Talk:Pennsylvania Route 134

Organization

Related edit summaries:
15:01, 12 July 2011 Target for Today: ==History== added, relisted north-to-south to match direction of top-to-bottom order on maps
15:37, 12 July 2011 Dough4872: jct list is supposed to be south-to-north
02:21, 14 July 2011 Target for Today: map needed added, 2 separate sections describing the route needed combined, "Usage" at Template:Jct does not appear to have any requirement to have south-to-north order
05:01, 14 July 2011 Dough4872: fix major intersections table

Per WP:USRD/STDS, the major intersections table is to be its own section with its own header and is supposed to be in south-to-north order. Dough4872 05:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm confident you'll agree that the table describes route intersctions, so to claim it is not part of "Route description" and is improper to be organized in the section named "Route description" is nonsensical. Moreover, WP:USRD/STDS does not appear to require the table be outside ("be its own section") of ==Route description==. I'm confident you will provide the quotation for, and identify the paragraph and page, for your claim "is to be" which otherwise appears to be a fabrication, particularly since the page you've cited qualifies at the top that it is a guideline ("should be used") and not a standard. Methinks you (and hopefully not the majority in the roads Wikiproject) have been overcome with the fallacious Wikiconservatism that is all too common: e.g. in this case, 'route description information that has, in past wikiarticles, been nonsensically organized outside of the "Route description" section "is to be" outside of that section in all future wikiedits.' Also, the "Discussion" tab at the top of each wikiarticle provides a link to the page for discussion about that wikiarticle, which is not talk about a User (e.g., do your want this information about your discussion posted at User talk:Dough4872?) Nevertheless, you might want to post your claims at Template talk:Jct and Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Standards since the apparent fabrication "is to be its own section" regards "Usage" of that template (e.g, maybe that apparent fabrication will be incorporated into the "Usage" guidelines at those pages!). Target for Today (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the majority of road articles, including several FAs, the standard article structure for a road article is route description, history, and major intersections, all with second-level headers. Usually its in that order, but sometimes the history appears before the route description, such as with Interstate 68, and there is nothing at WP:USRD/STDS that states that. However, this may be an approriate time to describe how the ordering of the sections should be for road articles. Dough4872 04:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:USRD/STDS lists the "Route description" as part of the article layout in section 4.3, and the junction list section is described as section 4.8. In between are other standard headings: "History", "Future", "Services", and "Tolls". The direct implication is that if all of the items that have dedicated sections for "article layout" are full sections of an article. (Note, infoboxes are considered by many to be outside of the main content of an article and not truly a part of the lead.) Read this in combination with MOS:LAYOUT which specifies, Wikipedia-wide that "See also", "References", "External links" appear as separate sections at the end of the article.

{{jct}} has nothing to do with this point. That template is for creating the standardize combination of a highway's marker (improperly a "shield") and the link to the article about that highway for inclusion in either the infobox or a junction list. It does not specify, nor would its documentation, specify where to use it in the article. MOS:RJL is the section of the Manual of Style that pertains to how to format a junction/exit list table, or a summary bulleted list. WP:USRD/STDS specifies WP:USRD's standards over article layout, which specifies south-to-north or west-to-order for both prose and the junction/exit lists to follow the dominant direction of mileposting in this country.

As for my opinion, leave the RD, H, MI section order alone. This is how over three dozen Featured Articles have been done, and the critics at WP:FAC have never asked for the table to be moved elsewhere in the article. (The RD first, H second order is not set in stone though, and based on the needs of a specific article, they can be flipped.) Imzadi 1979 → 05:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

To add to that, over 7,000 articles use this format already. We're not changing the order of the sections. --Rschen7754 05:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me be clear: Looking at [1], this is a clear violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:USRD/STDS. I say this as one who helped to write those standards. The junction list is a separate section that comes after both "Route description" and "History". (Note that "History" can come before "Route description", but that "Junction list" must be the last section before the external links/references.) Junctions are listed in a south-to-north or west-to-east order for consistency among all U.S. road articles. Dough4872 has interpreted the guidelines correctly. --Rschen7754 05:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Dough quotes the Wikiproject U.S. Roads Standards page which explicitly states it is a guideline that "should" be followed--"should" having meaning of 'ought' or 'obliged to'. In my interpretation, "should" implies that the guideline is to be followed, unless there's a really good reason not to -- I'm not seeing a reason to warrant ignoring the standard in this case. The beginning of the Article Layout section on WP:USRD/STDS also states "Articles should include a set of standard sections that cover various aspects of the route. This ensures more complete coverage and provides a standardized look-and-feel..." Under that, third level headings mention each of the typical section headings used on USRD road articles; note that "Route description" and "Major intersections/Exit list" are listed separately. Critics at FAC have had no problems with the section order as is, so I don't understand why it's suddenly an issue and nonsensical...

Although not explicitly stated in the USRD standards, I believe one of the reasons the route description is separate from the major intersections table is that, while the two are related, they present information differently. The route description is more about describing the road or highway in prose form, elaborating on feel of the highway, towns traversed and areas served by the highway, etc. The major intersections section is a non-prose listing of junctions, most often presented in tabular form. The junction list can also be quite long on some articles (see Interstate 5 in California for an extreme example). The standard layout results in all the article prose about the main route comes before the list/table of intersections--combining the sections as suggested breaks up the prose and, in my opinion, would make article flow much more awkward. -- LJ ↗ 05:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

History section lacking

Since this article is titled "Pennsylvania Route 134", it would be nice if some history of the road as a state highway would be added. According to the PA Highways link I added, the highway was signed in 1928 and paved in 1930. That link can't be used as a citation (it's a [[WP:SPS|self-published source) but if some period highway maps can be located that show these two changes, that would round out the highway's history nicely (assuming nothing but routine maintenance has been performed since 1930).

I've cleaned up all of the references to make them consistent. A court record was being cited, although the actual source (a reprint of a book section or chapter) does not explicitly identify the actual name of the record. To attempt to attribute the information to something other than the book is original research and pushing being academically dishonest. I've updated the bolding in the lead per MOS:BOLD, fixed a missing conversion and other copy-editing fixes for flow and tone. Imzadi 1979 → 07:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I added some history of PA 134 from PennDOT maps. Dough4872 15:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Reversion of edits

Rschen7754 (talk · contribs) had already reverted the section reordering per the consensus above on how to read and apply WP:USRD/STDS. In addition, I've removed the following changes:

• I removed the lowest and highest points from the junction list. These are not standard additions to a junction list unless the locations are notable for some reason, and in this case, they do not appear to be notable. Additionally, these are the sorts of details that are best worked into the RD prose, like an inline mention of the highest and lowest average annual daily traffic (AADT) counts. (See M-28 for what I mean; in that article, the highest and lowest AADT figures are mentioned during the west-to-east progression of the highway's route description rather than separated into a separate paragraph.)
• A self-published source was used to cite the county location in the infobox. Such a detail is normally not cited anyway, but a SPS should not be used per policy.
• I moved the map back to the history section since it is better connected to the historical facts in that section. After all, this is a topographic from July 1863.
• I removed the "not in source" tag from the 1930 map. That map does show the highway along the route it currently takes (minus any minor changes that are below the level of precision of the maps) and it does show the section described as "under construction".

The net effect is that this edit from Target for Today (talk · contribs) was reverted between Rschen and I. Additionally, part of this edit was also reverted. I am explaining myself here under the auspices of WP:BRD. Target for Today was bold, we reverted, and I opened this section up for discussion. Imzadi 1979 → 22:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)