Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Road junction lists/Archive 1

Exit lists

I am in full support of the standards here, although it will take work to implement (that may not occur until the NC stuff finishes in October!) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

General comments

• County column: Maybe this should be optional? I feel it is unnecessary for urban Interstate Highways.
• Destinations column: Normally this would be either a route number/road name, a location/control city, or both. The example separates these with a dash. Would this be the standard? I'm inclined to insert a line break rather than a dash.
• Mile column: I've been using the location of the road crossing here instead of the location of the ramp. I don't know if we need to specify this or not since different state DOTs might do it differently.
• Inter-state state highway link appearance: The use of the state postal abbreviation for state highways is not used in all states. This practice might actually be a roadgeek invention. I think we should stick to a commonly used abbreviation instead. Plus, since the exit lists are already separated by state, it is probably unnecessary for the vast majority of links.

--Polaron | Talk 00:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll reply to each bullet separately. For the county column, I see no harm in using it for all Interstates, personally.

For the destinations, the dash would be the standard. Using a dash rather than a line break helps to keep the table small (vertically) by limiting the amount of lines that are used. This isn't an issue when talking about I-590, for example, but it becomes a big issue for an Interstate like I-86 with hundreds of exits.

For the milepost, I think either method works. As you said, different state DOTs measure this differently, so it may be ill-advised to specify an exact location.

For the link, I could support the common abbreviation provided that the road shield is present and that the exit list is broken down by state as specified in the standard. --TMF ^{T - C} 01:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's my input on Polaron's comments:

I agree with TMF regarding the county and destinations columns.

I think whatever good, reliable source you can find for the mileages would be adequate. I have found an excellent source for Ohio, but as a result have deemed my mapping software to be far inferior, and less than accurate. So unless you can find something official, it's all going to be a bit subjective, IMHO.

I both agree and disagree on the recommendation to use official 2-letter state abbreviations. I disagree in regards to certain states where this abbreviation is not used for the routes; however, if an exit near the state line serves a state highway in the neighboring state, this could pose a problem. This could be handled on a case-by-case basis, I suppose, since it is rare.

My remaining two cents: sub-signed destinations (other destinations not on the main exit signs) can be included in the notes column. Also, some states have historical exit numbers (all interstates in Pennsylvania, and the Turnpike in Ohio are examples), in which case the header row can be 2 rows high, allowing the exit column to be split into 2 columns under a single header – Interstate 80 (Pennsylvania)#Exit List is an example. — Homefryes ^Say•_Do 12:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

All of the above concerns (by both Polaron and Homefryes) have been addressed. Check out the project page and feel free to voice any remaining concerns (or concerns created by my changes =) ) here. --TMF ^{T - C} 14:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose if county is really all that important it can be included... I'm looking at Interstate 290 (Illinois)#Interchanges and seeing a very long, empty leftmost column once it gets converted that way, though. That's all the result of table design more than anything else.

I also agree that the two-letter state abbreviations are somewhat arbitrary... I've always preferred the whole state name, if you're going to use it at all.

Regarding in-state highways with out-of-state exits (even something like I-94's Chicago exit to I-57 - Memphis, Tennessee), my rule of thumb has always been, "If you can get it confused, put states on everything."

What's wrong with bodies of water? We use them as notable navigation points up here. (Traffic congestion is reported from Addison Creek to the Des Plaines River...) If you live someplace with dozens of rivers spanning a delta, I can understand, but we only have three, and a couple of notable creeks. —Rob (talk) 12:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose full names can be used in place of abbreviations. I'd say my main gripe against it, though, would be redundancy (seeing "Illinois Route ..." for example, 20 times rather than "IL X" or "Illinois X"). Also, see this passage from WP:USSH:

For the junction list, use a short form of the common name or an officially used abbreviation as the displayed text.

For all purposes, an exit list is a junction list, so this (the exit list) guide is governed by this section. Whether or not "Illinois X" is a common abbreviation or not is beyond me (as I do not live in IL), but the text above effectively prohibits the full name of the route from being used.

As for the water bodies, I included that provision based on the general consensus at WT:IH regarding water bodies in exit lists. --TMF ^{T - C} 19:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

A few other questions/comments: (1) Should we indicate Interstate highway crossings that have no interchange? I don't know how common that is but it's something we might want to include. (2) Do we separate exits by exit number or by interchange? Some exits may have the same number for different interchanges. Some exits may have different numbers for the same interchange. (3) How do we format the table if the exit sign lists both the road name and the route number, e.g. "NY 120A/King Street"? (4) I think it might also be useful to more clearly indicate concurrencies. Right now we just put the information in the notes column but sometimes it might be useful to see concurrencies at a glance. --Polaron | Talk 16:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Some more: (3a) If two road names are given for the same route number, e.g. "I-95/Bruckner Expwy/CBX Expwy", how should we format? What about two road names but only one of the road names is for the listed route number? (5) How do we format directional exits, e.g. " I-84 East" or "East I-84" or some other style? (6a) Should toll barriers be listed for tolled Interstate highways and how should it be displayed? (6b) How about rest areas/service areas? --Polaron | Talk 16:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

1. I don't think we should, personally. That's fine for a junction list, but not for a list of interchanges, as an exit list is.

2. I'd say by exit number, though I know exactly the problem you're describing. I ran into this many times when making an exit list for New York State Route 440. I'll reformat that list sometime today to look a bit better as I think the "split interchanges" can be shown better then they currently are on NY 440.

3. An example of this can be found in the Examples section on the proposal page. Exit 2 on I-590 in reality reads as follows: Monroe Ave./Pittsford. See the example for how I formatted that row.

3a. If two road names are given, I'd say include both of them, using the method described in (3).

4. This is a very good point. Perhaps something like I did on NY 440 to show the NY 440/I-278 concurrency would work?

5. I think a couple of methods could work for this purpose. One such method is found in the Examples on the proposal page, exit 64 on I-80. Here, to show the exit leads only to PA 66 southbound, a "South" plate is used. Otherwise, I'd use I-84 East.

6a. I'd say yes. The best example I've seen is on the New York State Thruway, with an all-column row indicating the barrier.

6b. Not unless the area itself has historical significance (example: the Thruway Authority, along with outside help, is building a rest area containing a museum dedicated to the Erie Canal and one of the original Erie Canal locks along I-90 near Syracuse).

Hope that helps. --TMF ^{T - C} 17:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the guide to cover all of the points touched on above. --TMF ^{T - C} 01:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Mileposts

The mile post number shouldn't be included on all of them. This would be redundant with the Exit number in most states. Also, the location field is a bit unclear, are these just exits that fall in the city limits of a city? --Holderca1 17:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The mile post number is not redundant, for this reason: even though there states that use mile-based exit numbering, this is not a good indicator of where the exit is, as exit numbers have a precision of zero places (ex. 127). The milepost column provides for a more precise measurement (ex. 127.3). For the location field, it could be just for areas within city limits or it can be for towns, villages, etc. as well. It can also be blank if it's not located near anything or is in the middle of nowhere. --TMF ^{T - C} 19:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well 95% of the time, the mile post and exit number will be the same, in rural areas, the most precise mile post is to the zero place. Do we leave it blank in these instances? --Holderca1 23:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's an idea for those cases: the milepost and exit # columns can be joined using a "colspan" in the coding. For example, here's a hypothetical exit in the Dallas area:

County	Location	#	Mile	Destinations	Notes
Dallas	Dallas	284		I-30

I see no harm in doing the above to eliminate redundancy. Additionally, something like this

County	Location	# Mile	Destinations	Notes
Dallas	Dallas	284	I-30

could work as well. --TMF ^{T - C} 23:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, another thing, had to scout this out this morning to be sure. Even in urban areas in Texas, the most precise milepost is to the nearest mile (at least in San Antonio, may not be true for DFW or Houston), and that is just on interstates. On US 90, a freeway in the San Antonio metro area, there are no mile posts or exit numbers, not entirely surprising since I believe Texas was the last state to put exit numbers of any kind on interstate exits. So, Texas may be the unique example of where there are no more precise milepost then the exit number themselves, and on state and US highways, there are no mileposts or exit numbers at all. --Holderca1 15:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

In the case of TX US/State highways, I'd leave the exit/mile column blank. This way, it conveys the fact that there are no mileposts/exit numbers present. By omitting the column, it leaves the reader guessing as to whether or not we omitted the column because of a lack of mileposts/exit numbers or because we didn't feel like adding the column. =) --TMF ^{T - C} 18:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You can calculate it if there's GIS map data for the state, but that may be a very, very long time coming. ArcView just isn't that convenient for this particular usage. For example, U.S. 45 runs up and down the state of Illinois through about 15-20 counties. I would have to look at every county, find the mileposts for U.S. 45 (if U.S. 45 turns in a county, which it does in Cook County - three times - the mileposts reset at each turn), and then keep a running total. I keep a copy in Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Lengths/Illinois, but I'm not working 3rd shift for a while, and that's the only time I have time to work on this particular aspect. —Rob (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This was my reason for initially making the mileposts column mandatory over at WT:IH (although, admittedly, I forgot to mention this during this go-around). Even if tenth-marker mileposts aren't present, they can still be calculated manually, whether it be by looking at a map, trip-planning software, GIS data, etc. So, really, there's no reason to say that no tenth-marker mileposts exist, as they do exist by way of manually calculating them. I will not rescind my prior comments though - if someone wants to use some of the methods shown above in the situations mentioned above, go ahead. --TMF ^{T - C} 18:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't that violate WP:NOR? That still doesn't answer the question about exit lists for non-interstate highways. There are no mileposts, you can't just makeup what you think the milepost would be. --Holderca1 19:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If it does, then so be it. Personally though, I don't buy it. It's not as if the mileposts that would be calculated are arbitrary. --TMF ^{T - C} 19:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Original research would possibly apply to using your odometer, but not by using GIS data. —Rob (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I think adding mileposts could add too much information into the article. Unless the highway doesn't use mile-based exits, why do we actually need mileposts? If Exit 173 is located at 173.4 or 173.8, why does it really matter? Once I hit Mile 173, I should be off the highway within a minute or so. --MPD01605 (T / C) 19:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Mostly because I can, but also because A-B exits should be clarified. Or A-I exits. —Rob (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, they are all sequential anyway, i.e. Exit 3A comes before Exit 3B. I agree that it seems like a lot of extra work to find the mileposts for the reward achieved. See Interstate 10 in Texas, could you imagine how long it will take to mapquest from exit to exit to get the mileage? -Holderca1 04:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Closing date for initial proposal

If no one objects, I'll place an October 14 (at 11:59 PM UTC) closing date for consensus-collecting for the initial proposal. That way, if anyone still has questions/concerns about the proposal over the next week or two, then these can still be discussed. --TMF ^{T - C} 15:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This proposal is now a guideline. Further changes should be discussed here on the talk page. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 03:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Small-capsing directions

You can use {{scaps}} to make the directions appear in small caps. For example, Interstate 40 East. This helps set off the direction from the rest of the text, and also mimics how the direction appears on signs. (For non-CSS browser, the text will appear normally.) —Scott5114↗ 05:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the look of that. Good find. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 19:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't this violate Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Directions and regions? --NE2 23:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I've seen, directions on exit lists have always been capitalized here on Wikipedia, so this was included as part of the guide. As for that manual, honestly, I don't think many people knew it even existed. With that said, I'll reserve further comment on this issue for when others comment on this. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 00:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Umm... I'm relatively sure I've seen both east and East. But I think the latter is an older style, with the former being preferred. I would personally prefer east over EAST, because the proportions are closer. —Rob (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to note that on physical road signs, the cardinal direction is always capitalized (even with the new Clearview type face), but I don't know if that applies here. —Rob (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I think East is a relatively newer style for the signs. I remember this style started to appear in PA in the early to mid 1990's. It's also the style I found at 2004 edition of Standard Highway Signs when I created some of the directional signs which can be found here. As a side question, does anyone know where to find the new Clearview font, and is that what PA is using on their newer exit signs? — Homefryes ^Say•_Do 10:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a fairly recent thing: [1] --NE2 15:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Order of mileage and exit number columns

I recently added an exit list table to Interstate 77 in Virginia, and the order of the mileage and exit number columns doesn't seem right. The most important information is the exit number and destination, so I would place the current exit number just to the left of the destinations. Obviously the old exit numbers would be to the left of those, and the mile column after location.

Is there a standard separator between highways and destinations? I used a slash when there's an overlap and a comma otherwise; the guide here uses a slash between any routes and a comma between destinations. Is this the intended usage? What happens if a street name applies to more than one route, or several street names apply to one route? --NE2 23:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want to flip the mileposts and the exit numbers, that's fine. As for the second question, yes, this is the intended usage. If multiple names apply in a scenario, then include all of the names, within reason. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 00:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Exit numbers

I've been adding cross-column rows to indicate when exit numbers change (see Interstate 77 in Virginia). Is this a practice we can continue? I think it helps majorly so that instead of just seeing the major concurrency, it's very clear that the exit numbers change. Comments? --MPD01605 (T / C) 16:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I can put a little sentence or two about this into the ELG if needed, as this is the best way to show exit number sequences that are altered by a concurrency. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 18:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was different (this one) until it was edited. But yeah either way, a note for that is important. --MPD01605 (T / C) 19:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

When I responded, the most recent edit wasn't made yet, so I was referring to your version (which looks slightly better than the current one, I might add). Aside from that, I'll add a note to the "scenario" section. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 19:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Umm... see Kennedy Expressway#Interchanges for what I've been doing. Basically I have the little sign that says "This exit and all following ones use this interstate." Not ideal, so I may switch over, but give me your opinions regardless. :-) Also, this is where the "Cook" and "Chicago" in the left two columns look really odd - and I'm still 6-7 exits from being done. :-p —Rob (talk) 11:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

That looks pretty good. I would think that lists that aren't one specific interstate like I-77 or I-40 would be very difficult because of the changes in exits, but you figured out a pretty good way to indicate that. I like it for non-dedicated expressways. --MPD01605 (T / C) 15:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Use of small caps

Since it came up in Wikipedia:Peer review/Interstate 295 (Delaware-New Jersey)/archive1, I thought I would bring it up here. Why is it necessary to use {{scaps}}? More so, why is it listed in the guideline when the discussion listed above didn't show any clear consensus, and none of the three examples at the bottom actually use it? (The third one has directions without using scaps, the others leave out the directions entirely.) The issue with using {{scaps}}, as brought up in the peer review, is that it's unencyclopedic. It's our job to provide information in a formal and encyclopedic manner, not to replicate signage.

My personal preference would be to leave out directions when they're not necessary. In many cases, this can be done by combining an "A-B" exit into a single line, like Garden State Parkway, or more explicitly Palisades Interstate Parkway. In cases where it's not possible – IMHO, the "WEST" could be removed from Exit 139B on the GSP, but for the moment it's not – it should be a more MoS-friendly style, as NE2 had originally pointed out. I think it would be best to actually use "westbound" instead of simply "west", because while it's usually shortened to "west" in everyday speech, "westbound" seems more gramatically correct, and matches what is usually used in the "Notes" column.

Any thoughts? -- NORTH ^talk 09:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether the directions appear in small caps. Although it is true that I authored (most) of the guide, the use of small caps was added after an idea, not mine, was given to do so farther up this page. Since there was no one against it at the time, I put it in. That's about it for that explanation; not much more can be said. If we want to take that part out, I don't have a problem. The only usage of "scaps" that I've seen came about after this guide was penned (typed?), so it's not as if "scaps" was already being used for this purpose.

That said, I do have an issue with the second paragraph, although I had to read it a few times to determine what I didn't like. I agree with everything up to the suggestion to use "westbound" instead of "west". I see the reasoning behind it, but I don't believe the application of this reasoning in this situation makes sense. <opinion> The reason that "bound" is used in the notes column is that, for example, "east only" sounds bad while "eastbound only" sounds fine. On the other hand, "NY 33 east" sounds fine while "NY 33 eastbound", although correct, seems a bit long-winded and unorthodox. When I give/receive directions, I never use/hear "... eastbound", only "... east". </opinion> If community consensus overrides this opinion, so be it, but there's my $.02. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 00:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem whether or not scaps is used; in my opinion it improves the presentation of the information without affecting either the accessibility or readability of the information. Whether or not it's first-initial capitalized is an argument I'd rather not have or contribute to.

As for east vs. eastbound... I haven't really come up with anything uniform myself, other than eastbound (or it's abbreviation EB) only appears in the Notes column. I think at some point I even did something like "Northbound I-294 merges into I-94 WB" so that there was some sort of a consistent pattern, but that's far from a written guideline. —Rob (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with northbound being used in that context: it's the use of "bound" in the destinations box that irks/would irk me. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 02:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this goes with why it's "West I-52" or "North I-67", on signs, banners, etc. I think northbound and eastbound refer to more to the roadway itself. "Go west on I-40 until you get to Greensboro", "Take I-40 west until you get to Greensboro", "Follow I-40 westbound until you get to Greensboro, then take Highway 6 to get to US 29 North." I think the -bound can more describe the physical road. "The northbound lanes of US 29/US 70 are closed", even though US 70 is travelling east at that point. In context in the article, either way is fine as long as there's consistency. In the exit list, it should just be the cardinal direction. Whether scaps is used, I agree with Rob that it improves the presentation without affecting the substance. Plus, if we use the direction banners above the shield, we still need directions, because you should always put in words what you have in images.

On the subject of A & B splitting though, I think it should always be split, along with C & D, et cetera. If not, then you get into "well, if A & C are the exits for the road one direction, but it's A & B in the other, but B & C are for different roads depending on the direction being travelled..." then the question becomes how to present that information. Or when a designation ends at an interchange but the road continues "I-152 South / US 46A West - Centreville; US 46A East - Northton". Splitting them up with directions - scaps or not - is beneficial, even if it's just I-40 East on one line and I-40 west on another. The only reason I see mentioning "Split into A (west) and B (east) southbound" is if it's only Exit 167 in the northbound direction. Also, I don't like the mention of "clockwise entrance/counterclockwise exit" because it's a tad confusing (entrance from the road or to the road? Likewise with the exit?" --MPD ^{T / C} 05:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with not using "bound" in the destinations column: "take I-95 north to Route 47 east" is common phrasing. --NE2 10:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

So is there a consensus to use "east" instead of "East" or "East"? If so, that's all I truly cared about, things like A & B splitting and east v. eastbound can be done according to personal preference as long as things are kept clear. -- NORTH ^talk 09:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

In the prose int he article? I think yes, we have consensus to use "east". However...in an exit list or other table, I still think that it should be capitalized or all smallcaps uncapitalized. "East" or "east" because...well I don't really know why; it's just my preference and what I think looks good. If we want to go uncapitalized, but say we can use smallcaps in the exit list and such, that is more uniform than having it capitalized here or there. --MPD ^{T / C} 18:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not being proposed to "have it capitalized here or there", but to not capitalize directions anywhere (except at the beginning of a sentence). Directions are not proper nouns, so the only capitalized option would be small-caps with no big first letter, but even that doesn't have a purpose except looking like signs. --NE2 18:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying. No capitalization of directions. In the exit list though, I support smallcaps. I think it enhances readability of the information. --MPD ^{T / C} 20:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how State Route 168 north has "enhanced readability" over State Route 168 north. --NE2 20:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, just to be clear, this discussion is about not using {{scaps}} in the exit list. That's why I brought it to the talk page of the exit list guide. I, too, don't really see how small caps enhances (or for that matter harms) readability. I think the issue, more so than anything else, is that there's no reason to go against MoS and use capitalization. Yes, it replicates signage, but that's not our job; our job is to provide information. It would be a good idea if you wanted an exit list on your personal website to look cute, but not for an encyclopedia. -- NORTH ^talk 23:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, still pretty indifferent here. It's almost impossible to say what should or shouldn't be in an encyclopedia, since the last article about roads I ever read in a paper encyclopedia was limited to the World Book version of road. But if I have to make a point about it, I'll do my best.

I prefer scaps to break up the style between the road and direction, and its destination. Currently this is only done via a short dash, or an mdash (—). Waaaay back when I didn't even want exit lists in articles, I thought about breaking up the route and the destination into separate columns. If that were the case, scaps would be unwarranted. But since we have a generic "Destinations" column, I'd rather have the route be one style, and the destinations be capitalized regularly.

In short, scaps helps break apart the information and makes it look better. :-) —Rob (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the arguments presented above, I agree with Northenglish and NE2 on this issue. I'd add something to supplement their argument, but they've put it better than I can. Regarding the separation of the road and destination into two columns: that makes no sense to me, personally. Why should two columns exist for the same category of information; that is, the info displayed on guide signs for the exit? I've seen this style used before on Wikipedia and, to be honest, I hated it. That design was one of the reasons that I pressed for a standard guide to be made in the first place. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 02:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

All right, I'll avoid using {{scaps}} from now on, but I'd rather someone with AWB take care of what's out there. What about the directional shields, then? Or the gratuitous use of Image:spacer.gif and its relatives? —Rob (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The directional shields/spacers should stay provided the appropriate text (the direction shown on the plate) is also present. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 19:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll do an AWB run soon if no one objects, changing all instances of scaps|direction or "TO" to lowercase. I'll then take case of more complicated cases by hand. --NE2 19:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. For the good of the project, right? I do still think that scaps "TO" is fine since it could get lost otherwise, but I have a feeling I'm alone on this. What about changing scaps "TO" to an allcaps "TO"? --MPD ^{T / C} 20:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The point is that it's a phrase... Route 65 north to I-58. I don't see how a "to" would get "lost" here anyway. --NE2 20:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, the above (hypothetical) situation would appear as

Route 65 north/To I-58 - Somewhere, Anywhere

so I agree with NE2 that no information is lost. The only possible alternative could be to capitalize the "T" (To I-58). Capitalizing the "T" does make more sense in this situation. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

"To I-58" is a separate phrase, so I would capitalize phrases. —Rob (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

So you'd add periods: "Route 65 north. To I-58."? --NE2 21:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Currently, we have

I-240/US 74 Alternate West, to I-26 West - East Asheville, Asheville

Which unscaped, would look like

I-240/US 74 Alternate west, to I-26 west - East Asheville, Asheville

And I think should look like

I-240/US 74 Alternate west, To I-26 West - East Asheville, Asheville

I do think the "To" looks better capitalized. --MPD ^{T / C} 21:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not grammatically correct to capitalize the "to" there. --NE2 21:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, why isn't US 74 Alternate linked? --NE2 21:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I would skip the commas entirely. For instance, on the new exit list for I-78 in NJ, I did "CR 523 to CR 517" as well as "US 1/9 south to US 22".

My guess is US 74 Alternate isn't linked entirely because there's not a separate article on the alternate route yet. However, it would probably be better to include the word "Alternate" in the link, and direct it to the US 74 article using either piping or a redirect. -- NORTH ^talk 22:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to go this route, please do it with a redirect and optionally tag the redirect with template:R with possibilities; otherwise it's not easy to find which links need to be changed when an article is created. --NE2 22:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If there is no comma, there is no need to capitalize and I agree. I just copied what we had already. And yes, as of when the exit list was made, there was no US 74 Alternate article now. However, since I suppose I was the original to object, go ahead and run AWB for scaps and eliminate them, if we each take care of the articles that we normally take care of, we can eliminate commas and stuff as we run across them. I'll have plenty of time next week to just sit and do that. --MPD ^{T / C} 02:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I just did a test run; any comments? --NE2 03:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Two things though, and I didn't do it I swear. Excerpt from Interstate 66

County	Municipality	Exit	Destination	Notes
Virginia
Frederick - Warren Boundary		1	Interstate 81 - Winchester, Roanoke
Warren	Front Royal	6	U.S. Route 340/U.S. Route 522 - Winchester, Front Royal
		13	State Route 79 TO State Route 55 - Linden
Fauquier		18	State Route 688
		23	U.S. Route 17 north/State Route 55 west - Delaplane, Paris	US 17 and SR 55 join eastbound and leave westbound

Could you run one to put a space between / and two routes (see exit 23), to read like "U.S. Route 17 north / State Route 55 west" and "U.S. Route 340 / U.S. Route 522". Less cluttered, easier to read so all words aren't up on each other. Or is that something we'll have to do manually? Also, I think I actually did write this originally, but I didn't know about scaps then. TO using HTML small code. since we're eliminating scaps, I'm guessing small allcaps TO isn't good either, so if we want to search for those, too. Or we can just fix them as we may see them. I'm not debating this, just saying it's out there. I don't mind doing things manually if AWB may cause too many problems (I don't know how AWB works). --MPD ^{T / C} 03:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't changing the spacing around slashes require consensus approval? Most of the lists I've seen use no spacing, and I personally prefer no spacing around slashes. Of course, the way things have gone today, it's not as if opinion matters... --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 03:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it matters that much, just as long as we don't get Interstate 5 Oceanside/ Escondido. (And I'm guilty of doing that in my own work but for more formal Wikipedia articles it looks bad.) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)

I agree with Rschen, but I don't really care. It's a personal thing for me, it's harder for me to actually read them when there's so many characters in a row. I've been using one space on either side when I write exit guides, just for legibility like I said, but I don't think it matters, honestly. If it's that big of a deal, let's not start it, forget I mentioned anything. Please. --MPD ^{T / C} 04:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I am strongly in favor of using scaps in exit lists, reading it, 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.e. Interstate 10 East, you wouldn't write "interstate 10 east" would you? While I agree directions are not proper nouns, the name of the roadway is. I also, strongly oppose the use of the directions with the shields, it just looks bad, unless someone wants to create a single image with it flush with the shield, don't use it. --Holderca1 14:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I prefer using scaps for this reason as well. I-44 in Oklahoma City has exits for N.E. 10th St. West. Using scaps (N.E. 10th St. West) makes things less ambiguous (north-east-west-wtf?) Plus, by replicating the small-caps convention in use on road signs, we convey the meaning to the reader, who, though they might not know or care about signage standards, will at least subconsciously recognize it. That's good design, which isn't unencyclopedic at all. —Scott5114↗ 21:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Exit list / Interchange placement

The implication given in the existing guide is that these belong in the Interstate X in Y pages. Is that correct? Or are we doing Interchanges on Interstate X?

Also, is the section name "Exit list" or "Interchanges"? —Rob (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

(Obviously, if it's an intrastate Interstate, it belongs in the main page.) —Rob (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. And also think about the fact that Interstate 76 in Nebraska probably will never exist. Since I-76 only rolls through Colorado out there, that's fine, but what about Interstate 74 in Iowa never existing? —Rob (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If a state-detail page exists, then the exit list for that state should go on that page. Otherwise, it goes on the main page. Only in extraordinary situations should a separate article exist solely for exits (List of exits on Highway 401 (Ontario)).

The section name should be "Exit list". --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 17:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Interstate 76 in Nebraska is like Interstate 66 in Washington DC. There are about 3 or 4 exits in DC, so they're just included in the same list as Virginia, which is on the main page. For I-76 (West), I'd just put I-80 in the exit list, and under notes add "in Nebraska" unless you want to create a subsection for one exit (like I-66). Don't forget I-5, it has its own exit page. The California exit list for I-5 is way too long - 750 some exits - to ever be on "I-5 in California" page, in my opinion. For I-74 and others....we'll just have to create the articles. I just looked at the map of I-74 in Iowa. Options: add the exits to Illinois, and redirect I-74 in Iowa to Illinois. Or, we start creating articles like Interstate 74 in Iowa and Illinois, but that seems a little much. --MPD ^{T / C} 17:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well Interstate 76 in Nebraska is a little different, it doesn't have any exits in Nebraska other than the end of it at I-80. Since it only exists in one other state, Colorado, it should be treated the same as an intrastate interstate. For the I-74 example, hmmm, maybe Interstate 74 in the Quad Cities? I don't know. Also, the Interstate 5 in California article doesn't even exist yet, so it would be hard to put the exit list on there. Interstate 10 in Texas has a longer exit list than I-5 in California (34 kb vs. 31 kb) and I don't think it looks bad in that article. --Holderca1 13:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move

We're moving this to Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Exit list guide. any objections? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)