Talk:I-95 exit list

What is the difference between this new template and the traditional AFD template?? Georgia guy 19:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Namely that I just defeated the proposal for deletion (or will, after I post this, by removing the prod template) by my disagreement with deletion. An exit list for I-95 is relevant, is encouraged by WP:IH, but does not belong in the main article due to the length of the interstate (also per WP:IH). I'll also be bringing this list up at the I-95 talk page. --C.Fred 04:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the author writing again. If you have the time, check out my lists for I-90, I-5, and I-10 at I-90 exit list, I-5 exit list and I-10 Exit List. Feel free to comment and add things. Also, I was partially inspired for this article by the article for I-285, the Atlanta beltway, which has a great exit list complete with decals for Interstate and state routes. I don't know a thing about decals, so I would encourage editors with knowledge to go right ahead and add them if they can.

Table?

Pending the outcome on the I-95 talk page, should we begin organising the exits in a table by state? MPD01605 08:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes—pending the outcome of the discussion. Based on the current results, I'm going to check the by-state articles this afternoon and throw a merge-to template up on any with exit lists saying, "Hey, we're moving them off to the exit list article!" Then we can use any of those that are already wikified tables and edit the sections that aren't already set up. --C.Fred 13:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm the author. I was a bit concerned when you mentioned deletion, because I must confess I've gotten my information for this solely from other online exit lists. Is that all right? If so, does anybody know where I can find lists for North Carolina and Florida? Editors can feel free to add at will. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andyjay729 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC).

Um... please cite your sources. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The source of the information is not the issue in the debate. The issue is that some editors are of the opinion that the exit list is not notable and within the scope of Wikipedia. I disagree; I hate how hard it is to find an exit list online. I think it's a good resource. But yes, cite where the information came from. --C.Fred 00:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I did three new tables, VA, MD, and DE. I have to go but I'll work on some more later. I also flipped the states so that Florida is at the top, and Maine is at the bottom. The exits aren't flipped yet, I do that as I make the table. I actually enjoy doing this. I like this table because it's simple and straight to the point, and if they want a more comprehensive analysis of each interchange, they can visit the individual state articles, to which I will insert links as soon as I'm done. All that we need are exit lists for NC and FL, and we'll be set. Unless you see an error, let's not do anything major until we have exits done, eh? --MPD01605 17:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, and I'm in the process of creating shields for both state and county route shields of Virginia, state shields for Maryland, and missing delaware shields. These will be included into the tables when they're done. I'll make NC and SC shields as well. They're all simple geometric shapes. --MPD01605 17:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Exits

I don't want to rain on anybody's parade, but before we start tabling and formatting everything, we have to flip the entire list upside-down. I'm not going to start anything, as this is a pretty big project and I think we need to know what has to be done, and have it all planned out. MPD01605 01:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

True. Well there's a lot of things wrong with it really. Tables, wikify links, etc. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Flipping the lists is probably easier done now while it's in one-line-per-exit format. Then, it's a trivial unix command, if not a basic perl program. Build the table, and then it gets more fun. —C.Fred (talk) 04:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I put a table in New Hampshire's section. I think that will work very well. I...don't know how to flip the list. The table may complicate things, but no worries you can revert the article, flip it, and we can do it again (that's why I did the shortest one). When we do get into these, though, I would like to table the Virginia section. MPD01605 06:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

What will happen is, I'll flip everything but New Hampshire, and then that one will need to be done by hand. If I'm lucky, the data is in a manageable enough way that I can build a rudimentary table automatically. —C.Fred (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Redirecting

Please stop converting this page to a redirect. I've done work on exit lists too. It is salvagable. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Not without completely rewriting it. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

We need to put in tables, but I disagree with completely rewriting. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFC

There already exist more accurate exit lists on several articles such as Interstate 95 in New Jersey, and thus the page was edited to link to those to avoid a content fork. Several editors are reverting this for no apparent reason. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

--Looking at both pages it is easy to tell that the New Jersey 95 list is more comprehensive, and I believe this should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mickey.herman (talk • contribs) 14:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC).

Compromise

SPUI: How about this. Leave Virginia in this article, and NJ, NY and CT can all redirect, and then we'll finish Mass and Maine. Deal? --MPD01605 19:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Virginia is already in Interstate 95 in Virginia. Other states should be moved into their own articles when they are completed, and eventually this will redirect to Interstate 95. The lists can be followed from state to state on the state articles with a single click from one to the next. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 19:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

But that's against what was already decided. That's the issue I have. --MPD01605 19:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Nothing was "already decided". --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 19:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

So you're not willing to compromise then. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

No, not when the "compromise" is a fork. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 20:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused how the problem with this article is forking, when the proposed solution is to move it from one page related to I-95 (that isn't I-95) to another. There was no consensus on changing the setup, and I don't see a need to go moving text from this article until consensus is reached on where it should go, if anywhere. —C.Fred (talk) 01:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

At the top of the article SPUI cites, it says that forks with POV are bad. This is not a fork with POV (how can you get POV with exit lists)? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Forks are bad for other reasons too, for instance duplication of effort and the way the two articles will diverge as people edit one and not the other. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

But then we remove the duplicate exit lists from Interstate 80 in New Jersey and such pages. Then the info is not forked. Or you could argue that by splitting up the exit list you're forking the exit list. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

That wouldn't be a fork, but those exit lists were there first and are more accurate, so would be moved over to here.

"Or you could argue that by splitting up the exit list you're forking the exit list." You don't understand what a fork is if you say that. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If the exit lists were there first, why didn't you mention it during the AfD? You said the list "should be split among states" at that point—and favoured a redirect to Interstate 95—but did not mention any lists already existent in the by-state articles. —C.Fred (talk) 03:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

What the bloody fuck does the VFD have to do with our current discussion? Please stay on topic. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Largely because that's when a group of people sat down to reach consensus about what should be done with an article, rather than one user playing loose cannon and setting off on his own personal quest to change the articlespace to his views, forcing everybody else to have to go undo repeated changes to get back to the status quo. —C.Fred (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was no consensus. However, even if there is consensus to keep, that does not mean "keep in its present form". Anything - merge, redirect, move - other than delete is kept. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12 U.S. Roads has been opened. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The WikiProject states that there is consensus to split the main Interstate 95 article into individual articles for the states. Thus I would think that there would be the same consensus to split the exit list and merge it with the individual state articles. I agree with SPUI on this one, although I don't necessarily agree with the way he's going about it. -- Northenglish 21:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Transclusion

Why not transclude the tables as is being done with elections? Rich Farmbrough 20:14 13 March 2006 (UTC).

I like it, but can we transclude certain parts of articles, and not the whole thing? --MPD01605 21:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I've done it with the list for Viginia, have a look. It's now in both articles, but is not a fork, as edits will be reflected in both. Rich Farmbrough 23:42 13 March 2006 (UTC).

I like it and the idea. I'd like to call for a consensus on the matter. We create individual articles for the exit lists, and transclude them here and in the appropriate "I-95 in XX" page. --~~

If it's technically possible (subpage) then yes. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I almost hate to ask the question, but I would rather get this out of the way now than later. Wikipedia:Template namespace says, "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article." Are we running afoul if this guidance, or are we still in the realm of "duplicat[ing] the same content across more than one page"? —C.Fred (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that it's not really a template, since a template would require { { template:(template name) } }, whereas this is just straight article transcluding as { { :(article name) } }. One could also argue that the main article is the I-95 in Virginia Exit List, and we are including it in the I-95 Exit List, and article Interstate 95 in Virginia. For the sake of arguing, it would solve our immediate problems. Those are just my thoughts. --MPD01605 03:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Another option: use some other namespace- for example, {{[[Template::I-95 exit list/Virginia|:I-95 exit list/Virginia]]}}. Have it be in the main namespace and a subpage. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I had always been told that content should not be transcluded in this way, but personally I see no problem with this. I might play around with the placement of the edit link. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:2005 English cricket season for a similar case where content was transcluded. I don't remember what eventually came of it, but I do remember a number of contentious VFDs. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

From what I took out of the one argument on that page, the astrology example was that most of the article was transclusions, which meant that it wasn't really an independant article. If we were building an article with information in prefab pieces, then I would have an issue with it, but this is different, and I don't see a problem with it still. We don't have to make a move yet, we can continue to discuss and get some more opinions. I can't figure out what came of the 2005 English Cricket Season debate, either. But it appears that transclusion would be optimal in this case, since if exits were to change, we would have both resources (the simple resource and the in-depth resource) changed automatically with the eddition to the original article. Again, my thoughts are all over the place and I apologise for that. --MPD01605 04:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This is what I also prefer. We should be able to see the same data from more than one place and still have it stored only once. Actaully WP should use this technique alot more than it does. See User:Censorwolf/test for an example, it references User:Censorwolf/I95_NY_exit_list.

Why don't we put the exit lists in the state name spaces eg Interstate_95/exit_list_NY or Interstate_95_in_New_York/exit_list? --Censorwolf 20:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Subpages says that you can't create subpages in the main namespace, because subpages are disabled in that namespace.. ...Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 22:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:NC(CN) says "If contributors still want to use the former "slashed" subpage naming, they have the burden of showing that a subpage-like name is necessary, otherwise articles using such names will be moved to a page in line with normal article titles." So, we could still do it, but we'd have to show that it's necessary, and in this case, I'd be willing to argue it. --MPD01605 04:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

So, does someone want to transclude NJ, NY, CT, and ME? --MPD01605 04:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes? -- Northenglish (talk) -- 18:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Per the discussion above, and my cryptic struckthrough comment saying that I would, I have transcluded the rest of the exit list. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 00:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)