Talk:List of exits on Interstate 5

This page was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on 30 October 2024. The result of the discussion was convert to list of lists.

It's been tagged for cleanup since March '06. I'll try to take care of it! --Northenglish 23:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow much much thanks for the work. I started the cleanup but abandoned it when my internet got restricted... so yeah thanks! --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Sorry I've been so slow recently, I might have Oregon and Washington done by the end of the month though. And by the way, props to Geopgeop for putting in the postmiles. -- Northenglish 22:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are still some minor problems, but as I've completed the wikitables, I have taken the liberty of removing the cleanup tag. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 01:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This list should not exist. See Talk:I-95 exit list for prior discussions. However, I do feel this can stay for now so we can work on formatting the lists to the new exit list standards. --MPD01605 (T / C) 05:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing there saying it should not exist. The I-95 list went through an AFD and was kept with no consensus. The list was removed and redirected to the main I-95 article once articles existed for all the individual states. As of now, none of those articles exist for Interstate 5, and the list is far too long to be merged with the main article. -- NORTH ^talk 21:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'm not going to bother with AfD or anything like that, I was in favour of keeping the 95 List as it was. I agree with you that, particularly the California list, it's way too long to be included in an article. I'm going to keep working on these lists though. --MPD01605 (T / C) 22:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Washington "A" and "B" exits

Although some exits in Washington are numbered with "A" and "B" (e.g., 142A and 142B in Federal Way), most of the A/B exits in the list are not signed as such. For example, exits 120, 127, 129, 130 exit into collector/distributor lanes, which then have separate un-numbered exits to the eastbound and westbound directions. Are these legally "A" and "B" exits (but unsigned as such), or is it just "Exit 120", with no "A" or "B"? I suspect it's the latter. Travisl 16:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The old list did not have most of the A/B splits; I do not know where they came from. But if they aren't signed as "A/B" exits, then it would be pointless to have the guide declare them as such. Minor formatting needs to be done, anyway. If you don't do it, then I will, just not right now. Thanks for bringing it to our attention, though. --MPD^{T / C} 18:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get to it tonight. Note to self: WSDOT interstate exit guide Travisl 18:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Many thanks to the person who brought it up to ELG standards, but there are many mistakes in the list now that need to be fixed. It's somewhere on my to-do list as well. -- NORTH ^talk 19:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't think the food/gas/lodging signs are necessary. They've never been used before (or mentioned in text), probably because they cross the line from encyclopedic information to Wikipedia is not a travel guide. -- NORTH ^talk 18:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can go either way on them; I'm not committed to keeping them if the consensus is to remove them, but I don't think it reaches the level of "travel guide," as it's not listing the restaurants at each exit. Other, non-Wikipedia lists of freeway exits (frequently called "exit guides," which again raises the question as to whether this page should exist), almost always have services listed. For future reference, the complete list of the signs I uploaded this morning are File:FHAFood.gif File:FHAGas.gif File:FHADiesel.gif File:FHAPhone.gif File:FHAHospital.gif File:FHALodging.gif File:FHACamping.gif File:FHATrailer.gif File:FHALitter.gif, not all of which are used here. Travisl 21:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say toss. The sheer number of them just looks odd. -- NORTH ^talk 23:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd vote to remove them. I don't see the necessity and I think it makes the lists much more likely to be outdated as services at an exit can easily change. VerruckteDan 01:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am honestly glad to see these signs. My thought was in the instances where we permit travel plazas (most of us have seen that conversation), these might actually be useful. But strictly for the case at hand, I'd have to say that it's a little too much info. I do appreciate the work done though. --MPD^{T / C} 04:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(INDENT reset) I am not. Service plazas are unique in they are practically a key item of toll roads - services just come with an exit cause some gas station finds a spot to do business. -- master_son^Talk^- ^Edits 19:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps such signs could be limited to extreme rural areas where services may be limited, or non-existent for many miles. If an exit has the only truck stop for 100 miles in either direction, then I think that would be information worth noting. Cascadia^{TALK| HISTORY} 13:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I've removed the signs, but added rest areas. Travisl 16:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]