Misplaced Pages

• WT:USRD

• If you would like to discuss the standards for route junction lists, please use WT:RJL,
• If you would like to request a map, please use WP:USRD/MTF/R,
• If you would like to request a route marker (shield), please use WP:USRD/S/R,
• Featured Article candidates, Good Article nominations, and deletion discussions are listed automatically within 24 hours at WP:USRD/AA and
• For all other comments or concerns, please post below.

  ---

Archives: Index, 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25
IH: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 • US: 1 · 2 · 3 • USAT: 1 • USRD/STDS: 1 • USRD/A: 1 • USRD/NT: 1

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25

The RFC here left very unconvincing results and ended in no consensus, with no end in sight to the decades-long debate of I-90 junctions. I think a clear discussion of how to connect policies and guidelines is needed here, especially with WP:OWNership of that article. RoadFan294857 (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how enforcing a guideline that has been in place for over a decade and used on hundreds of articles equates to ownership of a single article by a single person. I'll repeat what I said in the RFC. The point of the "10 junctions limit" is to keep the infobox at a manageable length so it doesn't crowd the body of the article. Maybe some of the longer road articles could support more than 10 and still keep the infobox from crowding out the article prose, I don't know. I think it would be a stronger argument to propose an alternative guideline and create sandbox copies of some o f our longer road articles with different infoboxes to demonstrate. I think that would be a more effective way to convince me. However what won't convince me is arguing for a one off exception to a guideline that's been in place for this long and on this many articles. As also I stated in the RFC, I'm so burned out on cleaning up after people who insert random junctions in the infobox that if I do vote to change the guideline I need to be convinced it's more workable, not less workable, or a one off special exemption. Otherwise, my vote will be to rid the infoboxes of the major junctions entirely. Dave (talk) 00:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I would probably come up with a guide regarding which highways should be included in the infobox. Here are my ideas:

• streets/roads without a signed state highway or with a signed non-controlled-access county highway should not be included unless the route begins/ends at the said street/road (e.g. eastern terminus of Interstate 72).
• include Interstates, U.S. routes, and state routes.
  • Examples: Interstate 394 and M-10 (Michigan highway)
  • This entry generally applies to short highways and local streets (local streets are beyond the scope of WP:USRD).
• otherwise, include Interstates, U.S. routes, and controlled/limited-access state routes.
  • Examples: Illinois Route 83 and U.S. Route 101 in California
• otherwise, only include Interstates and U.S. routes.
  • Examples: Illinois Route 1, U.S. Route 400, Interstate 41, and Interstate 90 in Indiana
• otherwise, only include Interstates (primary and auxiliary highways)
  • Examples: Interstate 10 in Texas and Interstate 76 (Ohio–New Jersey)
• otherwise, only include primary Interstates
  • Examples: Interstate 39 and Interstate 81
• otherwise, only include primary major Interstates (generally I-X0 or I-X5)
  • Examples: U.S. Route 6, Interstate 40 (except for the inclusion of I-27), and Interstate 90
  • This entry generally applies to some of the longest highways in the US.

Again, these are just my ideas for creating some sort of guide. AlphaBeta135talk 13:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I use a basic method, balancing a couple of considerations. The termini are always listed, period. For the intermediate junctions, I use a combination of:

1. Prioritize by classifications: list all junctions with roadways of the same or higher classification, county road < state highway < US Highway < Interstate Highway; special routes may be one level lower than their parent.
2. Prioritize by physical configuration: undivided highway < divided highway < expressway < freeway, dropping the lower classifications.
3. Prioritize by geography, making sure they're spaced out.
4. Prioritize by number, dropping less major designations of a classification. For US Highways, 2dUS numbers outrank 3dUS, and 2dUS that end in 1 or 0 are major. For Interstates, 2dIs outrank 3dIs, and 2dIs that end in a 5 or 0 are major. Another way to judge is by the length of the intersecting highway; longer intersecting highways win over shorter ones.

Imzadi 1979 → 21:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

In that case, I'd say I-87 is better then the second I-80 junction, since I-87 is in the state of New York, which has no junctions, and I-75 already has an intersection in Ohio. Plus, we should not have the same interstate repeat twice.--RoadFan294857 (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

What is your ultimate goal? Is it to change the guidelines to allow for more than 10 junctions on longer articles? Or is it to keep the 10 junction guideline, but replace some of the ones currently listed?Dave (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Personaly I'd prefer if we allowed more then ten, especially on highways over 3,000 miles - I feel that the amount of junctions allowed should be somewhat proportional to the length of the road. --RoadFan294857 (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

As luck would have it, an IP vandal provided us with a preview of what the infobox would look like with a lot more junctions. Here the infobox is indeed too long. It's causing stacking on my monitor with the table of contents (yes I still use the "old" skin. I don't like the Vector 2022 makeover) and the state lengths table. But is there an old revision that has, say 11 or 12 junctions we could look at? I'm not opposed to the idea that longer articles could have more junctions. But as I stated in the RFC, as problematic as this has been, we need a rock solid wording to the guideline, as I can guarantee you as soon as we say "ok these articles can have more" we'll have a rush of people adding more junctions to even short highway articles. Dave (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with leaving everything as status quo. By adding more junctions to the infobox, it makes everything too long and cluttered. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 05:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It's worse on the new skin. That length of infobox on my screen pushes the first photo almost to the end of the first RD subsection.

I understand that 10 junctions is an arbitrary limit, but as Dave says, if we allow some articles to go to 12, people will put 12 in any article. I think for a while we silently allowed 11 on US 1 or I-95, but current revisions put them back at 10. Imzadi 1979 → 05:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Not only that, but if something like that happens, there might be a higher chance of edit-warring on the articles with subject A saying "There needs to be more than 10!" and subject B saying "No! It needs to cap at 10!" I'm not sure, but edit-warring will definitely increase if this happens. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 05:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

As said in the RFC, I dont think leaving the status quo that is widely objected to is a good idea. --RoadFan294857 (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Notes

1. ^ unless such list would exceed ten junctions