perhaps because there were no editors to give input, or because of apathy. Can this be blamed on USRD? No. If people don't say anything and everyone else decides on something, does that invalidate consensus? No. Does it make the guideline invalid? No.

I'm not entirely sure as to the motivation behind this action, besides potential revenge for events that happened in CRWP earlier this year. This issue in particular was regarding something happening in the US, and specifically, in Texas. I don't see any such signs being used in Canada or the UK. I think the editor is trying to make a WP:POINT.

I think the standardization of exit lists across Wikipedia is a good thing. If you don't like the guideline, work to change it. Don't just say "screw you, we're going to do our own thing." As shown by several discussions lasting for several years, we do realize that there is a current weakness in the guideline in the subject of international situations. We are willing to work with other countries to fix this. That all being said, in order for that to happen, you (as in other countries) have to be willing to work with us. It's a two-way street.

I don't think I got all of your questions, but I hope this helps. --Rschen7754 22:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Rschen. Your reply was indeed helpful. --LJ (talk) 03:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

There was...no discussion? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

And Canada is kept out of the loop? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion is often limited, or only at this and the US project talk page. I am not here to prove a point besides that if you are going to make something a global standard, make sure it has global acceptance, and discuss it globally. I don't see why each wikiproject can't use its own standard, as every country uses different colours on their roads and on the mapbooks that are most popular. Remember, we are here to help readers, not ourselves. An exit list in Britain is irrelevant to an exit list in California. Those discussions at Canada had no responses, because there were no editors. Silence in that respect is not consensus. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 05:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Uh, yeah it is... So do we have to have every single active or inactive editor vote or give input on every single guideline that might affect them? If that was true, Wikipedia would never get anything done. --Rschen7754 05:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Nobody doubts that this page is "us-centric" and poorly written. However, that clearly is a result of the origins and age of the guideline, not an attempt to ram anything down anyone's throat. It's fairly obvious why the US Roads project generates most of the discussion about this page, they are the largest interested group. Some editors of both the Canada and UK roads projects presented offers to fork or modify this guideline for situations unique to their countries. However, any US based editor who pointed out that these proposals were in conflict with other sections of the Manual of Style or the that similar approaches were tried in the past, with great difficulty, was accused of being US centric. Some responses were down right childish, basically, "well if you're not going to change it MY WAY, I'm just going to ignore this guideline". Speaking for myself, every response I made to these proposals was based from other sections of the MOS or from past experiences from an FAC nomination, not any axe to grind. So for these same editors to now accuse the US Roads wikiproject of any arrogance in their handling of this guideline is ironic. Does this get demoted from part of the Manual of Style to a project guideline? I don't really care, but I would like to set the record straight about a few things.Dave (talk) 05:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure as to what Floydian's last response is supposed to imply. Were we supposed to wait to draft a policy on the off-chance that you might eventually join Wikipedia and have a strong feeling about this? If you have reason to believe that ELG cannot be applied to your province's road system for whatever reason, then post it here and we'll see if we can't adapt ELG to suit your country better by adding columns or making existing ones optional. I should point out that Manitoba seems to not have any issue with this. I'll start a new section below to give people from other countries a chance to propose changes. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Having come to this page via WP:VP/P, I'd like to suggest that the page name and intro be reworked to state that this is specifically meant to be applied to US roads, although with a suggestion that editors working with roads in other countries consider it as a collection of useful suggestions. See the introductory sentence of the messagebox at the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Guideline, a page that employs this method — it says that it's written from a US standpoint and notes that it might be a good idea for use in other countries. There's no good reason to modify guidelines meant to apply to US roads because they don't work for roads outside the USA: just create a new guideline or guidelines for other countries, and note that this is a USA-specific guideline. It's perfectly fine to have this marked as part of the MOS, rather than just a project guideline; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (U.S. state and territory highways) for another longstanding US highways guideline that's always been marked as part of the MOS instead of a project guideline. Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • But it's not specifically meant to apply to US roads. It's been a global guideline since 2007. --Rschen7754 02:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
    • "global" guideline created by USRD and not followed by other countries. Jeni ^(talk) 02:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
      • "Global guideline created before there were other highway projects created. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

International changes

Amid accusations above that this MOS page is too US-centric, let's revisit the issue and allow international editors to voice concerns so that we can look at modifying the policy so that everyone is happy. Please voice your concerns as to how we can improve and change the policy rather than concerns about its initial creation (as it's obviously too late to rectify those.)—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Canada

Canadian editors: please voice your concerns here.

Discussion mostly centering on administrative concerns

Post this and every change made the ELG at WP:CRWP, and every road project. Obviously you don't need to do it at every sub project. The parent project should handle that. Background colours should be allowed to separate out entries with a certain meaning. For example, Highway 401 and Highway 405 use it for former exits that were removed (there are only a few). These colours should be decided by individual wikiprojects Enforce this in other countries if it is to be a guideline. All votes to amend ELG should be made by country-level projects as a whole, not by individual editors. This prevents regional bias in any way, and I think it's a fair request to agree upon. These are a few to begin -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 06:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Done. We've tried background colors before; they were abused. Never again. Well, we have to focus on enforcing it in the US. You can enforce it in Canada. Other editors can enforce it in their own countries, or if you have spare time, you're welcome to enforce it in other countries. We do enforce it whenever a road article goes to WP:FAC, though. So Nepal, an inactive project with a much smaller road system, gets as much say as the US? I don't think so. --Rschen7754 06:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Yes, the Nepal road project has just as much a right as the US roads project. If they were abused, then set a standard in your project not to use them. I need to make use of them, they comply with WP:COLOR, and I have no problem monitoring and reverting abuse and vandalism. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 08:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC) What is this "need", and how is your proposal going to comply with WP:COLOR? Imzadi1979 (talk) 08:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC) WP:COLOR is a very very unspecific guideline. It offers little to nothing in the way of a line, on one side of which is passing and one is failing. The closest thing it offers is that it be compatible with the w3c standards for contrast and brightness. If colour should be avoided, why does the main page use it? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC) So what are you proposing that we use color for? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC) See WP:COLOR, another part of the MOS, for concerns regarding color. Color should generally be avoided as it causes accessibility concerns; colorblindness can make articles that use color completely illegible. Also, blind readers and users that make use of plain-text browsers or browsers that cannot render CSS will not see the colors at all. The remainder of your concerns are administrative concerns that are beyond the scope of this section (i.e. we are only trying to amend the guideline here, and your concerns are not codifiable in the exit list guideline.) Please start a new section to discuss these. Note that per Wikipedia policy "voting" is to be avoided and consensus is to be determined through use of simple discussions wherever possible. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Obviously colours used would have to comply with the W3C standard, but they shouldn't be outright forbidden. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 08:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC) This isn't W3C, this is Wikipedia. This website's Manual of Style is free to be stricter than outside recommendations. The guidelines in WP:COLOR are related to only using color to delineate information. I argued, and wasn't successful, that a proper implementation of the junction colors would provide notes in the notes column and a color key at the bottom of the table. That argument failed to attract any support. I also argued that colors be optional, and that wasn't supported either. Be that as it may, the color debate could be reopened at a future date, but for now they're being phased out. Any changes will need strong arguments in favor of the change, not personal preferences. Imzadi1979 (talk) 08:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC) That guideline doesn't say anything about not using colours. It says they should be used within reason as they can provide readability issues. Then it proceeds to point to a colour checking website which is based on the w3c standards. And you're right, this isn't w3c, thats why 3/4 of the articles on wikipedia wouldn't pass the test. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Currently, there's no subprojects for CRWP listed at WP:CRWP. (Meaning the rejuvenated subproject for Ontario should get itself listed at CRWP so that interested editors know to post notices on the Ontario talkpage.) The grey shading for former junctions is still permitted. The other colors for concurrency termini, no-access junctions, etc were removed. Enforcement of the MOS in general, and not just one part of it, say MOS:BOLD is for any editor anywhere. It will be enforced on specific articles at FAC, and key provisions at GAN. We'll leave MOS compliance in Canadian articles to CRWP members. Update:' When M62 motorway was at FAC in November 2007, the exit list was changed to conform to this part of the MOS. It was later changed to the current format in March 2009, months after a FARC for the article was closed. 08:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC) This isn't the UN General Assembly. This is Wikipedia. There's no basis anywhere else for such a scheme. If anything, this MOS page is a product of WP:HWY members in general. USRD, UKRD, CRWP are subprojects of WikiProject Highways. Just my replies, Imzadi1979 (talk) 07:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC) I'd like to see these specifics discussed. The guideline currently only says not to use colours, period. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 08:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(exit_lists)/Archive_6#Hybrid_major_intersections_table has the specifics on the discussions regarding color. Why the page was edited the way it was to say that, I don't know. I do know that the strawpoll didn't affect (or wasn't supposed to affect) the grey shading. Imzadi1979 (talk) 08:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC) To clarify on the color issue: The guideline has had the phrase "Don't use background colors in the exit tables" in every revision I've looked at back to 14 October 2007. The 'Proposed or former interchanges' section under 'Special-case scenarios' was added on 19 October 2007, which specifically allows the the gray background color (e7e7e7) for future/former interchanges. From what I can tell, the guideline never really had any support for any other background colors. Not too long ago, USRD decided to adopt ELG as a standard for junction lists (which had no documented formatting guideline, as opposed to freeway exit lists which used this guideline), and one issue with that was what to do with colors on junction lists that already existed. I believe the straw poll linked above was in regards to this issue. In actuality, it doesn't appear that the guideline regarding colors was ever edited after that poll ended. (This just shows that this text of this guideline needs some overhauling...) In short, unbuilt gray is still okay! --LJ (talk) 09:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC) I've been using D5D5D5 because e7e7e7 provides an unrecognizable contrast on some lcd monitors. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC) I am about as lost as most people to what reasons this is even occurring. However, as the only active editor on the Manitoba side of the border, I do believe, Canada (all 13 provinces) should apply to the US standards except for small things such as km first and county fixings. This fight is not worth it imo and things are working fine, if we need internationalize sure, but let's not fight this drastically over it.Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 14:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC) The problem is the US has a massive project. Thousands of articles. Ontario can get away with <200 yet cover every highway, freeway, and important arterial/county road/lists. I need the customization, but they feel it opens Pandora's box to abuse. I don't have that problem here, there is no vandalism, and the odd time there is, it is quickly reverted by many editors besides me. We don't need to internationalize every fine detail, just a general guideline. Leave the specifics to each project. The other things I requested are to keep the larger projects from being pushers because of their member strength. If they need a change, just gather everyone together. The USRD project alone is probably 80% (top o' my head) of the road editors on wikipedia. If any other country needs a change, they have to either win over the American road group, or every other country's wikiproject into supporting the change. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Ontario is NOT a country of its own, and cannot make its own decisions. We can't change the name to only help Ontario and honestly, your reasons are becoming redundant. If 12 other provinces can accept this, why can't Ontario?Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 16:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Ditto. Ontario is larger than most of the countries in the world, and the Canadian roads wikiproject is just as inactive. (the other provinces "accept" it because they were started by editors such as yourself and NE2. Those projects have no voice now. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC) I don't want help, what I want is to not be hounded constantly by the American editors who feel that their way of doing things is the ONLY way things can be done on Wikipedia. Your reasons have always been redundant. "We can't make this customizable, people might change it" (A: Don't be lazy and change it back); "It SHOULD display at 20px height" (A: And the arbitrary decision comes from where? Who decided 20? Why is 22 unreasonable?); "Ontario editors always complain" (A: I can't answer for anyone besides myself. I have a plan, and I'm tired of nail strips being thrown in front of me for the sake of being consistent with the desires of WP:USRD, when no other country in the world is. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Also another one: the exact km should be optional. While we have AADT's for provincial highways to provide that information, what point is considered the kilometres for the intersection? The off ramp or the bridge? What if the off ramp leads to a parallel road. Is the point where the offramp leaves the highway, or where it joins the road, or where the offramp decelleration lanes begin? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC) I generally use the bridge. Are the AADT data online? I could give you a better answer if I saw some numbers. --Fredddie™ 01:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Before I get crucified for this, let's just move this to your talk, because its going way off-topic.Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 17:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so far, CRWP has identified the following issues with the ELG:

• Colors: CRWP would like to use colors in the exit list guide. Currently we have gray standing for "closed or future junction" in the exit list. What types of uses would CRWP like to use color for?
• Mileage column: CRWP would like to make this optional. This desire seems to be shared by USRD, because of the difficulty in finding reliable information.

Let's discuss these points some more. What would you like to do with colors in the exit list? Would they serve a decorative/aesthetic purpose or be used to delineate certain types of junction? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

As for colors, there is some of us who would like to allow them again, at least on an optional basis. Three Michigan articles went through FAC with colors in junction lists before the colors guidelines were changed. If done right, I support colors in the lists. By done right, I mean that the lists have a color key and there is text notes explaining the meaning. As an example, in the M-35 (Michigan highway) article, at milepost 52.24, the list states that it is the US 2/US 41 junction. The notes states: "South end of US 2/US 41 concurrency". When this article still used colors, this row was the light cyan color, and there used to be the color key at the bottom.

Of course, the other usage for colors could be purely decorative. This is like the usage of colors in the UK format lists. Which version do you want?

For the mileage column, many articles omit this column in favor using the distance-based exit numbers. I'd say that when good sources are available, the column should be used. Otherwise, it can be omited. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, taking a look at M-62 Motorway, I have no problem with the blue and black bar at the top as opposed to the North American format, but the other colours used in the table (cyan, pink, etc.) are unexplained. If more than one colour is used, there should be a key to explain it. When only one colour is used, it is usually pretty easy to figure out, but a key should be used if it isn't obvious. As long as the colours meet the contrast and brightness standards (as both text and a link), I see no problem. In this case they are used to convey a meaning in a way that breaks up the visual monotony of larger tables. Decorative, yes; purely decorative, no.

Also, I think any highway with a numbering based exit system should use those numbers, under a column labelled: Exit #, in place of exact mileage. Those numbers are what everyone besides the traffic engineers use. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

What usage for colors in Canadian articles would you be proposing? Informative or decorative? I'd argue that the purely decorative colors used in the UK table headers aren't covered by this policy, and rather by WP:COLOR. This policy would be concerned with using colors in the backgrounds of table rows. As to mileage/distance columns, what would you suggest in the following situations: 1) no posted exit numbers, 2) posted exit numbers that correspond to distances, 3) posted exit numbers that are sequential 4) roads with freeway sections along part of the highway and surface-grade junctions along the rest of the route. Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

As to the colors, how many colors are we talking about here? We have the unopened/former exit gray and the light cyan for concurrency termini. USRD used to have other colors, but I think many of these were seen as including unnecessary information. What other colors would there be and for what uses? --LJ (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Floydian, in that last point, are you referring to a sequential exit numbering system (as opposed to distance-based)? If so, I'd argue that having the distance column would be beneficial information. However, it certainly could be left out if the provision that the mile/km column becomes "encouraged but optional" goes through. The exit number column is currently labeled "#", but optionally changing it to "Exit #" shouldn't be an issue. --LJ (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course if colors are put back into play, they can be changed as well. Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I personally use on colour, grey, for the removed exits, but I have no problem if a project consistently uses other colours (such as cyan for concurrencies and pink for overpasses without an interchange). Other articles may benefit from a colour representing at-grade intersections on an otherwise controlled-access route... In general it breaks the monotony of white on black, and it makes those notes stand out from the table as something to take note of.

To imzadi: 1) distances, preferably to 1/10th of a unit rather than a whole number; 2) only those exit numbers, as they are generally much more prominent than the little metrage signs in the middle; 3) Both distance (preferably to 1/10th of a unit); and 4) As mentioned above, perhaps highlighting the switch or the junctions that are at grade in a certain shade/colour. In this case, the exit number should be used until at-grade, then exact distances. (Or perhaps both in two columns for the entirety of the road). Preliminary thoughts anyways. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The articles I've worked on have used the following: 1) distances to the hundredth or thousandth of a mile (MDOT data is given to the thousandth) 2) both columns as milemarkers in the US are probably more prominent than the equivalents elsewhere, or just the exit number column, 3) none of this type and 4) both columns with known distances given for all junctions, exit numbers added only for interchanges. The reason that I asked this is that there are multiple kinds of situations meaning that one approach won't be sufficient. Also, the other thought I have about including mileages is that the terminal junction's distance figure is the length of the highway. Short of putting a potentially awkward "The total length of the route is X." sentence structures in the route description. Otherwise the only convenient places to put the length is in the lead and the infobox, but these two locations should be summaries of the rest of the article. Maybe that's just a personal preference of mine, but it's one reason for including it. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I do think colors can be used constructively. My vote to remove them was because at the time the situation was out of control, and violations of WP:COLOR were everywhere. There were some highway articles using bright orange to signify exits in a construction zone, for example.[6] Since eliminating the colors these problems haven't returned. As such I'm totally open to the idea of supporting colors again. However, I would ask that the discussion also focus on, how can we prevent the abuse of color? Dave (talk) 01:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I think for now we should keep the status quo in the US. If other countries want to go about including colors, then let them do so. That being said there may be value in discussing whether USRD wants to adopt colors again. --Rschen7754 01:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Why should the US be special? If we're going to adopt colors for every other country, then the US should follow. Isn't that the point of this being a global guideline? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If I'm interpreting the overall discussion correctly, it would appear that we are discussing amending the existing guideline to optionally allow background colors in the tables for certain uses. I would imagine that each country's project would set it's own policy on whether to use the colors or not. With USRD having developed a consensus to eliminate colors (other than unbuilt gray) from junction lists not too long ago, revisiting the color issue in the U.S. should probably be taken up with USRD. From the discussion going on here, it would seem current consensus might change that decision, provided the use of color is not abused. --LJ (talk) 03:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If the guideline is amended, I'd suggest that we then move to a phase II where we discussed what colors to use for what meanings. That way if the color isn't listed here, it isn't permitted. Then a standardized color key can be created. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to suggest that. Since the optional adoption of colors seems to be favored by many, perhaps the global color discussion should be consolidated to a new section. --LJ (talk) 03:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe we should set a hard list of colours. Different countries may use different colours to convey certain information than what we normally would in North America, and its far less restricting to say to keep the colours to a tint of white, and not bright and strong. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

What about a hard list of colors, but with different uses per project. USRD used light cyan to convey concurrency termini, but Canada could use light cyan for something else. Just a thought. --Fredddie™ 04:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the problem with that is, you want to keep the colors consistent between articles. If someone is reading, for example, an article on I-29 in North Dakota, and gets linked to MB-75, its continuation in Canada, then you want the colors to keep the same meaning between the two so as to avoid confusing the reader. I would advocate having a definitive list of what colors equal what meaning, but make their use optional; i.e. you don't have to use color to denote concurrencies, but if you are going to do so, you should use X color. If a country has something that they'd like to denote with color that we don't have a color assigned to already, a color should be used that doesn't conflict with the existing colors. Ideally the ELG colors should be kept to a few select meanings (perhaps concurrencies, closed/future, and partial interchanges) and then any other color uses would be determined per-project. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That's sort of what I want to see too. Set 3 or 4 colours as the standard for closed intersections, concurrencies, and future intersections. You never know when some odd situation will come up warranting another colour though. However, as Scott said, beyond the basic few, each group should decide extra colours within a reasonable limit. Should a key be an automatic requirement if you use colours in any way? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because WP:FAC will automatically complain otherwise. --Rschen7754 19:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I've thought of one last request. I'd like to see it be a requirement for # to instead be Exit #. For most routes it should be a very very minor width increase, but in my opinion is looks much better. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 06:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

How about formatting as simply "Exit" (or "Junction"/"Jct" for countries that use that nomenclature)? --LJ (talk) 06:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That'd be fine where space doesn't permit. I myself would prefer to keep using Exit #, but my main issue rests with using only #. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 06:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Alternatively we could use "No." or "№", particularly in areas where "#" doesn't mean "Number" (I think that's a North American thing). —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I seem to remember reading that using "#" is discouraged. Now, I don't know where. I think the proscription against "#" instead suggested "No." instead. Using just "Exit" doesn't appreciably increase the width of the column. In fact, in the rare cases where a freeway would only has single digit exit numbers (like Interstate 194 (Michigan)) and doesn't have a reference added to the top of the column, the width from the title pads the numbers a bit so they aren't "scrunched" in the column. I'm not aware of any 4-digit exit numbers out there (isn't Exit 880 on I-10 in TX the highest number in use?) so using "Exit" fits just fine. Imzadi1979 (talk) 07:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I-10 has it right now, but Highway 417 may have exit numbers into the thousands in the foreseeable future as it is slowly twinned from Ottawa to Thunder Bay. I think we'd all agree on Exit though, and it would serve internationally. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

United Kingdom

United Kingdom editors: please voice your concerns here.

Extended content

It should be noted the last time this was discussed at WT:UKRD the "County" field was specifically singled out for criticism. In the UK, "county" may refer to a few different ways of dividing the countryside and has a possibility of contention. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC) I'd say that in the UK, given previous discussions on the issue, that all location columns be discouraged in favor of the junction number column. Imzadi1979 (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Junction lists for United Kingdom motorways, like those for the Italian autostrade, distinguish between the desinations displayed on road signs for drivers travelling one way form those for drivers travelling the other. Editors in most other countries do not make such a distinction. Standardising this across all countries would cause considerable resentment in the UK, particularly since one of the features of the UK junction lists is a reasonably reliable catalogue of road signs that can be seen by drivers. Martinvl (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC) What would you suggest? Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC) I suggest that we accept that the British and the US junction/exit lists have divereged to such an extent that a single standard is not possible and therefore that the current MOS become specific to the US. Other countries should develop their own system that takes into account the requirements of that particular country. Martinvl (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC) I will disagree. The question here and now though is how to modify the current MOS to incorporate the requirements needed by other countries' projects. Once again I will ask, what would you suggest be changed to accommodate the UK? Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC) The UK exit list has evolved on its own and it works in its own right, it works well and there is no consensus from the editors of the UK articles to change it. The only attempts to change it come from outside parties (notably editors from the US) who make no meaningful edits to UK articles. As such I can't see it changing any time soon. Jeni (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC) The discussion that was linked above showed no consensus at all. --Rschen7754 00:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Precisely! You are getting this now! Jeni (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC) No, I mean that the WT:UKRD discussion above showed no consensus for anything. The votes were 2-1 in favor of ELG, but that's not consensus for anything. What you're trying to do is say "screw ELG, we're doing things our way." That's not how this works. This is a worldwide and Wikipedia-wide guideline. You have to follow it. Here you have the opportunity to say what works and what doesn't about it so we all can work to change it. Comments such as "We're doing this our own way" aren't constructive. ELG has a stronger consensus than UKRD does, so ELG will win out at FAC. You have two options - 1) work with us to change the guideline so that it makes everyone happy, or 2) be uncooperative, do your own thing, and risk getting slammed at FAC or GAN or have to change your exit lists a few years down the road to conform to our version of ELG or a million other things. Which will it be? --Rschen7754 00:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Errrr, no. This WikiProject suggested way of working was formed out of consensus towards US articles and has been attempted to be imposed on the rest of the world. So far it has failed. Just because you say its a guideline, doesn't make its a guideline. We haven't said we are doing it our own way, we have said there is no consensus for us to change what we already use and have used since the dawn of time. We have been there a million times before. Your whole attitude Rschen is appalling for an administrator, I'd expect better. It's verging on disruptive. Using IRC to canvass support for your POV is also unacceptable, I'm sure the members of USRD have been bought up on this before. Jeni (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Um, I think this MoS predates the formation of UKRD. I know that the only FA for UKRD conformed to this MoS at the time it was promoted. Now, here's my suggestion. Let us collaborate to craft whatever changes are needed to this MoS to make a single guideline that works on both sides of the Atlantic. We've come here asking what changes need to be made. Our efforts are being rebuffed, again. In the spirit of collaboration, let's discuss what needs to be changed. I've said elsewhere that the location columns used in North America won't work in the UK. That's one specific change that will need to be accommodated. The next columns in the current guideline is a distance column, which I know has been put in place on the M25 article and elsewhere. Honestly, I think if the Junction column were moved to the leftmost side of the UK tables in place of the Location columns used in North America. The concept is the same, it gives the location of the junction. Ergo, I'd say that the Junction column in the UK serves the purpose and the spirit of the County/Location columns in the US. The other columns in the UK are for the two directions of the motorway, and there's reason to leave them separate. Ok, so some minor tweaks and the UK format, in my opinion actually follows this format. Honestly, the one thing I'd suggest the UK honestly would have to consider changing are the column headers. WP:HEAD says that section headings should not directly refer to the subject of the article. The blue header row in the UK format does that, so under other sections of the MoS, they need to go. I know that there's been issues at the M25 article about creating links in the white on black header row. That will need to be fixed per WP:COLOUR. The other issue is the usage of color to impart information in the rows of the table. The Canada section above has a discussion about using color. I'm personally in favor of color usage, as long as there is a color key. To summarize, I'd say that the UK format meets the spirit of this guideline. There are a few changes that need to be made concerning the header rows in the table. This guideline needs to be updated to allow colors in table rows. These colors would be optional globally, but using them requires a color key. Thoughts? Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC) That's really all we're asking. Jeni, I don't see why you're making it harder than it actually is. My only hesitation is the colors. I think I would be okay with a provision in ELG allowing colors, but a country project doesn't *have* to use them (so USRD could then prohibit colors in US articles). As far as canvassing, I could just PM people and tell them about the issue. I don't see the difference. --Rschen7754 01:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC) As far as I'm concerned, if the junction column was moved to the left (between the distance column and the first destinations column), that change alone would put the UK lists in substantial compliance with the existing guideline. Leaving location columns off is fine if that's the preference or is otherwise difficult to ascertain, and having separate columns for the destinations of each travel direction isn't that big of a deal. With the current overall consensus seemingly in favor of optional use of background colors for specific uses, I think this discussion is moving in the right direction. --LJ (talk) 03:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC) I think we should at least investigate whether the "Location" column can be successfully applied to the UK. Can I get some input from the UK editors on how municipalities/towns/villages/cities work across the pond? Does all territory fall within a municipality of some kind? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Britain is an exceptional country when it comes to local government - the rules are full of exceptions. Please visit ISO 3166-2 and you will see the variety of local government units that we have. Martinvl (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Please visit [7]. This is a quasi-government site, but it shows the sort of layout that we are used to in the United Kingdom. Many motoring organisations use a similar layout on paper "strip maps" which are often syndicated to road atlas companies. Martinvl (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC) The majority of junctions on our motorway network don't fall within a particular city. Attempting to classify them as such is pointless (and we are then getting into the realms of making the exit lists as terrible, confusing and useless as the US version, which is what we are trying to avoid). Same thing with the junction col, we wish to keep the exit lists clear, unlike the US counterparts. Jeni (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC) The United Kingdom is pretty much completely subdivided into local authority units (it is true they come in many different kinds and sizes). These adminsitrative divisions are most similar to subcounty entities in the United States (townships and/or incorporated places). Is there an issue with using LAU boundaries to determine the location of a junction? --Polaron | Talk 16:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC) So which divisions exactly are you proposing we use? Jeni (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC) I propose that UK junction lists do not list any LAU's for the reason that identifying them in a satisfactory manner is so complex. Moreover, keeping everybody happy is almost impossible (unless of course we only distinguish between the four principal divisions - England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales which is what we already do). This is one of the reasons why I propose keeping the UK lists as they are. Martinvl (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC) LAU boundaries are well-defined and one simply needs to see in what LAU a specific junction is located in. Whether that makes some people unhappy or not should not matter. The maps that the Ordinance Survey publishes should suffice for this. If the OS map says that a junction is in a given LAU, what is the basis for people to say it is not in that LAU? --Polaron | Talk 01:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC) The United Kingdom article's section about largest cities uses the nine Regions of England as well as Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland for locations. I think they're fine analogues for US counties. To subdivide the regions even further, we could attempt to use File:EnglandSubdivisions.png for England (with actual named areas, of course), Subdivisions of Scotland for Scotland, File:Wales Administrative Map 2009.png for Wales, and File:Northern-irland-religions-1991.png for Northern Ireland. Calling the column headings Region and Subregion would work, I suppose. As an aside, the inherent benefit of giving a location is this: someone might learn something. As it is, the UK junction lists don't provide any sort of clue to where anything is. When I create a junction list, I do so for the benefit of readers who visit here, not to give myself a pat on the back. --Fredddie™ 19:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Let me get this straight, you are suggesting using regions to show the location of a junction? Given that the average road (i.e. Not the A1) will pass through one or two regions at most, how is that sensible? Taking the M5 as an example, 75% of the regions would be South West while the other 25% would be Midlands. How on earth is that helpful to the reader apart from being very repetitive and stating the extremely obvious? The Admin subdivisions you proposed are not really known to the vast majority of the UK population (let alone the worldwide population) so what help does that do? I have a radical idea, how about leaving the UK lists to those who actually know about the UK, as it has worked up until now? I see absolutely nobody complaining other than USRD members who want their own way. The fact that nobody other than USRD members are complaining shows a complete rejection! We don't need people meddling who know nothing of the areas in which they are trying to stick their nose in. Jeni (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC) I can't speak for the other users, but I have actually been to the UK and quite a few other European countries. There are no differences that prevent the UK from using some form of ELG. Please stop agitating against ELG; we're trying to bring ELG to your level, but you're not willing to budge an inch. And the USRD users are 80% of the road editors, so that shows quite a bit of consensus. (Besides, it seems like only two UK users are complaining; what about the others? In the earlier poll it seemed like there were some who were willing to go ahead). Look at California State Route 78 for example - the average state route in the US goes through only two-three counties. That goes pretty well with one or two regions. I assume a rowspan would be used, so it wouldn't be repetitive. --20:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC) I think that there are too many issues related to locations in the UK, as there is not a good way to make the equivalent columns work. That's why I say the Junction column is a better substitute for the UK. That's why I suggested moving the Junction column in its place. Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC) That's why you'd make multi-row cells. That way nothing is repeated more than once. Do you have census divisions in the UK? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Within England we have the following divisions: Region - County - District - Parish Reqion - County - District Region - Unitary Authority Region - Unitary Authority - Parish Region - Unitary Authority A Unitary authority is generally larger than a district but smaller than a county. A district council can be partially subdivided into parishes - the remaining area being unkown as "an unparished area". As you will notice some areas have two tiers of local government, some three and others four. What are you suggesting that we use? Martinvl (talk) 06:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC) You would use the unitary authority/borough (most similar to an municipality in the United States) where it exists and the district (most similar to a civil township in the United States) in other areas. --Polaron | Talk 16:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC) I think that there is some support to using only regions as a local division. I realize that many highways won't cross regional boundaries, like several highways in the US don't cross county lines. The current guideline already addresses this situation. If you look at M-553 (Michigan highway), you'll see that since the highway doesn't leave Marquette County, that column of the table is omitted. Instead, the note above the table states that "The entire route is in Marquette County." The table below it functions with the location column for the three municipalities it crosses (Townships of Forsyth and Sands, City of Marquette). In another example, look at M-212 (Michigan highway), the shortest highway in Michigan, and you'll see that the table doesn't have either County or Location columns. The entire highway is in Aloha Township, Cheboygan County, and the note above the table reflects that. Applying this to the UK, a "Region" column would only be present in the table if the highway crossed a regional boundary. If it didn't, like the M2 Motorway (Great Britian), then a note would appear above the table to state that it is only in the Southeast Region. Leaving this proposal at "Regions" instead of further subdivisions means that the only alterations to your tables would be notes above them, unless the highway crosses regional boundaries, then a column would be added. Imzadi1979 (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC) UK Section Break I've added the region col to the M5 list as an example... User:Jeni/Exit. It adds nothing and repeats everything. Utterly useless and pointless. Adding grid references would be of much much more use. Jeni (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC) You're supposed to do a rowspan, not repeat it over and over. --Rschen7754 17:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC) (ec) Take a look at my M5 example, User:Imzadi1979/Sandbox3. I used rowspans there. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC) It would have to go on the right hand side for consistency between roads, given that it won't appear in 80% of exit lists. It will only confuse people for a random col to be appearing and disappearing on the far left. Jeni (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Aside from location in the table, how does the example look for you? Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC) I'm still not totally convinced on how useful it actually is, but to keep the peace... Jeni (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Question: Is is necessary for every exit to say J1, J2, J3, etc.? We in North America certainly wouldn't write Exit 1, Exit 2, Exit 3, etc. on each line. It seems like that's something where the column heading would be formatted [[Exit number|J]] and the column would just have 1, 2, 3, etc. --Fredddie™ 08:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Question 2: Isn't the name of the road in the blue bar redundant to the article? --Fredddie™ 08:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC) I'm not sure if the UK actually uses "J1" on signs or not, which could possibly be a deciding factor. As to the blue header, yes it is redundant and serves no purpose in my opinion. --LJ (talk) 08:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Answers to questions: Question 1: The prefix "J" is written into UK law here [8] - look for the text In a legend prescribed by this Schedule the number of a junction shall be shown in the form of the letter "J" followed by the number of the junction. Yes, it is in the law, but only in the context of variable message signs. I don't think there is any information lost on the exit list if the junction column is labeled J and the J# become #. Question 2: I believe it improper NOT to have a title above (or below) a table and that is in this case the US should follow ther UK lead. The blue bar is a means of providing such a title. May I recommend that all the MOS be amended so that it explicitly states that junction lists should have a title above the list so that users wishing to print off the list will have a title for their listing. Martinvl (talk) 09:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC) I'm just trying to avoid redundancy here and definitely not impose my will. If you're on M25's page and you get to the exit list, you shouldn't have to be reminded that it's the M25. Where else would you look for the M25's exit list? Also, I'm sure that WP:FAC will complain, meaning that we would have to change the standard back anyway. --Rschen7754 19:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC) To add to Martin's response, the title bar is also there and colour coded to identify the status of the road at that point (motorway, primary or non primary). Jeni (talk) 09:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC) I've looked through the MOS, and table captions are optional. Given that, I consider them to be unnecessary here, especially if its purpose is just repeating the name of the highway. I don't know how printed articles are laid out, but the section header should be enough of a title for the list. – TMF 11:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Since the use of headings is optional, I don't see that it should neiterh be enforced nor prohibited. Also, as User:Jeni says, the use of a blue or a green banner emphasises the type of road. In the UK, motorways are always shown in blue, trunk roads in green and other roads in white and British drivers are used to seeing these colours. Martinvl (talk) 12:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Well, I see that as being just as unnecessary. Articles in the US on Interstate Highways don't have red and blue headers and articles on U.S. Highways don't have black and white headers, nor do I think they should. – TMF 12:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC) By the same token, Italian authors use a green banner for their autostrade articles, the Dutch have introductory information on a blue background. Other countries do not use colour in their headings. Having a heading on a coloured background does not detract from the article, especially if it is consistent across all articles of that class. If you look at British road maps, you will find that many of them use the same colours for the roads and to highlight sections in their legends. Martinvl (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC) To correct Martinvl, green are used for primary routes, not trunk routes (trunk routes may be primary (green) or motorway (blue), but not all primary routes and motorways are trunk routes). TwinsMetsFan, please answer this, how do you suggest we differentiate between primary (green) and non primary (white) A roads? Articles in the US are nothing like articles in the UK, we are back to the same situation where US editors are trying to enforce their preference on the rest of the world, when their preference has nothing whatsoever to do with the articles of the rest of the world. Is it any surprise why the rest of the world ignores the random witterings of USRD? Jeni (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC) I don't see a need to differentiate one route type from another through a colored row above a junction list. If there's a significant difference in the route types, then that will be evident in the actual contents of the junction list. In any event, I'd like to see examples of both to see if there's any need to differentiate between the two. I looked for a junction list on a secondary road, but found none. – TMF 14:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC) This isn't about UK versus USRD. I've been to the UK. I really don't see the need to repeat the article name at the top of the table and then to affix a tacky background color to it. As an editor who has gone through FAC and who has seen several other FACs go through, I'm sure they would complain about it. This is more of a stylistic issue, which doesn't require any expertise and where any Wikipedia editor (even non-roads) can have a say in. --Rschen7754 19:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC) The US and Canada could use a single colored header bar in green with white text. I've mocked up a version for Interstate 275 (Michigan) at User:Imzadi1979/Sandbox3. The shad of green used there corresponds to the color of guide signs in the Manual of Urban Traffic Control Devices (MUCTD) which is the standard in the US and Canada for highway signs and markings. If the UK is going to us intermediate header bars in different colors to denote status changes, a key or a note should be provided someplace for non-UK readers, per WP:COLOR. Imzadi1979 (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Absolutely not. --Rschen7754 19:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Oh, and the black background for the column headers looks awful. --Rschen7754 19:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC) In the interest of clarity: The US sign standard is the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and prescribes uniform colors, signs, etc. Canada has it's own manual which is very similar but has some differences. I also agree that this isn't something we should do in the US. --LJ (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC) How about this as an alternative? No redundant headers, not black bar at the top. On the left side of the exit list is a thin color code that shows the classification of the route. When the color changes, there is a note explaining why. See User:Fredddie/UK for examples. --Fredddie™ 21:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC) In the interest of not being mischaracterized in my opinions, I've said that format is a way it could be done in the US to provide transatlantic consistency. It's not my favorite proposal, but I'm trying to make different options and put them on the table so that the greater international community can find compromises they either like or are willing to accept. Now Freddie has another design idea at User:Fredddie/UK for a method that removed the colored headers to a mini-column on the side to denote status. This would eliminate all title headers. That's my current preference at this time. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC) And mine as well. --Rschen7754 21:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC) I should have added that the column would be dropped if the route is one class its entire length, such as M1. --Fredddie™ 00:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC) A gentle reminder Wikipedia is a professional-quality encyclopedia for the general audience, not a roadgeek site. We are not bound by the conventions of any roadgeek site or sites, UK or US. We don't have to put the junctions column in the center "just because" every other roadgeek site in the UK does it. (And when I went on CBRD yesterday I didn't see that, but anyway..) The color coding at the top of the tables does not look professional, and the black background for the table column headers definitely is not. Just something to keep in mind. --Rschen7754 19:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC) I agree with you fully - Wikipedia is for the general public. What does the general puiblic expect? Why don't you click on a coordinate from an arbitrary Wikipedia article that has British content (I tried M25 motorway) and check the colour codes used by the various maps? Well over half used - guess what - blue for motorways and green for primary roads. UK readers (not just road geeks) already know and expect that. The road atlas that I have in my car has that colour coding. Learner drivers are expected to know that colour coding in order to pass their tests. I am prepared to discuss the column headers with black backgrounds, but I agree fully with User:Jeni that the blue (motorways) and the green (primary routes) should stay. Martinvl (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC) But not everyone who reads the English Wikipedia lives in the UK. In fact, the vast majority don't. --Rschen7754 20:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC) (ec)I looked up the exit list for the M5 at CBRD as an example of how other sites format the list. It looks nothing like the M5 article's list, nor like the "North American" format. His site puts the Junction numbers on the far left, without the J. Between the columns for the two carriageways is a graphical representation of the layout of the interchanges, something I would oppose adding to any junction list on Wikipedia, US, Canada, India or the UK. RoadsUK uses graphical "maps", not text or tabular lists. The infobox on the Roader's Digest, SABRE's Wiki site, in the M5 article places the Junctions to the left of the carriageway columns. Major roads of Great Britain doesn't have junction lists. As an alternative, I did find a US example that's formatted similarly to, but not the same as the UK format on a webpage about Interstate 390 in NY. Many of the US roadgeek sites don't include exit lists at all, actually. Now, as a result of that little bit of research, I find that there are many ways of denoting the same information. The goal here has always been to find a common format for the website known as the English Wikipedia. Shall we continue in that quest? Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC) What about this as a compromise to the header color issue? Lose the highway name title cell, but format the column headers with white-on-blue for motorways and white-on-green for primary routes. It removes the redundant cell and the white on black, yet allows the UK to keep the color coding. Would this be acceptable? Would this pass muster at FAC? --LJ (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Fredddie should be posting a compromise that I like better, but I suppose I would be okay with this as long as it wasn't forced on countries that don't want it. --Rschen7754 21:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC) I just did, in the section above this. ^^--Fredddie™ 21:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC) LJ's idea has a small flaw based on current UK practices. The title header is repeated in the middle of a table if a A road changes from A# to A#(M) and vice versa. Freddie's proposal accommodates those changes better. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Our current system works well and I'm yet to see any reasonable reason why it should be changed, the US doesn't use the system because its irrelevant in the US. The UK uses the system because its relevant in the UK, simples! Been here a million times before, no consensus outside of the USRD cabal to change anything. Jeni (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC) It looks awful? ... your compliance with WP:ELG is long overdue? --Rschen7754 01:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Subjective. The US style of exit lists look awful. Anyway, I'm sick of the circular arguments... as far as I'm concerned the issue is over. As it has been mentioned before, ELG as implemented only applies to US roads. Jeni (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems that you can't be that tired of the circular argument, Jeni, as many of your comments have been made in a similar manner. Sorry to be blunt, but that's one thing I'm seeing from all of this. Yes, the ELG was developed primarily by US editors before UKRD came about. Yes, the ELG as currently in place doesn't particularly work well for the style that has developed in the UK. I think everyone is perfectly clear on these points...that horse is dead, so let's move on. There's about 130k of discussion on this page on trying to bring everyone to a somewhat common ground, so let's focus discussion in that vein.

With that said, I feel the only way to come to any kind of common ground on this issue is to quote policy. Can anyone point to any applicable Wikipedia guideline that recommends against a table header design as currently used by the UK? No arguments on the aesthetic look, please, but a currently existing policy. If nobody can, then maybe this issue should be allowed as an optional provision for the revised ELG so we can move forward on this. --LJ (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Refactor

Extended content

It's time to refactor this discussion. I've collapsed the discussion so far, leaving the last comments by LJ out of the collapse as I think they are relevant here. I'm going to ask a few questions, and I want objective answers based on policies and facts. What is the policy about table headings? Is there one? How common are they? What objection is there to using a colored column similar to User:Fredddie/UK? What objection is there to eliminating the white on black text headers? Discussions at Talk:M25 motorway have centered around this topic. What objection is there to adding a color key to the bottom row of the lists? What is the preference for the location of the Location column? Does it really matter whether left or right? As a basis to keep track of the changes that have come out of these fractured discussions, I started WP:Manual of Style (exit lists)/Sandbox. I planned on updating that sandbox to reflect the varying directions of the discussion, and then using it after the major discussions concluded to hammer out final wording. Please keep in mind that it is a rough draft, and nothing more. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC) I'll start here with a few comments. As to #1, the only policy in the MoS I can find that's relevant would be MOS:HEAD. Yes, it's about the headings and sub-headings, but the table titles as used function similar to article sub-headings. That policy proscribes the usage of headings that reference the title of the article. As a means to convey the changes in status of roadways, using the unique color scheme in use in the UK, Fredddie's concept with a color key at the bottom of the table is ingenious and simple. I'd prefer the column headings to follow the standards for legibility concerns. If a reference is inserted into the table's header, it's not visible against the black. The grey shade proposed at the M25 talk page is too similar to the reserved color under discussion. I've already said that if a table is going to use colors, it needs a key, and I developed the in-line key today as a simpler way to show it compared to the previous method in use. As for location column location, I can live with the right, I would prfer the left, but it probably doesn't matter. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC) I've left a post at WT:MOS to get some input from people who are more familiar with MOS regarding the table header issue. --Rschen7754 03:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC) None, as long as the US isn't forced to take it. None, but it should just be the standard ! markup. But again, I've left a post at WT:MOS for input. If we put in colors, I would object to there not being one. It really should be left; what's the rationale behind it being on the right? --Rschen7754 03:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC) I don't think anyone is advocating Fredddie's solution outside of the UK. At any rate, this section should be restricted to formatting on UK articles per the section heading. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC) I added to your post with a few facts you missed out. Fredddie's suggestion violates WP:COLOUR as its used on its own to convey information. I've already mentioned somewhere that the primary and non primary table headers need text adding, along the lines of (Primary) and (Non primary) to ensure that they comply with WP:COLOUR. Latest consensus from UK editors is that this would be grey (I cant see a problem with this being the default header grey) A key is essential, IMO Since its optional, its in the best consistency interests to have it on the right hand side, so that a user will always see the information in a standard order. Having optional cols on the left of any table is very bad form and confuses anyone looking at a table. As region information is less important in the UK context, it is better out of the way on the right hand side. As a general rule of thumb on tables, location columns generally aren't located on the left, they are usually towards the right. It's all about consistency across articles. Jeni (talk) 03:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Fair enough, though I doubt it will make a difference. Fredddie's example uses text notes as a backup in the right hand column, thus addressing your concern about WP:COLOUR. As far as your last point, I'll have to see how other editors weigh in before deciding. --Rschen7754 03:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC) "Fredddie's example uses text notes as a backup in the right hand column" - It's unnecessarily adding an extra col for very little information, adding unneeded complexity to the table. Remember that people have to edit these things too! A colspan as is currently used is much much simpler to convey the information and to edit. It avoids an extra col on the left hand side which is more likely to confuse people unfamiliar with UK road classification. The current colspan system works well as the point where a road changes status is clear and concise as the table is effectively broken up into sections. Jeni (talk) 03:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC) I've got no objections to questions 3 and 4. Questions 1 and 2 need further input from others. As to question 5, I think the left side makes more sense as one reads a table, which presents the information from general to specific as one reads left to right. However, that opinion could be biased based on that being what I'm used to with USRD articles. One point I absolutely agree with Jeni on: Whether the color column used in Freddie's example is adopted or not, a change of road type in the middle of the table would be better indicated as a multi-column row. Las Vegas Beltway uses a multi-column row to indicate the change between Interstate 215 and Clark County Route 215 where the highway crosses I-15--this is much clearer than a mention presented in the notes column. --LJ (talk) 05:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC) I don't have too much issue when the colored bar is used as a colspan in the middle of the table to indicate a status change, if the text is altered as is being suggested by Jeni. This usage is not that different than colspans like in California_State_Route_1#Major_intersections. (Note, the bolding should not be used in those cases per MOS:BOLD) A question I have though relates to distance. Is it possible to source the distance point for the transition? If so, I think it would be better in those intermediate usages to have the distance in the mile/km column(s) and use the colored bar with text like "A# becomes A#(M)", etc. spanning across the remaining columns. The top bar could be moved into the table with a distance of 0.0 | 0.0 and the bar could span with "M# begins" or "A# becomes the M#" or whatever text notes are appropriate. Then, the bar serves a purpose in the table, the color scheme by type is preserved and even more information for non-UK readers is given. Just an idea. Imzadi1979 (talk) 07:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC) See User:Imzadi1979/Sandbox3#Alternate version for a version of this. Alternately, the "Start of motorway" text in the A Carriageway column could be done in the white on blue scheme, and the counterpart at the bottom of the B Carriageway column could be done the same. Imzadi1979 (talk) 07:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Ok, there seems to be agreement on point 3 (converting the black headers), 4 (key required). Since #1&2 are related, let us pause on those points until some outside editors at WT:MOS comment. That leaves the location column, which isn't proposed to be "optional" but rather would be removed if only one location is used. There is some discussion in the US section to revert to displaying the column(s) in all tables, regardless if the roadway passes through one location. Would a column that's always used alter your opinion on its location? Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC) The always/optional use of the column doesn't factor in to me so much, but here's another consideration: How do non-roads projects and articles position location columns in tables? Especially tables in which a location spans multiple rows of the table. Links to examples would be appreciated if anybody knows of something--maybe a sampling of what is done on other pages might sway opinions on what is decided here. --LJ (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC) WT:MOS seems to support the color in the table header, but only because of the significance of the colors specific to the UK. Therefore, I propose a few possible solutions. These solutions are for the UK and for the UK only as it's only because of the specific color coordination. The US and Canada do not have such a strong correlation, and at least for the US, USRD would never accept such table headers. (In theory, any other country with such a strong color coordination would have these options, but I don't know of any). Having the colored table headers as is. Fredddie's solution. Color-coordinated colspans where the designations are switched, which would avoid the redundancy of the article title in the table, and makes this no longer a table heading. (See California State Route 1 and add color if you want an idea of what I'm talking about). --Rschen7754 08:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC) I've read all the previous discussion about the UK and can summarise my opinions thus: The UK and US road networks vary considerably in layout, numbering of roads, numbering of junctions, indication of road status, etc. The various subdivisions and local authority structures are completely different between the countries. It makes little sense therefore to insist on the same layout for junctions for both systems. The possible for UK junction lists at User:Imzadi1979/Sandbox3#Alternate version is generally the best I've seen but I would make some changes Add the distances in miles in a column immediately to the left of the km figures. See my extensive reasoning at Talk:M25 motorway for why I feel this is essential. Get rid of the Region column. Regions are far too imprecise to give useful location information in this context - Strensham services and M5 J8 are in different regions yet are part of the same complex (you have to negotiate the J8 roundabout to continue on the M5 when leaving the southbound services for example), and yet the southern end of the motorway is 125ish miles away and still in the South West region. In most cases the first level of LA below region (i.e. county or unitary authority) would be more useful, but because of the vast size range in these areas it becomes less so - saying something is in Devon is far less precise than saying something else is in Bristol (regions also have this problem - the London region is a fraction of the size of the South West region, which is itself significantly smaller than Scotland - compare saying something is in Texas to saying something is in Rhode Island). There are 13 motorway junctions signed for Bristol - 7 on the M5 (15-18, 19, 21 and 22), 3 on the M4 (19, 20 and 22), and 3 on the M32 (all). Of these 13 junctions all are in the south west, 3 in Bristol (M32 J1 and J2, M5 J18), 1 in Somerset (M5 J22), 2 in North Somerset (M5 J19 and J21), and the remaining 7 in South Gloucestershire. Eight of them are in or adjacent to the Bristol urban area (M32 J1-J3, M4 J19-J20, M5 J15-J18), a ninth (M5 J19) could be debatably added to this list, of the others M4 J22 is at Severn Beach*, M5 J21 is at Weston-super-Mare and M5 J22 is at Edithmead* near Burnham-on-Sea (*Not places that are big enough to be useful for national navigation). South Gloucestershire and North Somerset are not authorities that I would expect the average person not from the Bristol area to accurately place on a map. I am not aware that there is any objective standard Add a column or columns with coordinates and/or grid references. These link to maps so that people can find the location at any scale they desire. I have no preference about the use or non-use of the J prefix in the table. I think the colour-coordinated multi-column row to mark the change of status is the best way to show this. Thryduulf (talk) 10:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC) One of the thing's I've been trying to say all along! The junction column needs moving to its correct location still, and the whole thing doesn't "look" right without the header, particularly on a single status road such as the M5 example. Consensus from WT:MOS seems to be that there is nothing wrong with our existing table headers. If it isn't broke, don't fix it :). Regions were added in the quest of the USRD to steamroll their format through, though I've attempted to point out how useless they are in this context, though this was quickly ignored. Grid references would be better and more useful (I've seen these more commonly used throughout UK articles). This could either be combined with the junction col (<br><small>[gridref]</small>) or given a column of its own on the right hand side. Jeni (talk) 11:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC) As far as I can see the existing format is exactly what is required for UK roads and works well apart from the addition of the distances in miles which as noted above is essential for UK usage. The junction column should be between the carriageway columns as noted by Jeni above. Keith D (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Copied from WT:MOS: M5 Motorway miles km Northbound exits (B Carriageway) Junction Southbound exits (A Carriageway) Region 0.0 0.0 The NORTH WEST, Wolverhampton, Birmingham (North & East), Walsall M6 M6, J8 Start of motorway West Midlands 2.7 4.4 West Bromwich, Birmingham (North West) A41 J1 West Bromwich, Birmingham (North West) A41 Judging by recent comments it looks like the Region col will be dropped altogether in favour of a col for gridrefs or coords. Jeni (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC) I prefer the very light grey background as above to the present black one. When I first introduced kilometres (data taken from Driver location signs), I tried to introduce a reference next to the symbol "km" to explain the origin of the data, but nothing worked. The use of light gray will allow this area to be revisited. I am indifferent to adding regions. If we do have them, then having them on the right-hand side would give a balanced look to the table. In response to other users, the region in question would be the region at the centre of the junction. I am against having a separate column for coordinates and they take up a lot of space. When I was introducing the kilometre column I developed the notation currently in use so as to create more space for other information. This enabled me to make the Junctions column a lot narrower. That is also the reason why I moved the names of the service areas out of the Junctions column and into the destinations columns. I am concerned about the introduction of a miles column - it might not mean anything. Driver location signs do not always have their origin at the start of the motorway, but often a significant distance from the start. However, they are there in large letters for everybody to see, but there are no equivalent signs in miles (even though regular distances are displayed in miles). There you have it - half the signs in kilometres and half in miles - a Very British Mess kindly sponsored by Her Majesty's Government. Two comments: 1-IMO co-ordinates at every junction would take up so much space as to be a distraction. IMO, it would get shot down at any review process pretty quickly. However, I would be open to ading co-ordinates to the termini at the infobox level. 2- The above example does appear to violate MOS:CAPS, as unless the cardinal direction is part of a proper name, it should not be capitalized, and if we are unsure if it's a proper name or not, we are to assume not. Dave (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC) The destinations column reflects what is on the road sign at the junction, in this case "The NORTH WEST" (as displayed). These are regional destinations and are always defined by being in all caps (It wasn't in the example table originally, this is now fixed). Jeni (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Which is even worse, that same guideline (shortcut WP:ALLCAPS) is clear to never use all caps, even if that is how it is spelled in the cited medium. Dave (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Martinvl, please don't dig up old things. Consensus as discussed a few weeks ago by the active UK roads editors is that the miles column is going in. Jeni (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Observation: One possible benefit of moving the junction column to the left of both carriageway columns would be to merge cells in the two columns when the text is exactly the same for both directions. As in the copy-paste table immediately above, cells for J1 could be merged since both northbound and southbound carriageways say the exact same thing. Just an idea to reduce redundancy...whether that is desirable or not is another question. --LJ (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Not desirable, it's messy and inconsistent. We have been here before anyway. Current consensus from the relevant editors is that we have a single column for each direction. Jeni (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC) I agree that the grey is better than that black - if white on black is to be used for anything it should be the junction numbers, but this wouldn't look good at all. Separate columns for each direction is another absolute must - as Jeni says a mixture of one and two columns would be a mess. Regarding coordinates taking up a lot of space, would it be possible to just use other link text, perhaps the junction number in it's column (this would require a suitable addition to the key) grid references e.g. ST 617 837 for the Almondsbury Interchange (M4/M5 junction) takeup less space. If we use grid references or coordinates, we should either have them for every point or the terminals plus major interchanges, e.g. for the M5: M6 (northern terminus), M42 (J4a), M50 (J8), M4 (J15), A4 (J18), A30/A38 (J31 southern terminus); for the M25: Dartford Crossing, M20 (J3), M26 (J5), M23 (J7), A3 (J10), M3 (J12), M4 (J15), M40 (J16), M1 (J21), A1(M) (J23), M11 (J27), A12 (J28), A13 (J30). Thryduulf (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC) The grid references don't seem like a good idea because of the overhead involved... but if the UK wants to do it, I suppose that's fine, just make them unobtrusive. Having them in a separate column makes it too obvious IMHO. (Coordinates have been repeatedly struck down in the US). As far as the table header, it really shouldn't be italic, as most of the tables you see on Wikipedia use the default bold text ! markup. (I'm not really sure why one person suggested italics at WT:MOS... it is inconsistent with 95% of the tables on Wikipedia and there's no substantial reason to be different). --Rschen7754 18:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Comments: The example in my sandbox doesn't have the miles column, but the example in the guideline sandbox does. Call me lazy, but my samples have in my sandbox haven't been updated. After sleeping on it, the Location column can go, period, but the junction column should go on the left, not in the middle. There's ample precedent for this arrangement, including SABRE's own wiki and other sites like CBRD. The current system of making the grid references as footnotes is fine. The ALLCAPS has to go per other sections of the MOS. The use of italics may need to be revised as well. If a grid reference column goes in, it can go on the far right. As for the colored headers, put them in the table per my suggestion at the sandbox that Thryduulf has liked. I'll be updating it with a miles column. There, that's my opinion on how things should be formatted. Imzadi1979 (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC) The wording of "This column may be split in half by carriageway or direction based on local signing practices." should be tightened, or otherwise the US could be included in this. --Rschen7754 18:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Also, "Color should not be the only method to impart the information, the Notes or Destination column(s) should include the information as well for colorblind readers or those using screen readers." - it *must* include the information per WP:COLOUR. --Rschen7754 18:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC) I made two changes, "must" in the color section, and put that the split by direction is at the discretion of a WikiProject. That should satisfy those two concerns in the sandboxed version. Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Inserting a random section break

FWIW, I looked up junction locations on an Ordnance Survey map and incorporated them to the M5 junction list at User:Polaron/test. This uses districts/unitary authorities (i.e. local government areas) rather than the overly large regions. All I'm saying is putting precise location information is doable if desired. --Polaron | Talk 22:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The junction and location columns are in the wrong place. Consensus from the relevant editors is very clear on this matter. It would be *so* much easier if the US editors wouldn't keep coming up with sandbox templates that completely ignore everything that has been said. Jeni ^(talk) 11:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The location column is located toward the far left, followed by the junction number column, followed by destination column(s), followed by notes (if applicable). This is the same in all countries. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 15:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice, this became an international discussion several days ago. If you don't like whats being presented, you can create an example yourself Jeni, and show us exactly what you want. Complaining however, won't accomplish much. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There is an example above, in case you didn't notice, which meets all the suggestions given, meets every applicable guideline, yet certain USRD members still seem to like to have a good moan, is it their hobby? Jeni ^(talk) 17:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

What about WP:ALLCAPS, WP:CAPS, WP:COLOR, WP:WEIGHT, WP:ITALIC? --Rschen7754 19:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide proof that this is the same for all countries please? Given that the US appears to be the only country that follows this "guideline", I certainly can't see any proof to back up that comment. We have almost been at agreement on this for some time, apart from the fact that a small selection of USRD members ignore anything that anyone in the rest of the world says, though I guess there may have to be another RFAR in regards to the conduct of USRD to solve that one. Jeni ^(talk) 17:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Look, we just want a consistent guideline that can be applied to all highway articles worldwide. We're trying to sit down and change the guideline to make everyone happy. Canada's project has sat down at the table and negotiated and we managed to come up with a compromise that both USRD and CRWP are happy with. We're trying to do that with you, but you're not playing nice, instead insisting on the status quo or nothing. That's not how this works. We have been making changes to the policy to get you to sign on, adding the headers that UK likes, and the colors for classification changes, and allowing the J prefix for junction numbers. But now you're trying to torpedo the guideline over the friggin' column order which is completely ridiculous. Any attempt we've made to change the policy to your liking has been met with scorn and bad-faith accusations of Amerocentrism and bashing us just because we happen to do most of our editing over on this side of the pond. I'm sorry that your worldview makes us out to be some kind of imperial world police force or barging in on every other country's goings-on for no reason or something, but really we asked for your help with this because we thought your input would be useful. But if you're just going to vilify us at every turn, then why the hell are we bothering to listen to you, anyway? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You aren't listing, thats where the problem comes from. Jeni ^(talk) 17:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

In any discussion, this isn't about countries, Jeni. It's about people and their opinions. This isn't a USRD vs. UKRD thing. This is about editors from all the WP:HWY projects, which include those two plus CRWP and INR coming together to hash this out. International consensus is for moving the junction column. Otherwise the only change here to the UKRD format is the addition of some text in a few spots (per WP:COLOR), some changes in text formatting (per MOS:CAPS) and a color key. You're not assuming good faith here and it needs to stop. Soon, some of us will be proposing a straw poll to close this discussion and ratify the revised standard. That straw poll won't be a discussion, it will be an up or down vote of the interested parties that have been discussing this revision. The results of that poll will be the new MoS.

We have listened. It's like a broken record. Consensus here is to make the change. I've presented examples of other websites that use the advocated format. I know for a fact that you edit on SABRE's wiki, Roader's Digest as you've said as much in the past. That site, plus CBRD both format their lists with the Junction column on the left, not the middle. There is precedent elsewhere for this formatting change, and only you, Jeni, not any of the other UK editors have continued to advocate for the status quo. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing consensus here that there needs to be an international standard. A North American standard might make sense, I don't know enough about the similarities and differences between different practices there to comment (and don't honestly care). However, what I do see is that US highways are very differently organised and gisned (on the ground) to what I am familiar with in the UK. I have a slight preference for junction numbers in the centre of the table, but nothing hugely significant. The way I see this discussion is:
  • US: "we've got together with Canada and developed this wonderful standard between ourselves, everyone must come an join us"
  • UK: "we've got our own standard that works very well for us and we don't see a need to change to one that doesn't fit UK roads as well as ours does".
  • US: "Ok, we'll adapt our standard a bit, but you must come and join us"
  • UK: "that's a little better, but its still less good than ours because of w,x,y and z. So we still don't see a need to change to your standard"
  • US: "Ok, we've change w, and y. Now you must come and join us".
  • UK: "hmm, a bit better, but we still don't see a need to join you".
  • US: "No, no, you don't understand, you must come and join us".
  • UK: "But why?"
  • US: "Because we've got together with Canada, and then adapted it a bit for some of your needs, so you must come and join this standard so it can be the international standard we want it to be"
  • UK: "But we have our own standard that does everything we want, so why should we change?"
  • US: "Because it is an international standard! You must come and join us."
  • UK: "Nope, sorry, we still don't see why there needs to be an international standard."
  • US: "Because it will be an international standard, therefore you must come and join us."

and so on. The reason why the UK is sounding to you like a stuck record is that you haven't answered the question we keep asking - "Why does there need to be an international standard, when there are national standards that suit everybody just fine?". Thryduulf (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This simplified summary omits that most UK road articles are in violation of WP:ALLCAPS,WP:CAPS, WP:COLOR and perhaps WP:WEIGHT. It omits how every time a US based editor attempted to point this out, and suggest fixes, we were told to shut up and quit harassing the "consensus of 1" (2 on a good day). Dave (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Warning: if you continue pursuing your own standard, you will get mauled at WP:FAC.

Also, the benefits of a universal standard: if anybody goes through your articles and inserts nonstandard stuff that doesn't correspond to ELG, they can be dealt with as if they violated other portions of the MOS. --Rschen7754 19:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Standardisation for the sake of standardisation doesn't work. The exit lists need to accurately reflect each nation's idiosyncracies and not be based on "what Person X wants". The end result is a readable article that is accessible to all, not a standard block of text that no one can follow. 92.10.27.192 (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Not listening? Not listening, my foot.

• UK gets the colored table headers, nobody else does.
• UK gets one column for each carriageway, nobody else does.
• UK gets coordinates in the junction column, nobody else does.
• UK gets to use J preceding every junction, nobody else does.
• UK doesn't need to use the location column at all.
• UK gets to use both miles and km.
• UK doesn't use shields at all in the junction rows.
• UK doesn't need to use the notes column.

We've listened to you, we've made accommodations for you. More accommodations than we're comfortable with. More accommodations than I'm comfortable with, to be honest. And now, after three days of discussion (during which I've taken my precious time away from studying from finals, and people from the US have spent literally days coding, making suggestions, etc.) you're not willing to budge an inch? This is just downright ungrateful. These tables don't even look like the USRD tables anymore. And you're still not willing to take them. This boils down to an issue of pride, if anything, as you're taking a noncompliant standard that will get you absolutely screwed if you ever want to take anything to FAC over ... not even "our" standard (which has been approved several times over through FAC and GAN BTW), a standard that we sat down and developed here with editors from the UK, US, and Canada. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

The ball's in your court. --Rschen7754 19:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It would certainly be helpful if editors would refrain from any further mention of the US vs. UK "animosity", the US-centric nature of the current page, and the contentious origins of this guideline. Let's please focus on the merits of the remaining discussion. I'm talking to all editors on both sides of the pond with this. Talking about this any further will only add more to the frustration of all involved.

In order to develop a international guideline that all can be happy with, there needs to be some give and take on all sides. Not everyone will get everything that they want, nor should they--that's the meaning of "compromise", folks. I am begging for all involved to please keep this in mind and move forward so we can finish adapting this guideline and get back to the business of editing this encyclopedia. --LJ (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

"In order to develop a international guideline that all can be happy with" is the key issue here. All the above exemptions for the UK scream at me that this is not an international guideline at all, but two separate ones - one for North America and one for the UK (the only discussion regarding other countries I can see boils down to "leave them as is for the moment and we'll deal with them later"). The only reason I've seen advanced for having an international standard rather than national standards is that "you'll get crucified at FAC", while I admit that I don't have much experience of FAC my understanding is that what is important is that articles adhere to the relevant standard - there is nothing that requires that standard to be an international one if several national ones would do a better job. Thryduulf (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

What's left

Summary of UK issues decided upon thus far:

• Location column: Lengthy discussion determined this is too ambiguous and cumbersome to be implemented for the UK. Preference is given to providing coordinates of select junctions in the junction column.
• Destination column: Not really discussed, but having a column for each carriageway appears to be a non-issue.
• Table headers: Per responses at WT:MOS, it appears the motorway/primary road colored headers are fine. White text & black background column headings are to be replaced with standard heading markup, per discussion here and elsewhere.
• Background colors: While not majorly discussed in this section, colors are being adopted for optional use, provided sufficient explanation in the destination column. The proposal adopts existing UK colors for concurrency/no access. A template with UK variant has been developed that can be easily added to the bottom of existing tables that provides a legend of colors to help address WP:COLOR issues.
• Mile + km columns: Discussion has taken place on this elsewhere, and is more of a project-level decision.

Unless I've missed/misinterpreted something, these bullet points reflect consensus developed over this lengthy conversation and need not be further discussed. --LJ (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

So what's left? The only major issue I see on the table now is the placement of the Junction column. What are the merits for keeping it in the middle versus moving it to the left? --LJ (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I do think there is merit in the idea proposed above (I think by Jeni) that the required columns, and the columns of more or less fixed width belong on the left (i.e. Milepost, town name, etc.) while the optional and variable width columns (junction, interchange name, and notes) belong on the right. Dave (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the question is more, does the Junctions column go in between the Destinations/Carriageway columns or to the left of them. As such, the order I advocate in general is Locations (where used), Distance (miles, km or both as appropriate), Exit/Junction, Interchange name (in the few cases it would be used), Destinations (split as needed), Notes. Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Dave, note that exit/junction numbers are a required column for access-controlled facilities, and would be placed on the left under your reasoning. I agree with the general notion, though. --LJ (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The only issue left is the location of the junction col. I haven't yet seen a good reason why it should be moved, apart from "I don't like it" type arguments. As the IP mentioned above... "Standardisation for the sake of standardisation doesn't work", its pointless. In the UK, having the junction column in the centre has worked since 2006(?) when the exit lists were first implemented, and as far as I can see it, there needs to be a good reason to change that system. To be fair, in this discussion, I've seen a lot of "lets do this, so long as the US articles are exempted", why cant this work in reverse to adjust to local customs? Jeni ^(talk) 21:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting "optional provisions not being adopted in the US" as "US articles being exempted". Many of these optional provisions are being adopted so certain existing style elements of others can be brought into compliance without having to change existing articles. There are other provisions that used to be mandatory, but are now made optional in this same vein (such as location columns). But this is diverging...

To me, it just makes more sense from a presentation of information standpoint to put junction numbers on one side or the other, with destinations placed adjacently. I think the table 'scans' better that in a quick read or looking for a particular junction. With the addition of mi/km columns on left, I think it looks awkward with a small column in the middle of the table as well. My views on the style and readability, not an "I don't like it" opinion. --LJ (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

United States

United States editors: If there are any US Roads editors that currently have a concern with the policy as it stands, voice your concerns here.

• The distance (mi or km) column should be encouraged but optional. For some jurisdictions this information is simply not available.Dave (talk) 06:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I think it should be required when data exists. --Rschen7754 06:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't agree that it is strictly necessary that it be formally required when there is data; most editors are pretty good about knowing when to include data and when to leave it out. If we make it an "encouraged but optional" field then people will get the right idea. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I'll support "encouraged, but optional". Even when I can't get complete milepost information for all junctions, I still prefer to get it for the ones that I can. Imzadi1979 (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I also support "encouraged, but optional". Nevada doesn't publicly publish full milepost data, although termini and some junctions can be obtained from milepost maps. This results in most Nevada junction lists never having complete milepost data unless one goes and gets the mile data posted in the field. --LJ (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I support "encouraged, but optional" as well. I think the quality of an article is better if it has mileposts - probably because New York has always had a reliable milepost source and thus articles in New York have always had them - but for states like Pennsylvania where there isn't a milepost log or something similar, this is probably the better option. – TMF 11:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
    • IMO, I think the mileage should be included if the state DOT has an offical log (like NJDOT's SLD or MDSHA's HLR) and should be filled out with as much information as is available. However, if a state has no official mileage log (like PA), then the mileage should not be forced upon since it is more difficult to get the mileage. ---Dough4872 19:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'd like to see the elimination of bold in multi-column rows, i.e. the use of "!" coding instead of "align=center" or equivalent. This issue is not mentioned in the current guideline. --LJ (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed, While in reality this is covered under MOS:BOLD, I don't think it would be controversial to repeat that information here. Dave (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Obvious support. I've already taken care of this in New York, but I bet mostly every other state still does it. – TMF 11:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• We should probably also address the use of shield images in multi-column rows, especially where they appear mid sentence and/or in place of route names. --LJ (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • In theory, those issues are covered by MOSBOLD and MOSFLAG, but yeah, it should be added here. Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per Imzadi. There are really only two places inline shields should be used - adjacent to termini/junctions in the infobox and adjacent to route links in "normal" junction cells (non-column spanning cells) in the junction list - and in both cases they should be at the beginning of the line. They shouldn't be used anywhere else, whether it be in column-spanning cells or in the middle of the line in other cells. – TMF 11:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Maybe we should specify when multi-column rows should be used? Case in point - California State Route 1. --Rschen7754 20:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is my take on this point. Bolding is not necessary in multi-column rows as it usually contains information just as valuable as the rows for road junctions. In addition, shields should only appear in a junction/exit list to identify a route at a junction or exit. It should not be used in a multi-column row for identifying a terminus or concurrency or in the notes column. In addition, signs identifying intermodal facilities such as airports and train stations as well as others (such as the traffic signal warning sign) should be eliminated from exit lists. ---Dough4872 19:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, bolding the colspans violates MOS:BOLD. That's why they are supposed to be eliminated. Bolding is only allowed for article titles/redirect titles in the lead and a few limited uses, like reference formatting and definition lists. That's it. Whenever I find that a colspan is bolded, I change it immediately. This MoS doesn't need to specifically prohibit it, but it probably should reinforce the restriction. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• The fuss over control cities by several (CA) editors is disturbing. --Rschen7754 20:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think that control cities are the problem. I think instead it was that some editors felt it necessary to add minor junctions just to list control cities. That's a separate issue, and I think the criteria for what is major vs. what is minor should be a project-level decisions, not part of the MoS. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Personally, I don't think at-grade junctions should have control cities at all. – TMF 11:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Then tell MDOT to stop posting them on their at-grade intersections. Seriously, I prefer the consistency of including them, especially on highways that have at-grade and grade-separated segments. Imzadi1979 (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
        • So we should use Street View on every state highway in the United States to see what cities are posted on signs at intersections along the route? That's absurd. – TMF 18:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
          • If we call for control cities to be used in exit lists, I really do not see too much harm for doing then in the junction list for consistiency. ---Dough4872 19:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

As I've said before, control cities aren't the issue. My personal preference has been to include them for consistency. I've never said they should be required, period. If some editors around here don't like them, then just don't add them. Unless/until an article goes to FAC and other editors ask for their inclusion or removal, they'll be optional.

The problem that Rschen is referencing isn't the control cities. It's that some editors feel a need to add a minor junction to a table so that a destination can be added. We need a better definition then on a project, not a MoS level then about what is a major junction, and what is a minor junction. That's not appropriate for discussion here. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Other English-speaking countries

Road editors working on countries other than the US, Canada, and UK: please voice your concerns here.

• From India, currently we have mainly stub articles . We would request the highway lovers to help us WP:INR--naveenpf (talk) 07:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't use county, we use towns,districts,states in India. We prefer to use km rather than miles --naveenpf (talk) 09:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

ELG mandates the normal system of measurement for each country (so only the US uses miles). --Rschen7754 10:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Our article for exit list see State Highway 151 (Maharashtra)--naveenpf (talk) 09:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

By "exit list" I assume you mean the "Major junctions" section? --Rschen7754 10:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you look at this State_Highway_151_(Maharashtra)#Major_Junctions--naveenpf (talk) 01:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you break down the hierarchy of political authority for us ignorant Americans =-)? For example, in the U.S. It goes Federal->State->County (in most states, there are exeptions)->City. Using the Major junctions section of this highway I'd assume it goes Federal->District->Taluka->City/Village. Do I have it right? I ask as it looks like if this article were to use this guide, we may need additional columns to support the additional layer of political divisions. Dave (talk) 01:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thats is so simple, Union --> 28 States --> states to districts. Main road types are National Expressways,National Highways, State Highways --naveenpf (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay. So "District" is pretty much the India equivalent of the US "county". That works well. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

A taluka (township equivalent) is probably better for the location in areas where a municipal corporation does not exist. If a municipal corporation exists, that should of course be used as the location. These boundaries are well-defined so it's only a matter of reading them off an appropriate map. --Polaron | Talk 16:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Non-English countries

There are a number of articles that deal with roads in France, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Spain etc. They are often translations of originals written in other languages - in most cases the corresponding junction list in the English language version of Wikipedia has been generated by cutting and pasting the original source code and then translating text fragments where appropriate. The effort that it woudl take to reformat these lists into versions that meet a UK or US standard would be large and probably not worth it. Martinvl (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Let us first deal with the English-speaking countries. Should any editor wish to take articles from those other countries to FAC, those articles will be reformatted at that time to meet the MOS. (Any necessary modifications from this MOS policy can be discussed at that time as well.) Should wikiprojects form in the future, then discussions can take place then as well. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I looked into Bundesautobahn 10, the Berlin beltway, just to see what things were like. Germany has states (most of A10 falls in Brandenburg), and those are further subdivided into districts equivalent to counties (as shown on this map and labeled on this one). The only problem here is that I can't seem to find a map that shows the district boundaries and roads. I'm sure someone familiar with the subject matter (and with more German language experience) could find one though. Barring that, I can't really see much of a reason why converting Germany to use this guideline would be terribly difficult. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You didn't try Michellin? --Rschen7754 04:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I looked at Tomei Expressway, a Japanese freeway which is used as an example on this page. The article's list has evolved from the example shown on the guideline. Specifically, many of the columns are jumbled around (with the locations being on the right as opposed to the "standard" left location as a primary difference) and a column for bus stops is added. But the overall form seems to follow ELG. --LJ (talk) 04:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Something that would be beneficial to add would be an optional column for interchange names. While this isn't common in the US, some countries have names for all their interchanges. I'd suggest that if added, it would best be located between the exit number/distance columns and the destination column. Additionally, maybe a standard for bus stop columns? Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

At least in the US, I don't see the purpose. I'm not sure that I do in Canada or many European countries. --Rschen7754 21:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

All German interchanges on the Autobahnen are named with either Kreuz (Cross) or Dreieck (Triangle) and a name. The Japanese example above also has interchange names. While we're working on internationalizing the guideline, it might not hurt to get this done at the same time. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea, my only concern is that in the US most interchange names are colloquial, not formal. At a minimum I say we require a source for the interchange name, as I can see this getting out of hand. Dave (talk) 05:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The major difference is that in the US all interchanges aren't named. Any sourceable names would best be places as notes in the US anyway. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

How about this? - The optional "feature name" or similarly titled column, if used, should present a commonly-recognized feature name (wikilinked as appropriate) for the vast majority of junctions in the list, and the use of such names must be attributable to a reliable source. --LJ (talk) 06:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The only highways that I can think of that have names for their exits are the PA Turnpike and its NE Extension. Other than that, I don't like this idea for the US (which, really, is all I care about since it's all I'm interested in and it's thus what I edit). The number of named interchanges are few, and even then there's usually one or two at most per freeway if they have any at all. Like Imzadi said, they're best suited as mentions in the notes column. – TMF 17:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Like colors, we could make this optional on a per-country basis (that is, each country states whether or not they're going to use the interchange name column in their standards document). USRD has no use for it, but Germany and Japan, and possibly others, do. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Managed to create User:Scott5114/German exit list (part of Bundesautobahn 10) from the Michelin online map. Looks like only the Autobahn-to-Autobahn interchanges have names, so it's rather simple to put them in the destination column. Of course if those interchanges actually have destinations, that cell would get crowded fast. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Background colors

Color discussion

In various areas of conversation regarding guideline changes above, discussion has come up multiple times regarding the use of background colors in the cells of junction lists. Since the consensus seems to be in favor of amending the guideline to allow the optional use of background colors, I thought it prudent to concentrate discussion of background colors into one section for ease of following the dialog. In the interest of adapting this policy page into a global guideline, it would probably be prudent to come up with a unified background color scheme for specific cases where background colors would be acceptable. Once the colors are discussed and agreed upon, including a specific section about these colors in the guideline page would help keep color use from being abused or over-applied (a concern for some USRD editors).

So, let's discuss background colors--Are colors a good idea? What are good uses for colors? What colors are good? (Feel free to add to this table...I didn't make an exhaustive search.) --LJ (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I hate using colors just for the sake of using colors - which is what all of the examples given below seem to be doing - but if the colors are truly optional, meaning a particular project (country-level, state-level, etc.) can ban the use of them, I suppose I don't really care. (In fairness, there may have been good points in the discussion above about colors, but for me the length of it falls under tl;dr.) – TMF 11:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Can I propose using different colours for planned and closed interchanges? Grey says dead all over it, so it fits for closed ramps. Interchanges under construction should use some other colour. A white tint of purple, orange, or green. I added two possibilities below as a proposal. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

A potential danger with under construction interchanges is violating WP:OR. I've seen many California editors add "proposed interchanges" whenever they feel like it, regardless of whether it's sourced. --Rschen7754 20:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That falls under WP:OR though. As one of the pillars of Wikipedia, that will always supercede the MoS. These additions can be removed on sight without appropriate references. Otherwise, I'm totally in favor of amending the MoS to specify optional color usage, and coming to some consensus to standardize some of them. Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that "proposed" interchanges not be included in the junction lists, as a proposal has no guarantee of actually getting built--these can be mentioned in the 'Future' or similar section of the prose if properly sourced. New interchanges under construction are fine to include, because there will likely some source available that mentions the construction activity. I would support under construction being a separate color from permanent closure, and prefer the orange of the two colors proposed. --LJ (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be easy enough to convert the templates in the US to use the green of the UK. I'd actually like that shade better than the cyan. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. For the US, green somewhat invokes a guide sign, which makes a bit more sense when talking about concurrencies. --LJ (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Up here at least I can see all the construction contracts currently being carried out by the MTO (from resurfacing, to gantry replacement, to rebuilding a 6 lane highway into a 12 lane behemoth). I won't be allowing ANY speculation in the future section. Include a source or don't add it. I don't think proposed interchanges should be in the tables, only those where the proposal has passed environmental assessment and moved onto construction (by that point it's guaranteed, and if plans change it is surely worthy of mention in the History section). I also prefer the orange of the two, as the purple is too similar to grey. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(od)I am opposed to us encouraging editors to put construction updates in the articles. Doing so encourages putting information in the articles that is non-notable (especially if it's just a repaving job), subject to change, speculative, and most of all, temporary. Surely we have more important things to write about than that. IMO, the only time an article merits construction updates is if an engineering marvel is under construction that will surely make news when finished (such as the Hoover Dam Bypass, or similar level of project). Even than, the example given is a mess and a case study of why we should avoid construction updates. Dave (talk) 03:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but if an interchange is under construction and closed to traffic, then a note would be appropriate. Last year, US 131 exit 79 for 44th Street was closed for reconstruction as a SPUI. While this project was underway, the row in the exit list was shaded grey and a note was placed, with reference, in the Notes column. When the project was completed, the shading and note were removed. Something like that, I feel is appropriate. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree to an extent, Dave. An example you linked to in a section above, showing a multi-column row noting a mainline repaving job not really affecting exits, was an egregious example. In cases like Imzadi has referred to, I don't see the harm. I would say, however, that the construction color should only be used when specific stipulations are met, such as:

(a) Any junction using the construction color must be in the construction phase. Planned/future interchanges shall not be listed.

(b) The junction under construction should be listed along part of a facility already open to traffic, and not a single or group of interchanges being constructed along part of a mainline extension.

(c) The construction color may only be applied to either brand new interchanges being constructed, or an interchange previously open to traffic that is substantially/totally closed to traffic for a significant period of time due to reconstruction.

(d) A note stating "future junction under construction", "interchange closed during reconstruction" or similar must be placed in the notes column, and must be accompanied with a reference to a reliable source verifying this status.

With these kinds of stipulations in place, I think it would go quite a ways towards eliminating abuse. Or at the very least, would give us tools to combat more frivolous uses. --LJ (talk) 05:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree only with (b). In Ontario there is a rather rampant expansion of freeways planned for the next 10 to 15 years. The environmental assessments are complete years before the completion of construction and are often completed in phases where all the interchanges are planned well beforehand. An example would be the eastward extension of Highway 407, where over a dozen interchanges have been established. Pending final approval, these interchanges will be essentially set in stone. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 06:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

With a junction list, I feel I should be able to pass each junction presented on the list if I'm driving down the road. If there are multiple rows on one end of a list where the mainline is being extended, that gives extra information that the driver doesn't need to know as that section is currently not open to travel. Such information seems better suited to a future section in the prose. That's my interpretation and take on it anyway. Should others disagree and the (b) stipulation be deemed unwarranted, I'd ask that consideration be given to a multi-column row or other note specifically stating where the current terminus of the highway is, so that it's made clear the highway isn't open through a construction zone. --LJ (talk) 06:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Or having a multi-row note that indicates that it's a proposed extension, and when it's planned to open. This would be secondary to also sourcing such activities in the 'Future' section. I think many drivers would love to know that they will soon have a freeway to take them 50km further than they could previously go by freeway. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If construction has begun, I suppose it's ok to mention. However, Construction gets delayed, funding gets pulled, projects get canceled. Even reliable sources are using speculation for completion dates of construction projects. Allowing "future" stuff is how we get crap like this. Dave (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I added a table displaying the former USRD colors for reference. The types of intersections that are assigned colors derive from a Caltrans bridge log. The colors themselves were presumably invented by primordial USRD editors back in 2005. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, I don't think we need to add any colors to the exit list for US articles, they are fine the way they are now. However, colors can be used for other countries if desired. ---Dough4872 00:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed color key

Okay, how's everyone feel about this?

Proposed color key

Color	Use	Notes
#d3d3d3	Closed	Previously complete and open, but now closed (temp. or perm.)
#ffdead	Unopened	Interchange being constructed, not yet open to traffic
#ffdddd	No access	Some ramps/movements missing.
#ddffdd	Concurrency terminus

Comments/objections? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 15:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks perfect to me. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems good, wouldn't require any changes on existing colour coding this side of the pond, and since you don't use them on that side, there wouldn't be issues there. Jeni ^(talk) 15:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. I've mocked up a new version of the color key at {{MIintlegend}}, in place of the old, unused key for Michigan lists. I'm sure we'll move it to a new location when it's rolled out as part of the updates. it looks like:

Legend
Concurrency terminus	Closed	No access	Unopened

We can change the order around a bit, but how's that work? It's in place at the bottom of a North American sample list using some UK-inspired changes at User:Imzadi1979/Sandbox3. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather see the legend be the bottom box of the template rather then a separate box under the table. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced we need a legend. This legend is not sufficient to resolve the WP:COLOR concerns, as deciphering the legend still requires deciphering the colors. Legend or not, we still have to explain what the colored cell means in-line (i.e. must have notes in every blue cell that says concurrency terminus, closed, etc.) Dave (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

As discussed elsewhere, the key would be supplemental, and the guideline would require text in the table to explain the colors' meaning. The UK lists in the destination columns say "No access", etc. The proposed usage in the US would have "Southern end of X concurrency" etc in the Note column. No key, no supplemental text, no colors. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that a color key would not necessarily be needed on the articles. As to the proposed colors, I have no problems. --LJ (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:FAC usually mandates stuff like this. --Rschen7754 21:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

As to "No Access", this is currently used in the UK and possibly other places where dual-direction lists are used. Would this even be used on single-direction lists? I.e. if a US list has an exit where the notes column says "Eastbound exit and westbound entrance", would the no access color be used here? My opinion is that it should not be used in this manner, and the guideline state that the no access color only be used on dual-direction lists. --LJ (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The No-access was phased out in the US long before the other colors were. At the bottom of my sand box, I made an in-line version of the key that would be the last row in a table. If accepted as a concept, I"d code up a template that produced this row using something like: {{rjlengend|col=6}} there the col= parameter would take the number of columns in the table. A variant could be produced that omitted the No access color for the US, a {{rjuslegend}}. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I like the example titled: Second alternate North American format. The legend is there, but non-intrusive. Dave (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Since I did that one earlier, I left to take the puppy for a walk. Coming back to look at things, I find that I like that version of the key a lot more than the separate table. Copying it here, it would be similar to this sample, using a much truncated table... Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I am opposed to adding back any colors to exit/junction lists. We just had a big discussion several months ago to remove the colors for multiple reasons. ---Dough4872 00:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

In response to Dave above, how does this not resolve the issues with WP:COLOR (besides the fact that it is the most indirect guideline out there)? The colours pass for readability, and the key provides the meaning for them. What is left? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Because relying on a legend to decipher color encoded cells still requires the ability to distinguish color to interpret the meaning, which is forbidden per the guideline. If someone has red-green colorblindness, how can they use the legend to distinguish between the cells that are shaded red verses green? If someone is reading the page on a black-and-white monitor, or printout, how can they use the legend to distinguish if all the colors look the same? If someone is blind and is reading the page via a screen reader, how will they know which cells are shaded with what color, even with the legend? In other words, we cannot rely on color to convey information, it can be used as a secondary indicator only.

How about this: whenever we use color, the template is coded to include some explanatory text, which then uses CSS to be hidden. As a result, whenever a non-CSS browser is used (such as screenreaders and text-only browsers such as Lynx), the color is not displayed, and the explanatory text is shown. Of course, that may not help the colorblind users out too much... —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Would it be possible and/or desired to give the in-line legend row the same color background as the table header? I don't think it would be too intrusive, and would set it off just a bit from the table's content. --LJ (talk) 05:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems overly complicated for something not necessary. Now that I think of it, every use of a colour pretty much requires a note about it anyways, with a citation I might add. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 06:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If I use the ! for the row, it puts it in the other shade of grey, but bolds the text in the legend. If someone knows the exact hexcode for the shade of grey, it's easy enough to change that row. The problem for me is that on my laptop's LCD screen, the difference is so minor, I can't really tell the difference, but it is actually easy enough to change. As for every use needing a citation, I disagree. The only thing that's commonly referenced is the distance or exit number column. Imzadi1979 (talk) 08:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

A user posting at Help talk:Using colours#Colors in tables states that default table headers in class=wikitable use      #f2f2f2. Looks right to me. I think this background color would also be useful when citing references in a colspan at the bottom of a table. --LJ (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I changed to f2f2f2, but it doesn't look different to me... but you'll have to tell me since the only way I can tell on my screen at the moment is at angles, and it's not looking different. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You left out the "g" in "bgcolor=#f2f2f2"...it should look different now.

Would anyone object to allowing this color to be used in a multi-column row that cites sources at the very bottom of the table, as was done on Interstate 70 in Colorado#Exit list? Being the same color as column headings, yet not part of the actual contents of the table, I wouldn't expect that to be contentious. --LJ (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. So many coding samples for me lately, I'm bound to have a mistake. Btw, {{LegendRJL}} is live now. It has two parameters, col= and uk=, the first sets the number of columns to span, the second turns on a line in the key for the UK colors. I don't see using the f2f2f2 shade as a problem. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Template added to example table below. --LJ (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

County	Location	Mile	Exit	Destinations	Notes
Monroe	Frenchtown Township	0.00		I-75 – Detroit, Toledo
Removed content
Oakland	Farmington Hills	35.01	165	I-96 west – Lansing I-696 east – Port Huron M-5 (Grand River Avenue)	Northern terminus; freeway continues west as I-96, north as M-5 and east as I-696
Concurrency terminus       Closed/former       HOV only       Incomplete access       Route transition       Tolled/ETC       Unopened

Other considerations

I thought I should point out that the "no access" that was phased out by USRD was different. It was used for overpasses where there was no access or interchange whatsoever. That was phased out because it was thought that there was no need to include such non-junctions in junction lists. This 'No access' is totally different, and I think because of that, it should have some other title in the key, such as "Missing ramps" or "Incomplete junction" or "Some movements not permitted" or the like. Where junctions are not split per-carriageway as is done in the UK, the "one direction is missing access" message isn't quite as clear, and I think the key needs to reinforce that. Nonetheless, I like having this color available for use, and I think it would be a useful addition to the repertoire of colors. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps "No access" should be changed to "Missing movements". Also, perhaps "Concurrency terminus" should be changed to "End of route overlap" or something similar--the point was raised above somewhere that "concurrency" is not readily understood by the non-roadgeek crowd (which should be the audience we're doing this for). --LJ (talk) 07:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

We could always link the word "concurrency" in the key to the article Concurrency (road). "End of route overlap" is getting a little wordy. The other consideration is that this key, and the table are at the end of the article. If an article has concurrency termini, it should be noted that a good article will already have described the concurrency in the Route description (or analogous) section, and should have the word wikilinked already as part of the article text. While a good article shouldn't be a rote turn-by-turn description in the text, the major intersections should be part of the description, and this table is technically superfluous except to summarize the junctions in a concise format. (Yes, I know that an exit list that has all of the interchanges along a freeway will list more junctions than the Route description section, but an interchange that's the end of a concurrency would have to be mentioned as part of the description of the concurrency.)

As for the "no access" change of meaning I'd like to find another concise phrase, knowing that this guideline applies to at-grade and grade-separated roadways equally. While an at-grade intersection can't be missing ramps since it doesn't have any by definition, it could have prohibited movements. I think "Incomplete junction" is the better legend for this color's meaning. Imzadi1979 (talk) 07:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point on the concurrency thing...linking 'concurrency' might be better. As to "No access", I'm not sure that "incomplete junction" is a better wording either. It kinda invokes a "under construction" connotation, which is supposed to be what "unopened" is for. Unfortunately, other than possibly "Missing access", I don't have a suggestion for better wording at the moment. --LJ (talk) 08:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I wikilinked in the templated, and I will change that to "Incomplete access". How's that? Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess that will do. --LJ (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Tables

Tables of various colors

Current uses of background colors in junction lists Color Use Notes #e7e7e7 Under construction/permanently closed Presently allowed in ELG guideline. #d5d5d5 Under construction/permanently closed variant #ffdddd No access Color from {{no2}}. Used in UK for showing no access from one direction of travel. #ddffdd Concurrency terminus Color from {{yes2}}. Used in UK. #dff9f9 Concurrency terminus Deprecated color still used on some US articles. Possible uses of background colors in junction lists Color Use Notes #ffeecc Under construction Proposed #ddddff Under construction Alternative Former USRD colors Color Use Notes #ffdead No access Overpass with no interchange #d3d3d3 Deleted Intersection with decommissioned highway #dff9f9 Concurrency terminus #ffffe0 Closed Has been built and was open at some point #dda0dd Unconstructed (I) Not yet built or completed #aaddaa Unconstructed (II) Changed, purple was too hard to read burlywood Unconstructed (III) Changed, green was too similar to concurrency

One-county routes

For exit lists existing in one county, should the county be put in the wikitable or should there be a note on top noting that the entire route is in one county? Pzoxicuvybtnrm 20:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the current wording of this guideline on this subject. There should not be a county column in that case, it should be handled outside the table. A table exists to organize scattered information into logical chunks. If there is a county column, but the entire route only serves one county, then there is no need to organize 1 fact, and it is a waste of a column. Dave (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The same goes for roads in one city in one county. Drop the columns and place a hatnote above the table. --Fredddie™ 20:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Note on top. This should not to be misconstrued as hatnote, since the note should not be indented or italicized.

The current guideline prohibits the use of a county column or location column when the route only traverses one county or location. However, the guideline doesn't specifically mention that a note above the table should be used, a provision implemented at USRD that doesn't appear to have been documented anywhere after being decided upon. --LJ (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

'All the same to me. Anyway, I never realized it wasn't codified. --Fredddie™ 21:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It should be. --Rschen7754 08:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I prefer that one-county routes still include the column, and this is what has been routinely done in OK; lack of the county (and location) column gives the table an unbalanced, incomplete look. Were it up to me, the no-column-use-a-note method would be optional. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The last time it was optional, people edit-warred over it. That doesn't mean that it'll instantly happen again if it becomes optional again, but I don't see a reason to change it back, honestly. I was on the fence about it at first, but I'm at the point now where I'm used to it and I believe it looks better vs. cells that span the length of the table. – TMF 12:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree that the fact that people in the California project have a tendency to do stupid things should have an effect on the policy. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I still don't see a reason to change it back to what it was before. – TMF 16:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a choice of who is our target audience. If our target audience is roadgeeks, who read enough road articles to notice the patter in the table, it looks better to make the tables consistent, even if a column has only one entry. If our target audience is the general population, the column with a single entry looks like the table was hastily thrown together, as the reader wouldn't know that "every road article does it this way". IMO, our target audience is the general population. Dave (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not just California; these editors frequently edit other USRD articles as well. --Rschen7754 19:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Bizarre edits come from bizarre contributors; bizarre contributors come from California. ;) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

In my opinon, I think we should require a hatnote for one county and/or one location roads as this takes up less space. ---Dough4872 00:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

How much less space are we talking about? Most junction tables span the entire width of the page. Even if they don't, there's nothing else displayed in the space to the right of the table normally. Removing that column will either a) expand the width of the other columns or b) increase the white space to the right of the whole table. At best, some of the rows won't wrap as many lines of text. The space argument is specious then. I can honestly go either way, but depending on other considerations at work with revising this guideline, it might be best to consistently use a location column in all junction lists, even if they pass through single divisions or subdivisions. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

My preference is to use the "hatnote." If we had to, I suppose I would support making the column mandatory for all single division routes, though that will be a tough sell to the USRD users who took it out of all the articles less than a year ago. I would strongly prefer that over moving the column to the right of the table. --Rschen7754 05:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Headers

After some fiddling around, I have recreated something similar to the British junction list header over at Highway 401. I would like to see some way of merging the designs of the tables together so as to have one design world-wide. Simply inverting the header row makes a huge difference without any loss of information or readability. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Current discussions in the UK at Talk:M25 motorway have developed a consensus to remove the white on black because it interferes with reference links. As such, there's budding consensus to crap that provision. There is also a discussion started about the title headers in the UK section above. I would hold off on bringing the UK header format in live articles across the pond until this discussion is completed. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

In fact, it would be foolish to make *any* change that's being proposed here to a live article until we've come to a consensus. --Rschen7754 03:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Intro to guideline?

I'd like to propose the following as the first section of the revised guideline:

==Using this guideline==

Please keep in mind that this is a guideline. As roads around the world vary greatly, so do junctions and signing standards. While this document has been developed to provide a basis for a uniform presentation of road junction information, not all information is applicable to roads in all regions. Thus, certain provisions of this guideline are noted as being for optional use. When creating or editing junction lists for a particular country or state, check with an appropriate road-related WikiProject for that region. The various projects may have adopted certain practices or preferences regarding some of the optional provisions presented below.

Also recognize that in some cases, notably concurrency termini, there are different methods of doing the same thing, such as noting the ends of route overlaps. This guideline makes no preference of one system over another. Rather than needlessly editing back and forth, please follow the format of the first complete and compliant junction list on the article.

This gives a general disclaimer about the guideline and provides the suggestion to consult WikiProject pages for more guidance about certain optional provisions. It also incorporates the "Keep in mind" section of the existing page. Any objections to including a statement like this? --LJ (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

May want to reword Concurrency terminii so that it makes sense to non-roadgeeks. Notably when one route ends, but the physical roadway continues as a new route (known as concurrent terminii) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Except that's not what concurrency termini are. The terminus of a concurrency is where the overlap of two road designations sharing the same physical pavement ends. What you just described is a designation change. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Reworded (clarified wording underlined). --LJ (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

See, it even confuses roadgeeks :P - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd drop the reference to concurrencies by any name. They're not the only thing that can be done multiple ways, and hardly the thing that's been the subject of edit wars the most. Overlap isn't the most common of all the names for the concept of two or more road designations sharing the same physical pavement. There are the the terms: overlap, concurrency, duplex/triplex/multiplex, commons/common section, shared alignment. (And before someone calls that a neologism, in communications technology, two streams of information that flow on the same channel duplex, such as both sides of a phone conversation. Multiple streams multiplex, a term that dates back to the telegraph. Both terms predate the portmanteau of cinema and complex into cineplex or multiple cineplexes into multiplex.) Imzadi1979 (talk) 08:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Reference to concurrency/overlaps stricken. --LJ (talk) 08:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Per other disucssions on this page, there is no consensus that this guideline should apply to anywhere outside North America. As such, the introduction should be reworded away from its current implication that it is a worldwide standard. Thryduulf (talk) 10:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll to implement revised guide

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I have closed this per WP:NOTVOTE#Straw poll guidelines.

• "article straw polls are never binding, and editors who continue to disagree with a majority opinion may not be shut out from discussions simply because they are in the minority. Similarly, editors who appear to be in the majority have an obligation to continue discussions and attempts to reach true consensus."
• "article straw polls should not be used prematurely. If it is clear from ongoing discussion that consensus has not been reached, a straw poll is unlikely to assist in forming consensus and may polarize opinions, preventing or delaying any consensus from forming." Jeni ^(talk) 09:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The following is a straw poll to ratify proposed changes to a section of the Manual of Style known as the Exit List Guide (ELG). The proposed wording of the new style guide is at WP:Manual of Style (exit lists)/Sandbox. In addition to changing the wording, the guide would be renamed to WP:Manual of Style (road junction lists) and apply worldwide. This poll will be open for one week from the time it is posted, at 02:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC). Consensus to approve this revision is deemed to be at least 60% support, computed by individual vote counts. Voting will be subject to the provisions of WP:CANVAS and will be subject to normal Wikipedia procedures. Please sign the appropriate section only. All other comments will be removed.

Support

1. ---Dough4872 02:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
2. --Fredddie™ 02:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
3. --Rschen7754 02:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
4. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
5. – TMF 02:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
6. Dave (talk) 03:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
7. 117Avenue (talk) 04:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
8. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
9. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
10. --LJ (talk) 06:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
11. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Martinvl (talk) 06:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Note

I corrected some table syntax in the examples. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop this poll

The article as it stands is self-contradictory. The UK example does not conform to current UK practice or to the preceding MoS text. Would the sponsors please stop this poll NOW to avoid such glaring errors. The existing article is also totally America-centric. Martinvl (talk) 06:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

All legitimate deleted content and archival of active discussions restored, these actions by USRD members are totally unacceptable and prove that they will do anything to steemroll their opinions through. Consensus is not formed by voting. Not at all happy with the actions of USRD to silence existing discussion and hide it so that users coming to the above straw poll have no idea what has been happening, figures though. Jeni ^(talk) 09:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Also note that Rschen7754 has abused his admin powers to protect the sandbox for no reason at all, completely contravening Wikipedia:PROTECT#Full_protection. The members of USRD have also asked (on IRC) another member of USRD to close the poll once its over, talk about steemrolling a POV! They just don't understand this at all. Jeni ^(talk) 09:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I endorse your closing of the poll for all the reasons you've given. I note that additionally, the answers have not been given to several open questions above.Thryduulf (talk) 10:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I should note that I'm not a "USRD" member, so all this talk of USRD trying to steamroll something through is a bit disingenuous I think. I think it may be good to just make separate sections for each country or area which needs one, rather than making a completely separate page for each one. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 10:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I will note a few comments here. A few involved editors moved to close a 170+K discussion and move forward. There comes a time in all debates when it is dilatory to continue discussion, and sometimes it's best to have an up or down vote. I detest all suggestions of "Amerocentrism" as that assumes bad faith. This is not an attempt by USRD to steamroll something. We asked an administrator if he would close this poll at the time it ended. That administrator has repeatedly recused himself from all discussions during the RfC period. He declined, Jeni, in front of you. Thryrduulf, these "open questions" were answers on the talk page repeatedly. The only reason that the Sandbox was protected was so that it was "frozen" during the period of time of the straw poll. There would be no question over what revision was being used as the basis for the opinions set forth in the poll.

Martinvl, did you read the proposed text in the Sandbox? As written, the only change to UK practice made by the text is to move the Junction color to the left of the two Carriageway columns, and the inclusion of a colour key below the table. The colored header bars are standardized. As I have followed the discussions at Talk:M25 motorway, I know that there is consensus to change the white on black header bars to the standard table heading format already. The other changes made to the sample UK table bring it into compliance with existing MoS guidelines concerning capitalization, boldface and italics. Even the changes related to colour were made to comply with WP:COLOUR and WP:ACCESS, by standardizing colour usage, adopting the key globally for consistency where used and standardizing the correlation between common meanings with a group of defined colors. As it stands now, current UK practices assumes that any reader knows the relationship between white text on a blue background and motorways. That relationship in the US is used for roadside services, rest areas and hospitals. In Canada, that colour scheme is used for the guide signage on some exit ramps in Ontario. It is very "Anglocentric" to assume that all readers of UK highway articles will know that relationship between colour and meaning, when this is a global encyclopaedia. This is why the colour key requirement was put in place.

What Jeni is not telling everyone here is that interested parties have all told her that we'd help with editing articles to comply with the proposal if adopted. She stated that "if rschen edits an article, I'll eat my hat," or words to that effect. There are over 10,000 articles tagged for inclusion in the USRD project, many of which had deficient or non-existant junction lists under either the status quo or the proposal in the Sandbox. We were and still are willing to help change articles anywhere requested, even while changing our own. The fact remains that the status quo is flawed as it pertains to colours. It is flawed where it requires Exit number columns to use the heading "#". Some articles will be easy to change by changing templates that create the tables. The colours have already been switched to the revised standard, replacing the previous cyan with the UK shade of green for concurrency termini, for instance. These template-generated tables will need their colour keys added, through a standard template developed, but even so, that effort will take time. Other list tables are generated, not through templates, but through direct wikicode and will need individual evaluation. Even with that task ahead, USRD project members still said, without hesitation, that they'd help edit articles.

If there is a wish to continue to fork the UKRD-style format, open a separate RfC at a separate page. The fact remains that the original RfC that spawned this whole discussion was started not by USRD members, but by a member of CRWP, the project for Canada. I was being bold by trying to end the circular arguing, vote and move on. Imzadi1979 (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The only remaining issue is the location of the junction number col where USRD members are being subborn on what they want.. "my way or nothing" kind of approach. Consensus appears to be clear from editors this side of the pond that this is wholly rejected. If you guys would just budge on that then we may have actually achieved a consensus, otherwise its just causing more trouble than its worth. Jeni ^(talk) 14:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

That issue could have been revisited after the closing of the poll. The poll was to ascertain where consensus was in regards to the proposal, and move on from that point. Consensus can and does change. Imzadi1979 (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Restart the poll with provisions for the junction column in the UK to be between the two destination columns, and that would have enough consensus to justify meeting the guidelines on starting straw polls. Just don't start removing discussions and other peoples comments. Jeni ^(talk) 14:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, at this point, I'm looking at other options for moving on based on the section below. The poll has been closed, and who knows how many of the international editors from the various notified projects have now been turned away. I notified, if my memory is good, projects from the US, Canada, the UK, Germany, Indian, Nepal, China, Japan, Scotland in addition to WP:Highways. If a poll is opened again, we'd have to re-notify them, and I'm moving on. The problem is that the status quo remains, we have a MoS standard that's out of date and inconsistent with the rest of the MoS, articles everywhere in several countries currently in breach of a flawed section of the MoS. This guide is still written in a fashion and isn't consistent with the consensus to make at-grade junction lists comply with a style written for freeway/motorway applications. The colours issue needed adding, and the proposal that would have corrected those major issues was derailed over the placement of a column that could have been rediscussed after implementing the change. Both sides are stubbornly-clinging to their arguments, and I just wanted to stop arguing, vote on something and move on. Imzadi1979 (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think we all know that once it was changed, that's it. The response would be "but the MOS says otherwise" and completely ignored (as it has been in this discussion). In all seriousness the way forward is to have individual guidelines for individual areas which share common characteristics in the roads system, e.g. I noted below about Britain and Ireland being similar. I think Canada and the US may be fairly similar. Mainland Europe seem to be similar too (the exit lists currently used on mainland European articles all seem to be fairly consistent with each other). Internationalisation is not the way forward here. Jeni ^(talk) 14:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Jeni, you are totally avoiding the point to make a point. You have been asked time and again what you want. This is NOT to create a single form for all junction lists, it is to take what we currently do, and make it into a guideline that's binding on new editors. Now you are trashing everything because you can't get the junction column between the two carriageways exactly what you want and how you want it. It doesn't make sense there, and nobody else does that (including roadgeek sites and official maps apparently). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Separate standards

Is it now time to start Wikipedia:Manual of Style (UK roads) with a section on junction lists in it? The UK articles do need standardisation, and it seems to me there is broad agreement from UK editors on the form that this standardisation should take for UK roads. I think the above poll and associated actions show quite convincingly that the USRDs editors are not interested in productive discussion, so I think we should leave them to define their standard for North America and define our own for the distinctive UK roads network. There is no point in trying to shoehorn several optional formats into one standard as it then becomes messy, confusing and laughably not standard. Thryduulf (talk) 10:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree this is a way forward. I suspect USRD may try to stand in our way though. I propose that we be bold and get on with it. It's doing my head in trying to keep USRD happy over some American guideline. Every country is different, its silly trying to shoehorn them into a single "one size fits all" standard, when in fact, one size doesn't fit all. Jeni ^(talk) 10:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with this. I do not see the point in standardisation just for the point of it. Having different standards for UK and US roads will not confuse our readers. I do not see much crossover between editors of UK or US roads, so I can't see it being a problem for editors. What I do see happening is people getting pissed off with this attempt to impose a standard that has never been used for UK roads. Having those who are most likely to be editing the article frustrated with a different standard being imposed on them is not a good recipe for improving the encyclopedia. Quantpole (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Support this idea. An astute conclusion, Thryduulf. I hope this gives a way forwards - there is no point standardizing for the sake of it.  Chzz  ►  14:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

If your project would like to start said MoS section, feel free to open an RfC at the page title listed above. Nothing ever prevented that action but inaction. I don't think anyone would stop a vaild RfC on a new section of the MoS. Imzadi1979 (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be fair to say that 90% of USRD members would jump in and say "noooooooooo you can't do that, the junction column must be on the left, or we'll shoot you!" Jeni ^(talk) 14:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming that last part is hyperbole. If the RfC is written to only apply to one country/project's pages, there would be very little, if any outside project/country participation. Flawed by current standard as it might be, this section was elevated to MoS status long ago and was designed to encompass a style guide for one type of information globally. USRD has additional project standards that aren't at the MoS level because they don't apply outside of the project (article headings, infobox usage, etc.) Imzadi1979 (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

There isn't a MOS entry for every little thing, far from it. Maybe the fact that no one has bothered doing anything about it, is that it hasn't been a problem, so there has been no reason to. As has been pointed out many times, this guide wasn't 'elevated' to MoS, but plonked there by a couple of editors with virtually no discussion. I would be willing to bet that pretty much no one editing UK roads even knew of its existence. Quantpole (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, I've posted a message on User talk:Sarah777 (The only Irish roads editor I know) asking for feedback on whether a UK MOS entry should possibly include Ireland or not, as the two countries share many similarities in the road system, and already share (to a certain degree) similar junction lists. We wouldn't want to force anything on them if they didn't want it, they may chose not to be part of it (British-Irish arguments have been a big issue in the past). Jeni ^(talk) 14:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

There is one fundemental difference between Irish roads signs and British road signs - Irish roads signs are bilingual, giving destination names in upper case (English) and mixed case italic (Gaelic). How they propose handing this is in WIkipedia is their problem, not ours, except that we should be aware that there is potentially a problem and be prepeared to accomodate it. Martinvl (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

As a further proposal, let me do something slightly different here.

I, Imzadi1979, make a motion to approve the revision to the guideline in the /Sandbox, under the revised name, WP:Manual of Style (road junction lists). As a rider to this motion, I ask that a new RfC be opened to discuss amending that revision with regards to column order and placement.

If someone will second my motion, will anyone approve it? Imzadi1979 (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I oppose this and we should not go any further until we have ironed out this final stumbling block. Jeni ^(talk) 14:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

A question to those suggesting separate standards. If the revision of the ELG as proposed contained provision for the UK location of the junction column, would you be prepared to support it? As I see it, that would not be *that* dissimilar to what we currently have, barring minor MOS tweaks here and there. In my opinion it would be a solution that would stop all this bickering and we can just get on with editing. Jeni ^(talk) 14:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

After a quick IRC discussion, it sounds like USRD members may not budge on this matter, which is a shame, it would have been easier overall to avoid separate guidelines. Jeni ^(talk) 15:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Jeni once again presumes to speak for a group of people. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(exit_lists)/Sandbox2 for a counter proposal that I'm making in good faith. Imzadi1979 (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC) P.S. The counter proposal no longer specifies column order, but it the same as the previous proposed revision, minus samples. I'm tiring of coding tables for today. Imzadi1979 (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you please confirm that the proposal you make allows the Junction column to be located between the two direction columns? If this is the case, then I think (though you'd have to wait to hear from them directly) that the users who oppose this change will support it. Jeni ^(talk) 16:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

So it is true that you are throwing a rod through the gears over the position of the junction column? Sounds like grasping for straws, not a legitimate reason for trashing an otherwise compatible standard that worked in the needs of both groups. Was there a legitimate reason for keeping it in the middle, besides "thats how it's been done"? My reason for pushing it to the left is A) Thats what the sources do, and Wikipedia demands we follow the sources, and B) Because our language reads left to right. The destination column is dependent on the junction column, and so it should be to the left, not the right. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Now who's the one moaning when we have a proposal that may actually please all sides? Jeni ^(talk) 16:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The same person who's avoiding the question. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Replying to the question above, the Sandbox2 proposal doesn't specify column order, only columns to be included. It contains the same provisions to deleted columns that don't apply at the WikiProject level. All other changes are intact from the first Sandbox. Imzadi1979 (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

While we are still working with the UK I've started another poll so that the guideline can be applied to the rest of the world. --Rschen7754 21:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Before we vote there was a tiny change I wanted to the wording of the Highway Link Appearance section, see the last comment in the Canada section. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how to answer this. I'll let Imzadi answer when he comes back. --Rschen7754 21:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Right now we're just going to implement as is and get it all over with. We can definitely start discussing this change though, it's not like the guideline is set in stone. --Rschen7754 23:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll #2

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is the exact same as the last straw poll with the changes in bold. The following is a straw poll to ratify proposed changes to a section of the Manual of Style known as the Exit List Guide (ELG). The proposed wording of the new style guide is at WP:Manual of Style (exit lists)/Sandbox. In addition to changing the wording, the guide would be renamed to WP:Manual of Style (road junction lists) and apply worldwide, with the exception of the United Kingdom. This does not mean that the United Kingdom will never be part of this guideline; it means that they will not be a part of it at this time. This poll will be open for one week from the time it is posted, at 21:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC). Consensus to approve this revision is deemed to be at least 60% support, computed by individual vote counts. Voting will be subject to the provisions of WP:CANVAS and will be subject to normal Wikipedia procedures. Please sign the appropriate section only with a pound sign and three tildes. All other comments will be removed. Do not make comments related to the poll in a section below this one; they will be removed as well. You have been warned. Support Rschen7754 --Fredddie™ 21:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Oppose

The poll

Note: any attempts to remove this section will be met with an ANI thread for disruption

While I agree in principle with the poll above, the means of implementation is completely out of line with WP:NOTVOTE. You may not forbid people from making comments or starting discussions, in partcular "The purpose of a straw poll is to stimulate discussion and consensus. Editors should evaluate the explanations that the participants in a straw poll offer, and should see if those explanations help to develop their own opinions or suggest compromise. In this context, a few well reasoned opinions may affect a debate much more than several unexplained votes for a different course." Fix that problem and the "poll" is fine, so long as its clear that it is not a vote, Wikipedia does not use voting. Jeni ^(talk) 21:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

What was WP:SRNC then? Also, if people want to discuss there are plenty of sections above to do so. You don't get to call the shots here. You can't just invalidate polls because you feel like it. --Rschen7754 22:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

A specific poll requested by the Arbitration committee, as was the Ireland naming poll. Wikipedia guidelines are clear on the subject, you may not remove other peoples comments on article talk pages unless there is something categorically wrong with them, i.e. vandalism. I'm not invalidating the poll because I feel like it, I'm invalidating the poll because it goes against core Wikipedia guidelines. Jeni ^(talk) 22:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Then go complain about it somewhere. (And that does *not* mean closing the poll out yourself. That's a huge conflict of interest. The next time you do that, it *will* be reported.) --Rschen7754 22:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Will do Jeni ^(talk) 22:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Such a poll is both unacceptable and unnecessary at this stage, per WP:Consensus and WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. May I ask why is one being held? NW (Talk) 22:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  • There is virtually no opposition to applying this guideline outside of the UK. --Rschen7754 22:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
    • That did not answer my question. If there is no opposition, then why cannot the results of the consensus be enacted? It is possible to find an uninvolved user to close the discussion if necessary. NW (Talk) 22:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
      • You are welcome to do so if you wish. The only opposition that remains is whether / how it will be implemented in the UK, which is what is being discussed. --Rschen7754 22:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Why can't the straw poll be applied in a traditional and acceptable manner? To gauge the general consensus then act from it, while stimulating discussion in areas which need it. As I mentioned, I support the above wording, but refuse to take part in an invalid poll. Jeni ^(talk) 22:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
      • To prevent further strife. Think of it as not talking at the polls. There's plenty of space for discussion up there above the poll. --Rschen7754 22:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
        • But Wikipedia isn't a democracy, surely you know that? A straw poll is only ever intended to gauge a general opinion on the consensus. Jeni ^(talk) 22:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
          • So if everyone puts down 100%, we know there is consensus. If that's not the case, we know why because the editors left their opinion above. --Rschen7754 22:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to add, I think consensus from all the discussions above is that what was being proposed in the poll is already acceptable. No need for the poll, just implement it! Jeni ^(talk) 22:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)