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.Fred04:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
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.Fred13:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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 byAndyjay729 (
talk •
contribs)
17:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC).reply
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.Fred00:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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? --
MPD0160517:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)reply
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. --
MPD0160517:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
MPD0160501:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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. MPD0160506:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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? --
MPD0160519:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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. --
Northenglish21:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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 March2006 (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. --~~
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)reply
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. --
MPD0160503:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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. --
MPD0160504:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
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. --
MPD0160504:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)reply
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)reply