Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Standards/Layout archive

Major intersections

What constitutes the definition of "major intersection" as utilized in the interstate infobox? There's a little back and forth editing at Interstate 80 in Nebraska and I just wanted some clarity on the style rule there. • Freechild'sup? 03:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

On state specific interstate articles I would say only intersections with other freeways, but keep it to less than 10 max. So if you have to start cutting them, cut state highways first, than US highways, than 3 digit interstates. Bottom line, if it's not a freeway, it shouldn't be in an interstate's infobox. --Holderca1 14:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

History & route description swap?

From my experience at looking at Wikipedia articles that relate to different subjects, I have been noticing that most articles have some sort of a history or history section right after the lead. I am thinking about doing the same for road articles (see Kansas Turnpike, the winning formula), but I want some opinions before this gets implemented. O₂ (息 • 吹) 10:33, 05 November 2007 (GMT)

When the history is more interesting than the route description, it might make sense; in general I think you should describe what is before describing how it got there however. If you want a "winning formula" counterexample, Ridge Route has the description first. --NE2 11:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with the general point - I've always assumed history sections are where they are because we have so many (so, so many) one-line histories. A lot of off-the-net research will have to be done to bulk them up. —Rob (talk) 12:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Kansas Turnpike had the bulk of work put into it before the section guidelines went into place. It should probably be switched. Up to a few months ago, instead of Route description the section was titled Routing. I agree with NE2 here, describe what is before what was. —Scott5114↗ 13:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with NE2 as well; the description of the actual road has to precede any history of it for it to make any sense in my opinion. In many cases, history sections make references to the current alignment; by placing the route description after the history, it creates a situation where the current alignment would have to be described twice for the reader to fully understand the article. Placing the history after the route description eliminates the need for redundancy. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 16:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Although if you look at the source primarily used for the Ridge Route article, the page numbers used for the history section come before the page numbers used for the route description. --Holderca1 17:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, I had thought we had the history section first already. That is how I have been doing articles. Just thought it made sense to do things chronologically. There should be a basic route description in the lead anyway. A few examples of non-road articles, all with history sections prior to current day: George W. Bush, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Canada. --Holderca1 13:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This can go either way. If you want to sort it in terms of importance, do the route description and then the history. If you want to sort it chronologically, reverse the two. If there's already a manual of style entry on this, there's a lot of reordering to be done... —Rob (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Which comes first as far as importance could vary by article as well. Route 66 for example, I wouldn't think the route description would be the most important. Which route would you use, the route it had when it was decommissioned? The route it had for the longest period of time? Another possibility is to merge these two sections. Technically speaking, the route description is part of the history. This would cut down on redundancy as well, because regardless of which section is first, the basic routing is going to be repeated. The lead section should be giving the reader a basic description of the route anyways such as the route goes from here to there passing there town A, B, and C. The reader shouldn't be going into the body of the text completely blind. --Holderca1 ^talk 18:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks all for your input. However, as this would apply to regular articles that aren't developed as much yet, how would this be applied to turnpike articles? Do we swap the sections then, nuke the history section and merge it into route description, or perform another action? Attic Cat 18:42, 05 November 2007 (GMT)

This is true. If it is possible to merge the sections and come out with a compelling, sensible section, it's best to merge them, because history is an aspect of the route's description. I'd keep future sections separate and tag them accordingly with {{Future road}} though. —Rob (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't merge them unless keeping them separate results in an unfathomably high level of redundancy, which I have yet to come across in an article. I believe that different points in time are best kept separate. Otherwise, by merging them, you're really left with a one-section article, excluding the lead. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I also vehemently oppose any such merge on a large scale. As an aside, I'm also a bit surprised this discussion is occurring here, on a page that I didn't know existed until two days ago. But a link was posted on the high-traffic page, so that point is moot...but I just wanted to throw that out there. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, merging them would be a very bad idea. I would consider swapping them though because the Kansas Turnpike is a featured article, and all the other articles we have sent to WP:FAC have failed. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 21:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Like NE2 said above, Ridge Route is the counterexample to that, so that's a wash.

Hitting on a couple of points I've seen above, flipping could be beneficial in the case of routes that no longer exist like US 66. Then again, the RD-then-history approach did no harm to NY 47, so your mileage may vary. Also, I think Rob put it best above, the essential question is do we go with chronology or with importance. I'm of the mindset that importance, what's there now, should be more prominent and, thus, first. Just throwing some more items into the mix... --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

However, in the US 50 PR, it looks like the history is more interesting, and probably more suitable to be before the RD, since others think the RD reads like an index. So that is another question to be answered. O₂ (息 • 吹) 21:52, 06 November 2007 (GMT)

Then give the route description some life then. Obviously when most of the content is shipped to state-detail articles and the route description is written to be an index, as it is on US 50, it's going to read like an index. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to throw it out there, when Ridge Route was originally featured, the history section was the first section following the lead. It wasn't until the rewrite that the route description appeared first. --Holderca1 ^talk 21:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, we do have a lead section for a reason. It is not like non-road articles go directly to the history of the subject. For example, half of the lead of George W. Bush gives a summary of his presidency, then it goes into the first section about his early childhood. --Holderca1 ^talk 22:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if the lead had a quasi-route description, it would still be jarring to me to go through the history of a route first, explaining how it came to be, then describing the entirety of the route. I can't explain exactly how this is jarring in terms of road articles yet how it makes sense for articles such as the one on Dubya; I just can't find the words for it. But the feeling just isn't right. I mean, say a route was largely assigned to its current alignment upon initial designation. There's no other way to describe that then by describing its current alignment, which would make the route description by and large redundant and would wipe out an entire section of the article, which is significant in that we don't have that many to begin with. By placing the history after the route description, the current alignment can be referred to simply as the "current alignment" and the true history of the route (assignment dates, alignment) can be covered with little interference from the present time (attractions, progression of the route). To me, the present arrangement just seems right for the reasons I've listed both here and above. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed new sections

For turnpike articles, many of which need a lot of love, I propose adding two new standard sections: Services and Tolls. Services for covering the bonus features the turnpike has for motorists (service plazas, motorist aid hotlines, travel radio, and so forth) and tolls describing the amount and system of tolling (cost for entire length, cost per mile [maybe?], whether a ticket-based or screwier system is used, EZ-Pass acceptance or equivalents). Anyone have any objections to these, or any suggestions for where they are placed? (Kansas Turnpike has these sections but I think they could be ordered better.) —Scott5114↗ 22:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps some of this could be added to the infobox? particularly:

• hotlines and radio,
• ETC compatibility (e.g. EZPass)
• Toll collection system (ticket, barrier, electronic, etc)
• cost (entire length only)

master son^{T - C} 17:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I like that idea - I think we should go for it. If I knew coding better, I'd make a new version in by sandbox. --Son (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the hotlines/radio would belong in the infobox, or even in the article at all. The other information might work though; how about a single line:

Car toll: $3.50 total (E-ZPass accepted)

This would only be on articles about the toll roads themselves, not on others like Interstate 95 in New Jersey, unless the articles are merged (Interstate 95 in New Hampshire). --NE2 05:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Those seem like good sections, though if there's only a little to say it might fit better in the route description. --NE2 05:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, if you can't get two solid paragraphs out of it, it is probably best left in the route description. --Holderca1 ^talk 13:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

References/Notes

Rschen7754 has brought it to my attention that some members of this project may not be following the guideline at Wikipedia:Citing sources#Section headings. In particular the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Manual of Style#References may need to be realigned with Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout headings Notes, References and Further reading. --Bejnar (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"Recommended section names to use for footnotes in Wikipedia are:

• ==Notes==
• ==Footnotes==
• ==References==

Many editors use "Notes" as their preferred title for the footnotes section, as the same section can then hold both source citations as well general notes." from Wikipedia:Citing sources#Section headings

Addition explanation is at Wikipedia:Footnotes:

Place the <references /> tag or {{reflist}} tag in a "Notes" or "References" section near the end of the article—the list of notes will be generated here. (The choice between {{reflist}} and <references /> is a matter of style; Wikipedia does not have a general rule.)

For more detail see Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout headings Notes, References and Further reading. I note that the heading "References" is an ambiguous heading being used for either footnotes or general references or both. Personally, I seldom use the "Reference" heading except for the 1911 template and foreign Wikipedia as source template. I hope that this is considered as a constructive comment. --Bejnar (talk) 01:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally prefer "References" because it's less ambiguous, referring only to citations of sources. I avoid "Notes" and "Footnotes" because those seem to me to refer to things that you'd see set off in a book by asterisks or superscript numbers, which I don't think I've ever used, really. "Notes" is sometimes used as a holder for bullet points that don't fit in somewhere else, but as those are discouraged by Wikipedia guidelines anyway, they'll gradually disappear as articles are rehabilitated. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Scott, I pretty much use "References" exclusively since it is pretty clear as to what goes there. I have used the notes section for footnotes in list articles but not to list a reference but to make a not about an entry in a list. --Holderca1 ^talk 13:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I am talking about the ambiguity of the use of the field References. Some editors put their footnotes there and others put the alphabetical, or chronological, list of references there as one would at the end of a scientific paper. Some editors mix their list of references and their footnotes together. The Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout presents a very clear picture of best practices. --Bejnar (talk) 00:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh okay, I misunderstood, yes the References section should only list the references cited in the article, any foot notes should be put in a notes section. I do look for that during our A-Class reviews. --Holderca1 ^talk 00:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)