The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

---

Should the table used in the Interchanges section be the one in current use or one suggested by MOS:RJL as can be seen in this revision? --Gonnym (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• current use. Better looking, some factual issues, but the main thing are the crossing roads (which are highly significant in the Israeli road system - more than the towns) and interchange type.Icewhiz (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand what the issue is with crossing roads and why RJL can't support it. Furthermore, a value of "local roads" in that column is nearly useless. --Rschen7754 00:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe RJL can support this (note that there is a specific style issue for translation and transliteration of the Hebrew names) - my !vote is based on the actual content and table that was inserted in the 2nd version - visually it looks bad, and the omission of roads is highly significant - e.g. the first junction - Glilot - the destination here (a shopping center) is meaningless - what is significant here is the major crossing road 5 which is the almost sole reason for this intersection. Same to a large extend for Caesarea (65) and Zikhron (70) and others. Icewhiz (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • As far as the choice of junctions, while RJL does give some boundaries as to what should and should not be included (all grade-separated interchanges should be included, for example), this is an area where RJL purposefully does not prescribe any one solution. With the interchange type, the icons fail MOS:ACCESS since the visually impaired cannot see them. While that information tends towards the specialist/roadfan extreme and would use plenty of neologisms (which is one of the reasons why the US articles don't use it), a link to the appropriate type could be added to the Notes column. I also don't know that RJL says anything about how transliteration is to be handled, though it may be addressed by other parts of MOS. --Rschen7754 06:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Rschen7754: e.g. Interstate 95 in New Jersey#Exit list (assuming this is RJL compliant) looks great (as opposed to what was inserted here) - you have exit roads (with icons as well!), color coding, normal formatting. For Israel's highway 2 - the county/location split doesn't make sense (Israel doesn't really have counties - or rather more specifically - each government ministry has their own county map which is different (e.g. the interior, health, justice, and environment ministries all have their separated county maps with different borders and names) - so no one really used counties), and you probably don't need/want miles. For Highway 2 there is no organized "exit number" (for highway 20 - there is, but most of the highways in Israel don't have exit numbers) - so that's not needed. What you do need to add is some way to deal with the Hebrew in an organized fashion - e.g. the הסירה junction's official English name is HaSira (the road signs are almost always transliterations of the Hebrew in English) - but the junction name has a meaning (in this case "boat" - named for boats used in Aliyah Bet - and there actually is a small boat on a cliff that is visible from the junction) - so all 3 (הסירה, HaSira, and boat (and possibly an explanation for the less obvious names) should be in the table somehow).Icewhiz (talk) 07:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Could you please relook at my revision Icewhiz? The New Jersey article you linked has the following columns: "Country", "Location", "mi", km", "exit", "destinations" and "note" which you said is good. You said that there is no need for a country/location split and for "mi". My revision has "Municipality", "km", "Exit name", "Destinations", "notes" - what exactly is the difference between what you said looked good (minus the columns you said should be removed) and mine? Is the name "Municipality" bothering you? I have no issue with it being "location". As I said multiple times, and as the presence of the destinations column is evidence, roads that appear on those exits should be added (and would have, if I wasn't reverted and asked to wait a week on it). Just be even more clear - this is what I mean. If the "meaning" column is the heart of the issue here, just say it. --Gonnym (talk) 07:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Gonnym: - I probably wouldn't have been as swift to reverting the version in your sandbox (though Ga'ash is in the wrong location (fixed this morning) + the meaning column) - what really pushed me to revert were the road crossings. I do think the Hebrew/English translation/English transliteration issue needs to be improved - the current version (with English in Italics and on a separate line - though it should probably be first...) is more legible, and the meaning (or translation) column is important (and I wouldn't push it off to notes, as it is relevant for just about all of them) - it could perhaps go in the exit name or as a separate column.Icewhiz (talk) 08:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Icewhiz: at least we are heading somewhere now, though I don't understand why it would push you to revert. Did you not see that the column was there? I finished editing the initial table at 3:30 AM, by 9:30 PM Atefrat had already reverted me and told me to wait what turned out to be a week. I wanted to verify the roads before inserting them in. Also notice that some of the entries in the table are formatted differently than others and I wanted to fix that as well. Cases like wrong data like Ga'ash aren't supposed to be reverted, just fix that issue. Regarding the line breaks, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility is against <br>, which needed more research to find a solution (the New Jersey article you gave uses a specialized template altogether). Regarding the Hebrew/English naming - the names should be in English first as it's an en.wiki. Regarding names in italics, that is not supported by any naming style and it's a weird choice for this as well. --Gonnym (talk) 10:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                • The miles are helpful for American readers (just like how the US articles have the km equivalents for international readers, even though less than 5 highways in the US are signed in km). As far as the locations, there is room for flexibility in how many columns appear, though we should try and be consistent worldwide where possible. --Rschen7754 18:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 2nd option - Use revision version linked which complies with MOS:RJL and MOS:DTT and addresses most WP:V concerns. --Gonnym (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • See this sandbox version with road data added. --Gonnym (talk) 08:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Neither—the version that purports to comply with MOS:RJL doesn't because it's missing the roads/destinations at the intersections. Elements of both need to be merged together to have a proper table under the MOS. Imzadi 1979 → 21:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted below, those were supposed to be added but my change was reverted in less than 24 hours so not much work I could do on it as the "roads crossed" data needed vetting before being added. Note that the column does exist in that version. --Gonnym (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Neither per Imzadi1979. 80+ Featured Articles and the 1000+ Good Articles that follow MOS:RJL can't all be wrong in following it, right? –Fredddie™ 23:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – I don't really understand the proposed options because there have been edits made, but I fail to see how the old version violates MOS:RJL. Can someone from WP Highways explain in detail? In particular, from what I see MOS:RJL deals with what content should be in the table, not what content shouldn't be there. If WP Israel users (myself included) want to see additional content, it does not clash with RJL, and if it does, I think there is room to change RJL. I'd like to hear details from WP Highway users commenting here though. I believe that the interchange diagrams are especially useful in these tables, because each interchange is different and a diagram is useful. Israeli road atlases have had them for ages. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The current table used in this article does not comply with several guidelines including MOS:RJL, MOS:DTT and with policy WP:V, instead opting to use a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to create a new style which does not cite any sources and uses false claims (the whole "meaning" column), includes columns that have no meaning not only to visual impaired readers but to all readers (the "Type" column). The current editors, instead of changing any issues they had with the previous revision just revert back to this current table, preventing any correcting of the table and exhibiting WP:OWNERSHIP of this article. --Gonnym (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see false claima in the meaning column which is a translation of the name. All the road signs use transliterated Hebrew to English, however each Hebrew interchange has a translation and underlying meaning.Icewhiz (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can't claim the meaning of "Yakum Interchange" is "He shall rise". Even if that was the literal translation of the place, that isn't the meaning of the interchange. Also, you've given no sources to prove that is the meaning of the place (which Yakum doesn't either). That's a false claim. Giving 3 exits with the km marker of 11.2 which is obviously incorrect (which was addressed in the previous revision) is a false claim. Giving false names for interchanges with Wingate Interchange and Udim Interchange as examples, are another example of false information in this current version, compared to the one reverted. Interchange types have zero meaning to anyone other than those who edit this page. I have no idea what the picture there even mean. To address your comments from the survey section - what factual issues did the previous version have? Also, just to be clear, the "Destinations" column which was empty in the previous revision, is supposed to be filled out with information similar to "crossing roads" (just using the MOS:RJL accepted terminology and position). Also, previous version correctly acknowledged this is an English Wikipedia with English names coming first and Hebrew names second (this is a comparably smaller issue, but you've obviously decided to revert all instead of addressing the specific issue you were opposed).--Gonnym (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'd like to point out that this is a proxy war as Atefrat who had the discussion me, WP:STEALTH sent 7 emails to editors via wikipedia, Icewhiz being one of them. --Gonnym (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could @Imzadi1979 and Fredddie: and any future "neither" vote please elaborate on what specifically you would suggest doing?--Gonnym (talk) 07:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty simple really. The solution is to add a junction list that complies with RJL and remove whatever else is there currently. –Fredddie™ 11:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fredddie: if it was simple we wouldn't have been here. I would have thought that this sandbox version (note that this is the same exact format as used in the RFC revision just with road data added, the column was there) complies with it, but your and Imzadi1979's comments say it doesn't. So what specifically should be changed? --Gonnym (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: the sandbox version looks much better. Long term, the distance columns (and yes, ideally there should be two with the km value converted into miles) should be right-aligned, and ideally, they should have a consistent number of decimal places. I might also suggest putting the Hebrew text on a separate line within the cell and dropping the "Hebrew:" text from each line as redundant. (I think an intelligent reader reading an article about an Israeli topic can discern that the text is Hebrew.) That would minimize the total width of that column, allowing other columns to expand. I might also suggest putting the meaning of the names in footnotes, but I'd need to see how that looks to decide if that's better or not. Lastly, MOS:RJL requires the use of a color key at the bottom of a table if it's using the colors. In the US, we use templates to build our tables, and we'd have ((jctbtm)) to create the key required. Additionally, if the table doesn't provide the converted distances, per MOS:CONVERSIONS, that bottom template supplies the required conversion values. Imzadi 1979 → 13:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have an additional comment about icon usage. In the US, we use small graphics of the highway markers in our junction lists, which are immediately followed by the name of the highway being represented. Because of this, the name serves as a sort of caption for the graphic, and because our ((jct)) formats it with |alt=|link=, the graphics would be skipped by screen readers. However, the other icons currently in use in the Type column have no textual explanation for their meaning whatsoever. Some of them are displayed too small to be of any practical use without clicking on each. As others have noted, the type of an interchange is an esoteric piece of information that we really don't need to include in most cases, and if we did, it's listed in the notes column. Imzadi 1979 → 14:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Imzadi1979: I've updated the sandbox with your comments including the color and distance bottom template and the split English/Hebrew name and removed "Hebrew:". I've tried adding Jcttop but I'm not sure how to get it to add only name without "Exit" or "Old" unless one of those is required. If it is, then I have no idea what to fill out for that column. --Gonnym (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: The final product will look something like User:Happy5214/sandbox/Highway 2 (Israel) (which has the termini filled in with information from Google Maps). Assuming there are no issues with that format, I'll create wrapper templates like ((ISRtop)) and ((ISRint)) to abstract the internal parameters to those core templates (which aren't meant to be used directly in articles). -happy5214 02:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I realized after I saved my last reply that ((ISRint)) already exists. I had to make a small edit to it, but I've replaced the rows in my sandbox with that template. -happy5214 03:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not good. The district column is meaningless in Israel (as there are several competing district maps - each ministry has a different one), and the Hebrew (and meaning thereof) is important.Icewhiz (talk) 03:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Happy5214: That looks great. I do agree with Icewhiz that the district in Israel is less important (I was trying to find the "classic" one that I know of in the govmap.gov.il website and found several others). I think that for the "name" column, maybe add an option to add the Hebrew name so it would be formatted as (name in Hebrew) in a separate line under the English name (especially as those entries don't have articles of their own, compared to the location entries, which do). I don't agree that a meaning column should be added though. --Gonnym (talk) 07:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: if the district column is meaningless, why do so many Israeli city articles begin like this: "<city> (<Hebrew translation>) is a city in the <district> District..."? Why does the location map show them? Why do the districts even have articles? Seems like we have an awful lot of verifiable information for no reason if it is meaningless. –Fredddie™ 12:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add context - The map Fredddie is referring to can be found on the official map with the Ministry of Interior districts filter. --Gonnym (talk) 12:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Mainly since people copy-paste structures from other countries without regard to the peculiarities of Israel - and I'll note that quite a few of Israeli articles do not have districts. Specifying a district per junction is simply excessive and meaningless here, and is not done for other roads. The district division for the ministry of transportation in Israel - see here (Hebrew) is completely different from the Interior ministry division.13:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

For context - govmap with all the district types it recognizes by a specific keyword (and I probably missed a few that use a different keyword). Cities are subordinated to the Interior ministry, so maybe it makes sense to mention the Interior ministry division, however roads are not under the purview of the ministry of Interior.Icewhiz (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a multi-part answer. First, the districts defined by the Ministry of Transportation are immaterial in this case. American RJLs use the counties (or equivalent) established by their respective states, not the districts defined by those states' DOTs. ISO 3166-2:IL (an international standard) uses the same six districts established by the Israeli Ministry of Interior and referenced on the English Wikipedia. I don't think there is a better meaning for "district" with respect to Israel than this definition.

As for the names, I coded them without the Hebrew for my convenience, and this is not me saying that the Hebrew should not be in the final product. I believe it is fair to include the native name (Hebrew, in this case) for named intersections, as we do in the infobox for the name of the highway. I agree with Gonnym that the meaning of the Hebrew should not be added. The etymology of an interchange name, or a place name more generally, is not important in a junction list. If it's at all relevant (i.e. there's a particular reason for using that name for that intersection, for which we can cite a reliable source), it can be mentioned in the route description. -happy5214 21:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in substantial agreement with Happy5214 regarding etymologies. If they're really that significant, they should be mentioned in the route description and cited there. Imzadi 1979 → 17:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]