This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Manual of Style This page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing. For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

I'm having a disagreement with another editor over the destinations that should be shown in road junction lists, with the edits occurring primarily in southern New England. I want to make sure that I'm interpreting the "Destinations" bullet in WP:RJL correctly. In my reading, we use the destinations that are shown on the signs in the field, and I interpret that to include what we can see on a Streetview-type application. It appears that the other editor wants to put in the ultimate destinations that the numbered highways lead to, often at the expense of what are actually signed. I've been attempting to engage with the editor about the guidelines, but with little success, and I haven't seen anyone else jump in. So, could someone take a look at the histories of some of the highway articles in question and offer some input? Examples abound; my most recent exchange with the editor is on Massachusetts Route 2A. I've invited the editor to join this discussion. --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is better suited to WT:USRD, as it deals with application of the guidelines, not developing them, so I have reposted it there. --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the insertion of standard format road junction lists on articles for motorways in the UK, because I believe they would be more difficult to read compared to what was there previously (eg: compare the list on the M53 motorway with the recently changed one on the M56 motorway).

The benefit of British style lists is that they can work with sequential and distance-based junction numbers, and visualize destinations signed from the junctions along different classes of road, it is only relaying what drivers would see on the ground to keep it straightforward. RichardHC (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, the MOS-compliant version gives the reader some geographic context to where the road is located in addition to your reasons for keeping the British style. –Fredddie™ 23:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are also accessibility concerns with the older style of tables. --Rschen7754 00:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To this Yank's mind, the "British style" wastes a lot of space. The two widest columns in the table impart the same information. I understand that in a dual carriageway, sometimes the exits are not identical between the carriageways. However, IMHO that's spending a lot of space to cover a scenario that is the exception, not the norm. I've always had this opinion, but I've also mostly avoided debating the issue, as I accept there's likely a regional reason many UK Roads editors prefer that format. I strongly suspect that the "British style" originated from the old railroad timetables, common throughout the world when rail was the primary form of travel. The UK style bears both a functional and visual similarity to those timetables. I also suspect that older people might prefer this format, being used to them. However, assuming my origin thoery is correct, if you look at the old railroad timetables, the read up/read down columns were the arrival and departure times, not the destination columns. In that context ordering the data in a read up/read down format on a train table saved space, not wasted it. As such, I prefer the format that imparts more information in less space, which is the "American format" (for lack of a better word). Just my $.02, please take the opinion in the gracious spirit intended. Dave (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Moabdave: there are some older American roadgeek websites that have exit list tables with per-carriageway columns in their tables. They've typically used HTML to replicate the appearance of freeway guide signs complete with colored backgrounds. We're a few layers of translation and abstraction away from that in our presentation and supply much more information, like geographic locations, mileposts, more notes, etc. That content hasn't really caught on with the different websites though, and may of them out there don't include exit lists at all. I agree that the current RJL standard is far superior. Imzadi 1979 → 23:15, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the difference between Wikipedia's coverage of a topic verses a fancruft website is "more information, less graphically pleasing formatting", I would argue that's how it should be.Dave (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have converted the UK A14 to the standard format before realising there was a discussion on this. It is currently at sandboxA14 if could someone look and see if I've done it correctly before overwriting the existing junction list? (I have also posted this request to the A14 talk page but not had any response there.) Robertm25 (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Robertm25: looks good to me. Imzadi 1979 → 23:09, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have a record of which British roads contain standard format road junction lists, which have the "British" style, and which, if any, any other format or none? Robertm25 (talk) 14:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would've cross-referenced the articles using {{random british road template}}, but it appears those junction tables are hard coded in some cases, so the answer I can give is "I'unno". It would be difficult to put into numbers. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce: and I are in disagreement at Washington State Route 20‎ over the use of Pine Grove, Washington as the location for the junction between SR 20 and SR 21 North. I read the instructions here as to not add a place to a junction that is not in a community at all such a the junction of SR 20 and Old Kettle falls Rd which is outside any incorporated or Census designated place in Ferry County. The 20/21 junction is in the middle of however, and I feel meets the criteria for listing in the table.--Kevmin § 16:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The main discussion is at Talk:Washington State Route 20. As Pine Grove is not listed in the State Highway Log or in other WSDOT resources, it is not verifiable and thus does not belong in the table. SounderBruce 16:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where is that sourcing consensus stated?--Kevmin §

I googled, which in itself is not the arbiter of notability, and realtor.com's definition of Pine Grove is larger than that shown on Google Maps. That and the gas station/truck stop at the intersection of SR 20 and SR 21 is called "Pine Grove Junction", so I think the argument that it's an unverifiable name is weak. Ultimately, this is a lot of energy wasted on something that just doesn't matter. I'd leave it in and move on. –Fredddie™ 16:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V. I've yet to see a reliable source that outright states that the junction is in Pine Grove; since Google Maps has inaccurate boundaries due to whatever meddling and data they use, I've stopped using them for the locations column. SounderBruce 16:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V is not a source for your assertion of consensus that only WASDOT sourcing is acceptable for the table though, which is what I specifically asked for. Is there consensus or is there personal perference?--Kevmin § 00:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've yet to see a reliable source for Pine Grove's boundaries. I'm simply using WSDOT's resources because they are of good quality and meet the project's needs. Any unsourced and unverifiable content has to be removed, per site-wide policy. SounderBruce 00:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I remember there being a template for highway junction lists where one or more of the mile markers are missing. I tried to search for it on Google and found nothing. What is the template used? I want to add it to US Route 322.Bubby33 (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bubby33: {{mileposts}}. Imzadi 1979 → 03:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for a way to resolve Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 30#List of exits on Interstate 5 without disambiguating, and I believe the best solution would be to include direct links to the detailed exit list tables from the junction list. There is a reasonable expectation to find it there, so including the direct link there would make those tables less hidden in case a reader is unaware they can find it in the state article (or may not know how to navigate there easily). I offer two formats for your consideration: option #1 has the link in a see also template and option #2 is a bit sleeker by folding it into the State header. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 breaks the formatting of the listing for screen readers. (The ; and : formatting is actually a definition list, which we're using for these summary lists.) Option 2 contradicts MOS:BOLD, which says that we aren't supposed to bold a link.

At best, if we need to put links to the article sections, it should be at the top of the section as a single {{see also}} hatnote, but honestly, I don't think we need it at all. Each state-detail article is already linked as {{main}} links in the route description section.

That redirect dates back to 2007 when there was still uncertainty on how to handle multi-state exit list table for WP:SIZE concerns, and the project ultimately decided to do individual exit lists in the state-detail articles. At one point, the redirect would have needed to be retained for licensing reasons when the content was moved, but those tables were totally rebuilt long ago with the {{jctint}} suite of templates, removing the need to retain it. I don't think it's a likely search term since the more likely search will be for the highway itself, a much shorter term than the redirect. It's not needed and unhelpful now, so that redirect should be deleted and others link it shouldn't be created where currently missing, which is most of the Interstates in the US. Imzadi 1979 → 18:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]