Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Exit list guide

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Exit list guide page.
Shortcut:
WT:IH/ELG

1 – February 28, 2007
2 – Proposing a couple of changes

Contents

[edit] Small caps again

User:Holderca1 reverted a few of my removals of template:scaps, saying there was no consensus to do so. --NE2 18:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The only one in his contribs with an edit summary "rv no conesnsus" is I-10 in Texas. What are the others? --MPD T / C 18:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The only other edit summary like that I found is Template:Jct.
There's definitely consensus, though. Feel free to point him towards Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Exit list guide/Archive 1#Use of small caps. -- NORTH talk 19:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any such consensus there, I see several that didn't have an opinion, NE2 opposed small caps, and Scott and myself strongly supported. --Holderca1 23:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
NE2 and I were both opposed from the beginning of that discussion. Consensus, in my eyes, occurs shortly after the second time the convo shifts back to the left margin (where Rob starts out saying ,"Yeah, still pretty indifferent here."). Then TMF came around and said he agreed with myself and NE2, after which Rob immediately agrees to stop using {{scaps}}. Then NE2 offers to start using AWB to get rid of the scaps, and MPD agrees that it's for the good of the project, which covers everyone who had participated in the discussion up to that point. Then after a couple more days of discussion to get the kinks out, the conversation died.
To quote Wikipedia:Consensus, "'Silence equals consent' is the ultimate measure of consensus." You and Scott didn't come out supporting {{scaps}} until a month after the guideline was changed. You're more than welcome to start a discussion to change the guideline, as I did above, but until then the guideline says no scaps. -- NORTH talk 23:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I didn't even see this conversation until after this point since I didn't look at this talk page until after it was moved from IH to US Roads. Also, if we are going to quote WP:Consensus, please see WP:CCC. I also think it was bad form to archive an active discussion, especially so when thon two most recent posts contradicted your viewpoint. Personally I can't live with a lowercase direction, capital first letter at the very least--Holderca1 10:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Holderca, I'd recommend not re-opening the discussion until we straighten out the above issues. Also, I know I would, and I'm sure North would too, like to hear your opinions on the above issues though. --MPD T / C 00:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly indifferent to whether or not we use scaps, but my personal opinion is that it looks much worse (without scaps) and I don't really see how you guys say it looks better. :-) added: A side effect of this position is that I'm not going to actively seek and change scaps tags I've already put in. But I'm already seeing someone who has a vendetta against the use of the term "Chicagoland area" (it's redundant), so if some of you have a vendetta against scaps, I don't really care. —Rob (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't even aware that a discussion was under way. —Scott5114↗ 15:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course, consensus can change, I wasn't saying it couldn't. I was merely saying that in January, we did have consensus to change the guideline, so we did.

Yes, it was bad form to archive active discussion. To be honest, the last two comments just got lost in the madness I created above. I assumed that the discussion 4 or 5 sections up was still dead, and didn't notice the two new comments until after you posted here (and after I archived it). Many apologies for that.

As MPD said, I have no problem discussing it again, but I would prefer if we held off on it for a week or so until the above madness is done. -- NORTH talk 18:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I was on wikibreak from Dec 22 to Feb 10, so I wasn't on here when that discussion was ongoing. I have no problem waiting a week to revisit. --Holderca1 19:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason we need to revisit this since ELG is a guideline. Just as long as someone doesn't mass change everything in order to follow this guideline, which isn't required to be followed by all the subprojects underneath it. --Holderca1 21:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Yes, it's a guideline, and yes, we just decided above that guidelines do have leeway to certain extent. Following a guideline isn't optional, it's – to quote the header – "a standard that all users should follow" but "should be treated with ... the occasional exception."
Here's the situation. If no one objects above, I'm going to edit the guideline to allow for looser standards for formatting concurrencies and state lines. But everyone should still follow those looser standards, unless there's a reasonable exception. Right now, the guideline says no small caps, mainly because the small caps were deemed to be unencyclopedic and unnecessary, and the MoS says not to capitalize directions – and that needs to be followed unless there's a reasonable exception.
If you want to revisit it, feel free to go ahead and do so now that the above section is a lot quieter. If you don't want to revisit it, that's fine too, but if you want to go back to using small caps, you do need to revisit it and change the guideline. Otherwise, your exit lists will be tagged as non-compliant. -- NORTH talk 23:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The MoS criteria doesn't apply here. Yes they are directions, but they are also the name of the roadway (well at least half of the roadway). For example, Interstate 10 runs due north through most of San Antonio, but it is still I-10 East/West. Would we put the North Star in lower case just because MoS says to lowercase directions? Also, what is the point of this page: Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Exit list guide/States? --Holderca1 15:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that page is antequated from when this was still located at a subpage of WP:IH instead of WP:USRD. Then a decision was made that there's no reason not to apply it to all exit lists, such as state highway exit lists. All IH exit lists regardless of what state they're in were/are supposed to follow this guideline. Another possible explanation is that – I'm not sure about the other states listed there, but – New Jersey's junction lists, as well as exit lists, follow this guideline.
North Star is capitalized because it's part of the proper noun. I don't see these directions being nearly the same thing. For instance, we don't have separate articles on Interstate 10 East and Interstate 10 West, because they're not two separate things. Just because it's the name of "half the roadway" doesn't necessarily mean it should be capitalized the same way as the name of the whole thing. For instance, Jimbo is capitalized, but the L in "Jimbo's leg" is not. Weird example, but it's all I can come up with at the moment.
To quote your original comment, "when it is all lowercase, I read it as the direction the road is going, when scaps is used, it links it to the number of the road and is part of the name of the highway." I don't see why reading it as the direction the road is going is a problem; even in San Antonio, thinking I-10 goes east isn't going to confuse anyone, because in the grand scheme of things it does. It's not a particularly large problem to "link the direction to part of the name of the highway", but I don't think it's a good enough reason to outweigh the unencyclopedicness/unprofessionalism and un-MoS-ness of using scaps. -- NORTH talk 19:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Paraphrasing an argument of old... with scaps "I-290 West / U.S. 20 West" becomes the proper name of the junction. "I-290 west / U.S. 20 west" looks like a run-on sentence. —Rob (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't see why this is even included in the guideline, it should be okay one way or the other. But, if nitpicking every little thing is how this project is heading, I am losing my interest in it in a hurry. I am not the only one that thinks this shouldn't be blindly applied to all the state pages. See [[1]]. I don't really get your example, where in the MoS does it say anything about capitalizing leg? My example of the North Star was an example of where the MoS is not the end all be all. --Holderca1 21:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The MoS doesn't apply to North Star because North Star is a proper noun. I don't think Interstate 10 East is – Interstate 10 is a proper noun, and east is an adjective tacked on as an afterthought.
I think part of the reason we're nitpicking about this issue is that it's not formatting so much as it is grammar. I'm not really sure personal preference should come into capitalization rules. That being said, you're right, this is stupid, and I don't really care as much as I pretend to. Can we come up with a compromise the {{scaps}} = bad, but "West" is okay? -- NORTH talk 21:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I am fine with that, to be honest, I wouldn't mind if directions disappeared from exit lists completely. Actually I would prefer no directions over lowercase, it just doesn't look right to me for some reason. Ahhh, I don't get much time to come on here and I spend most my time messing around with this stuff than working on the articles. --Holderca1 21:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

↓

I'm all right with that. It's not just an afterthought; it's the only way you can go at that point, and I'd prefer to be more specific than less. But we can drop scaps and just capitalize it. —Rob (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, afterthought was the wrong word there, but it's still just an adjective in my opinion. I won't edit your capitalization as long as you don't edit my lack thereof. -- NORTH talk 23:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've got to say that I find using {{scaps}} quite satisfactory:

  • Readers are at least subconsciously familiar with the small caps convention, having seen it on road signs (thus, it IS encyclopedic)
  • It is less ambiguous -- in Oklahoma City all streets are labeled with quadrant directions, and when you have a cloverleaf, you'll end up getting something like N.E. 10th St. west - north east and west are all included there, and using {{scaps}} makes sets the direction the street is going in (West) off from the rest of the text, enhancing readability.

Therefore, I am strongly in favor of {{scaps}} and strongly against removing it. —Scott5114↗ 18:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't see why mimicking road signs with unnecessary formatting is more encyclopedic than following proper capitalization rules.
  • Actually, seeing as the "N.E." is capitalized, could you not argue that using lowercase sets it off more? -- NORTH talk 18:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This is related, but probably deserves its own section, but I think we shouldn't add the directional and "to" placards on the shields, look at some of the examples User:MPD01605/sandbox2. The ones that have two placards make the rows nearly 3 times the height, making the exit list even longer and leaving big gaps as well. I am fine with Alternate or Business placards, but the directional and to ones need to go. It's mentioned directly to the right anyways. --Holderca1 19:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The images render far better in Firefox than they do in IE, with no vertical space between the plates and the shields. The directional plates might be superfluous, but at minimum we should keep the "To" plates.
Interestingly, originally the guideline said to either use the directional plate or put the direction in the text, not both. Maybe we could go back to that system – seeing as how I'm not sure why it was changed. For clarity's sake, I think "To" should still get both a plate and the word in text, though. -- NORTH talk 19:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The reason for changing it was based on comments at the 3di navbox discussion, where it was determined that images should be accompanied with appropriate text. If we do decide to go to one format (plates or text), I'd rather ditch the plates than the text. The reason for this is three-fold: (1) the plates are sometimes hard to read at 20px, (2) the code required to insert the images into the article is much larger than the small amount needed to simply type the direction and (3) the usage of plates for directions appears to be inconsistent, whether it be centering issues or width problems. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Three very valid points. I'm all for getting rid of them, as long as we keep the "To" plate. -- NORTH talk 22:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Keeping the "To" plate is fine, as I've found that plate to be easily visible at 20px. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The "To" plate is good, because then it gives consistent placement for the shield for which we're using "To", instead of <Shield> Route to <Shield> Route which breaks the flow. And it's visible, yes. --MPD T / C 22:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, we can't be biased towards one browser over the other. What causes the spaces in IE? On second though, "to" is important enough to keep, clarifies things a bit. --Holderca1 19:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I know browser preference is bad. :-P IE treats the directional plate as a regular line of text, and makes the height of that line the same as any other line of text. Firefox makes it only as high as the image. -- NORTH talk 19:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't think of it as merely mimicking signs, but rather as a typographical convention for setting directions off from text. Readers are already familiar with this convention; it is good design. See Principle of least surprise. —Scott5114↗ 20:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

On road signs, scaps is used to make the sign easy to read from a distance while traveling at 60 mph. Text in an encyclopedia is a completely different animal, and should resemble normal typographical conventions as much as possible. Seeing formatting that they've never seen in regular text (the template is only used in road articles) doesn't follow that principle. -- NORTH talk 20:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have another question, for "to" in the text, shouldn't it be capitalized since it is the first word of a sentence/fragment or whatever? --Holderca1 18:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Possibly when it's the first thing mentioned (if the exit is only to a route) but not when it's A east to B. --NE2 18:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I concur. -- NORTH talk 22:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll go with that, since it seems to be the prevailing opinion. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guideline changed

I've edited the guideline based on what we've seemed to agree on. If you have any issues, please feel free to take them up here. The old discussion has been archived to /Archive 2. -- NORTH talk 00:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought we had agreed to keep the shields in a discussion prior to this one? I'll be sad to see them go... not to mention the shields help with wrong-way concurrencies. —Rob (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I had thought location would be optional as well as county if the the highway was located entirely within one location. --Holderca1 14:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll add the location being optional, oversight on my part. I don't think I said anything about removing (or keeping) shields, could you clarify what's unclear. (If it's unclear in my revision, it was probably unclear in the original...) -- NORTH talk 22:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't see anything about shields. --MPD T / C 22:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
(ec) Rob may mean the auxiliary directional plates. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I had a feeling... Feel free to revert that if I was too hasty with that change.
I put in the note about the location column, as well as a "don't bold the exit numbers" note. I'm not sure where I should put the "don't use colors" note; if someone else wants to add it in, feel free. -- NORTH talk 23:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Oops, I meant directional plates, but I see that you knew what I meant. Auxiliary plates should stay, but I think we've already discussed that. I can't remember - the discussion's been too long and varied. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
It's all one section up, if you go three "threads" up (threads = where the text is at the left margin). Basically, the rough consensus is that auxiliary and "To" plates stay, directional plates go. -- NORTH talk 05:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rest areas and service areas

This was never really discussed at any point and, if it was, no consensus was ever reached. The edits in question are here and here, where rest areas and parking areas are added to the exit list. My stance is that this is an exit list and rest areas and the like are not exits, and therefore have no place in the table. Thoughts? --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say only on things like Turnpikes should service plazas be mentioned (since it could be 30 miles between exits and it'd be good to know when there's fuel or something). But that's my stance. If so, only on Turnpikes would I accept these. --MPD T / C 00:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not an exit per se... but it fits with the concept of a guide. I'd keep them in there. Finding out where they all are is another project entirely. —Rob (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with MPD (Yes service areas, no other stuff). Rest areas would be okay (but not preferred), but I really don't see the point of listing a parking lot on the side of the road, even if it does offer a great view. -- NORTH talk 07:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say definitely no to rest and parking areas. Service plazas I can go either way on, there are stretches on western interstates where there are 20-30 miles between exits without service plazas, you just pay attention to your fuel levels. I can understand their inclusion though as well. --Holderca1 13:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose service areas can be included, but, like I said above, I don't think structures that aren't directly on the road (i.e. a toll barrier, a bridge or a tunnel) should be included on an exit list (a title that I read as "list of exits"). The lists on Wikipedia are not meant to be a "guide" like exit lists are on some roadfan sites. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not a travel guide. For that reason, I stand by my comments above. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 19:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree 100% with you TMF – that it's an exit list, not a guide. It's just that for reasons I can't put into words, I think service plazas fall into the same category as toll barriers. -- NORTH talk 21:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tunnels

The guidelines currently mention bridges, but what about the inclusion of significant tunnels, like Eisenhower Tunnel, Big Walker Mountain Tunnel, and East River Mountain Tunnel? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm...well, toll facilities are obviously included (bridges and tunnels both), but none of those mentioned are tolled...I have no opinion on the issue, really. The problem with bridges is that there are so many (The Po River bridge on I-95...yeah not important for inclusion). Tunnels...There are what, three tunnels on I-70's entire length, two on I-77, one/two on I-40, one on I-10 I think...
That said, does this include only mountain/water tunnels or including tunnels under cities (like the Big Dig). I'd say if we include tunnels, only the mountain/underwater tunnels. But I'd like to hear more from others. --MPD T / C 02:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, tunnels should be limited to those traversing terrain (mountains/water). --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 19:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_U.S._Roads_Exit_list_guide_4844.html"