504:
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.
274:
242:
522:: 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.
312:
253:
211:
346:
180:
260:
259:
252:
399:
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
681:
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
503:
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
398:
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
740:
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
454:
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.
393:
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
756:. 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.
442:
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
798:
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
837:
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
49:
779:
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?--
167:
163:
159:
155:
151:
147:
143:
139:
135:
572:
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.)
544:
If the difference between
Knowledge (XXG)'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.
365:
470:
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. –
617:
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?
34:
84:
642:, 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. -
247:
90:
706:. 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.
626:
464:
741:
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. –
359:
354:
273:
241:
171:
30:
17:
494:
79:
336:
321:
222:
703:
649:
70:
636:
790:
735:
693:
568:
I have converted the UK A14 to the standard format before realising there was a discussion on this. It is currently at
325:
286:
281:
329:
179:
130:
674:
369:
of
Knowledge (XXG)'s policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.
884:
847:
816:
793:
769:
748:
719:
696:
655:
607:
581:
553:
539:
513:
498:
477:
431:
412:
190:
194:
228:
810:
763:
713:
678:
427:
408:
400:
419:
60:
289:(MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.
100:
75:
422:, as it deals with application of the guidelines, not developing them, so I have reposted it there. --
875:
682:
20/21 junction is in the middle of however, and I feel meets the criteria for listing in the table.--
598:
530:
491:
324:
procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the
English Knowledge (XXG)
622:
577:
460:
483:
861:
745:
549:
509:
474:
195:
285:, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the
843:
805:
758:
708:
668:
423:
404:
56:
785:
730:
688:
311:
192:
395:
870:
593:
525:
488:
366:
guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of
Knowledge (XXG) policies
618:
587:
573:
456:
776:
753:
742:
644:
545:
519:
505:
471:
854:
839:
448:
444:
780:
725:
683:
569:
345:
353:
For information on Knowledge (XXG)'s approach to the establishment of new
204:
196:
25:
344:
310:
115:
108:
403:. I've invited the editor to join this discussion. --
632:I would've cross-referenced the articles using
221:does not require a rating on Knowledge (XXG)'s
8:
437:
339:carefully and exercise caution when editing.
295:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Manual of Style
724:Where is that sourcing consensus stated?--
662:Census designated places in junction lists
236:
389:How firm are the destination guidelines?
279:This page falls within the scope of the
238:
447:with the recently changed one on the
335:Contributors are urged to review the
7:
438:Keep 'British style' junction lists!
418:This discussion is better suited to
332:. Both areas are subjects of debate.
298:Template:WikiProject Manual of Style
210:
208:
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Manual of Style
227:It is of interest to the following
35:Manual of Style/Road junction lists
33:for discussing improvements to the
486:with the older style of tables. --
24:
55:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
272:
258:
251:
240:
209:
178:
50:Click here to start a new topic.
282:Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style
704:Talk:Washington State Route 20
1:
673:and I are in disagreement at
656:15:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
627:14:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
608:23:09, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
582:22:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
554:19:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
540:23:15, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
47:Put new text under old text.
833:Missing mile marker template
637:random british road template
514:00:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
499:00:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
478:23:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
465:22:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
885:03:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
901:
848:19:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
702:The main discussion is at
675:Washington State Route 20
320:This page falls under the
98:
817:00:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
794:00:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
770:16:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
749:16:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
720:16:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
697:16:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
352:
318:
267:
235:
85:Be welcoming to newcomers
301:Manual of Style articles
432:13:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
413:12:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
355:policies and guidelines
679:Pine Grove, Washington
484:accessibility concerns
401:Massachusetts Route 2A
349:
315:
80:avoid personal attacks
348:
330:article titles policy
314:
172:Auto-archiving period
590:: looks good to me.
350:
337:awareness criteria
322:contentious topics
316:
223:content assessment
91:dispute resolution
52:
381:
380:
377:
376:
373:
372:
203:
202:
71:Assume good faith
48:
892:
883:
880:
873:
866:
860:
813:
808:
788:
783:
766:
761:
733:
728:
716:
711:
691:
686:
677:over the use of
672:
652:
641:
635:
606:
603:
596:
538:
535:
528:
363:. Additionally,
303:
302:
299:
296:
293:
276:
269:
268:
263:
262:
261:
256:
255:
254:
244:
237:
214:
213:
212:
205:
197:
183:
182:
173:
118:
111:
26:
900:
899:
895:
894:
893:
891:
890:
889:
879:
876:
871:
868:
864:
858:
835:
811:
806:
786:
781:
764:
759:
731:
726:
714:
709:
689:
684:
666:
664:
654:
650:
639:
633:
602:
599:
594:
591:
534:
531:
526:
523:
482:There are also
440:
391:
326:Manual of Style
300:
297:
294:
292:Manual of Style
291:
290:
287:Manual of Style
257:
250:
248:Manual of Style
199:
198:
193:
170:
124:
123:
122:
121:
114:
107:
103:
96:
66:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
898:
896:
888:
887:
877:
834:
831:
830:
829:
828:
827:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
821:
820:
819:
751:
663:
660:
659:
658:
648:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
600:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
556:
532:
501:
439:
436:
435:
434:
390:
387:
385:
379:
378:
375:
374:
371:
370:
351:
341:
340:
334:
317:
307:
306:
304:
277:
265:
264:
245:
233:
232:
226:
215:
201:
200:
191:
189:
188:
185:
184:
126:
125:
120:
119:
112:
104:
99:
97:
95:
94:
87:
82:
73:
67:
65:
64:
53:
44:
43:
40:
39:
38:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
897:
886:
882:
881:
874:
863:
856:
852:
851:
850:
849:
845:
841:
832:
818:
815:
814:
809:
802:
797:
796:
795:
792:
789:
784:
778:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
768:
767:
762:
755:
752:
750:
747:
744:
739:
738:
737:
734:
729:
723:
722:
721:
718:
717:
712:
705:
701:
700:
699:
698:
695:
692:
687:
680:
676:
670:
661:
657:
653:
647:
646:
638:
631:
630:
629:
628:
624:
620:
609:
605:
604:
597:
589:
585:
584:
583:
579:
575:
571:
567:
566:
565:
564:
555:
551:
547:
543:
542:
541:
537:
536:
529:
521:
517:
516:
515:
511:
507:
502:
500:
497:
496:
493:
490:
485:
481:
480:
479:
476:
473:
469:
468:
467:
466:
462:
458:
452:
450:
446:
433:
429:
425:
421:
417:
416:
415:
414:
410:
406:
402:
397:
388:
386:
383:
368:
367:
362:
361:
356:
347:
343:
342:
338:
333:
331:
327:
323:
313:
309:
308:
305:
288:
284:
283:
278:
275:
271:
270:
266:
249:
246:
243:
239:
234:
230:
224:
220:
216:
207:
206:
187:
186:
181:
177:
169:
165:
161:
157:
153:
149:
145:
141:
137:
134:
132:
128:
127:
117:
113:
110:
106:
105:
102:
92:
88:
86:
83:
81:
77:
74:
72:
69:
68:
62:
58:
57:Learn to edit
54:
51:
46:
45:
42:
41:
36:
32:
28:
27:
19:
869:
836:
804:
800:
757:
707:
669:SounderBruce
665:
643:
616:
592:
524:
487:
453:
449:M56 motorway
445:M53 motorway
441:
424:Ken Gallager
405:Ken Gallager
392:
384:
382:
364:
358:
319:
280:
229:WikiProjects
219:project page
218:
175:
129:
29:This is the
872:Imzadi 1979
595:Imzadi 1979
527:Imzadi 1979
360:WP:PROPOSAL
357:, refer to
570:sandboxA14
328:, and the
862:mileposts
801:site-wide
619:Robertm25
588:Robertm25
574:Robertm25
457:RichardHC
101:Shortcuts
93:if needed
76:Be polite
31:talk page
803:policy.
743:Fredddie
645:Floydian
520:Moabdave
472:Fredddie
131:Archives
61:get help
855:Bubby33
840:Bubby33
807:Sounder
760:Sounder
710:Sounder
420:WT:USRD
176:15 days
396:WP:RJL
225:scale.
116:WT:RJL
109:WT:ELG
812:Bruce
765:Bruce
715:Bruce
217:This
89:Seek
37:page.
16:<
844:talk
838:322.
777:WP:V
754:WP:V
623:talk
578:talk
550:talk
546:Dave
510:talk
506:Dave
495:7754
492:chen
461:talk
428:talk
409:talk
78:and
787:min
782:Kev
732:min
727:Kev
690:min
685:Kev
451:).
867:.
865:}}
859:{{
857::
846:)
640:}}
634:{{
625:)
580:)
552:)
512:)
489:Rs
463:)
430:)
411:)
174::
166:,
162:,
158:,
154:,
150:,
146:,
142:,
138:,
59:;
878:→
853:@
842:(
791:§
746:™
736:§
694:§
671::
667:@
651:¢
621:(
601:→
586:@
576:(
548:(
533:→
518:@
508:(
475:™
459:(
426:(
407:(
231::
168:9
164:8
160:7
156:6
152:5
148:4
144:3
140:2
136:1
133::
63:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
