Jump to content

Talk:Yield sign

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments

[edit]

The list of rules about where yield signs are warranted, added by 24.186.211.61, looks like it has come from some manual about designing roadways and should probably have its source cited. It also looks like it applies specifically to some area of the world (the US, maybe?) and probably isn't a universal standard, so it should probably be marked as such. --Pippin 13:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the American Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 2003 Edition with Revision No. 1 Incorporated, dated November 2004. Some but not all are the same, so I cannot yet add a citation.--Jusjih 15:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently in the U.S. yield signs are red & white in color. These signs previously were yellow & black. Does anyone know when the U.S. changed from yellow/black to red/white yield signs and why? Thanks. Bayeast 00:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realise this is a late answer, and I can't tell you when, but I can hazard a guess at why. Internationally, yellow and black is used for advisory signs, and red and white is used for imperative signs. You must give way at a yield sign, so therefore it is red and white. FiggyBee 07:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, the FHWA changed the requirements for YIELD signs as of 2008. Now, they can be installed at typical perpendicular intersections where before only STOPs would be warranted. I am going to replace the current MUTCD quotation by the amended one. Almikul (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove 'The Japan (alternative)' image?

[edit]

The 'Japan (alternative)' sign is a stop sign - the characters read 'tomare'. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_Japan I think Japan is unique in having a triangular stop sign. Apparently they stopped using the octagon in the 60s. I confess I have never seen the first sign (and cannot read the kanji) but will have t assume it is an (uncommon) give way sign. 1bj05hua (talk) 00:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The red triangle indeed means stop by itself, and the other triangle means "slow down" by itself. The plate below each sign means "yield/give way". I have sources for this. Fry1989 eh? 01:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I think I see your point. The 'alternative' one is only to be interpreted as give way/yield if it is accompanied by the second rectangular sign? 1bj05hua (talk) 03:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, only with the rectangular sign below it. This is according to the Japanese=language article. Fry1989 eh? 03:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TEXT change?

[edit]

In the UK part it says : In some other parts of Europe,..... I would suggest "In the most parts of Europe,...." as in my opinion this is more the case then in some other parts.

Done. -- Picapica (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YIELD vs Yield vs yield

[edit]

YIELD vs. Yield vs. yield. I think this needs discussion. The point had not evaded me, I was not sure which was best so left it alone.

Other changes to my English, thank you, that is a bit clearer.

I think it's overdone the CN, date needed etc stuff since quite obviously I need to research this. Er... that's why I put the CN in there on my own edit, after researching some of the existing ones. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a final draft. SimonTrew (talk) 04:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting an entire good-faith edit that demonstrably improves the quality of the article simply because the capitalisation of the sign legend is a topic for discussion is not productive, SimonTrew, particularly since you acknowledge (right here, above) that aside from my having changed the capitalisation you agree with my edits. Let's make sure we're focusing here on this article here, and not carrying over whatever disagreement you might have with me on your proposed edits to other articles.
The "reference" I deleted was no reference at all. It said simply "see Traffic light". Not only is that not a reference at all, but there is no material in Traffic light related to the assertion in this article to which you applied this "reference". The assertion had to do with the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea — if I've missed any discussion on that topic over at Traffic light, please point it out to me, or — better — include the relevant bits of that information, if any there be, here in this article. We do not use the <ref> … </ref> tags for links to other Wikipedia articles; that's not what they're for.
Now, as for capitalisation : I suggest it is appropriate to put the sign legend copy in all caps only where we are describing the characteristics of the signs themselves. It is awkward and disruptive to encounter WORDS that are placed in all CAPS while you are TRYING to read an ARTICLE, especially when those WORDS are repeatedly placed in all CAPS, and it is an amateurish way to write an article. An initial cap, of course, is appropriate when the word "Yield" or the phrase "Give way" begins a sentence. And the phrase "give-way sign" properly contains a hyphen. If you have an alternate proposal for how to handle capitalisation in this article, I'd love to read and discuss it. For now, I have reinstated my copyedits, the bulk of which you seem to agree with. —Scheinwerfermann T·C12:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In reviewing our edits, it seems to me you may be objecting to my having removed the brief material about the blank "no vehicles" sign. I did so because it was centred on an assertion that blank give-way signs confuse people not familiar with the country in which such signs are located. This assertion was, by all appearances, entirely speculative, and we don't do that here. It is possible blank signs might create this type of confusion, but we cannot say that is the case just because it seems logical; we need to be able to prove it. What is more, that material about a kind of sign other than yield/give way was not germane to the topic of this article.
As for the tags I added, they're valid; the assertions they flag do in fact need support. We cannot claim that some say (or think, believe, etc.) something without identifying who these "some" are; this is an encyclopædia, and we need to be careful to avoid letting unsupported common "knowledge" or received "wisdom" creep in. I am glad to read that you intend further research to support those assertions presently unsupported, but the tags do need to stay, for you and I are not the only ones working on this article. It does not belong to us, and while you and I certainly know those assertions need support, the tags serve to alert other editors of that need, so the article can be improved as quickly and efficiently as possible. —Scheinwerfermann T·C13:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not carrying anything over. I just see it time and time again that an article stays dormant, as this one has, and then as soon as a change is made to it someone else jumps on it and makes lots of OTHER changes. If you were so worried about the YIELD/Yield/yield business, why didn't you change it before? I considered changing them myself, but decided if they had gone like that for a year or so, nobody was too worried-- and they are in caps on the gallery pictures etc.
From Traffic Light: "The colour of the traffic lights representing stop and go are likely derived from those used to identify port (red) and starboard (green) in maritime rules governing right of way, where the vessel on the left must stop for the one crossing on the right." Which is basically from the legislation I gave, though I believe it was also used on the Mississippi. I would have gone and added a note onto that article, given a chance. (Incidentally "colour" is spelt wrong there for a US article).
Yep, it should have been a note, not a reference, or simply placed inline.
I don't see the need to overtag already I had put { { cn } } because I can drag a citation out, just couldn't do it right at that moment. I don't see the point of then adding other tags which will more than likely be covered by that citation.
I don't have any problem with you; it just seems to me unless someone does something fairly provocative (i.e. actually make a change) one gets no discussion at all, the talk pages are so seldom used, I must have oh 50 requests for discussion at the moment and not a thing on any of them. So one must Be Bold and actually make changes then amazingly everyone sits up and there is a flurry of edits. SimonTrew (talk) 14:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I put "Need to discuss" I wasn't implying it was the law. I was saying it would prevent an edit war, i.e. there is a need to discuss it. SimonTrew (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teachers of the English Language

[edit]

Why is the clause "which has been noted mainly by teachers of the English language" in the following sentence? "With the pole, the overall shape is that of the "Y" in YIELD, which has been noted mainly by teachers of the English language." Who cares about "teachers of the English language," particularly in reference to a Yield sign? There's no source and the clause adds nothing of value to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.28.69 (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2012

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Yield sign → Give Way sign – I'd like to propose the article be moved from YIELD to GIVE WAY since that is the more predominant term both in the English-speaking world and not. There are 6 countries which use the term YIELD, Canada, Ireland (on it's English signs), South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan, and the United States. Puerto Rico uses CEDA, which can be considered in this context as closer to YIELD. English-speaking countries which use GIVE WAY include Australia, the Bahamas, Hong Kong, Jamaica, New Zealand, Samoa, Singapore, the UK, and Zimbabwe. French-speaking countries use Cedez le Passage and Spanish-speaking countries use Ceda El Paso, both of which can be translated as Cede the Passage >> Cede the Way >> Give the Way >> Give Way. Ireland uses Géill Slí or "give way" on it's Irish signs. Brazil uses Dê a preferência which translates as "Give the Preference". Thailand's term translates to "Give Way". Brunei and Malaysia use Beri Laluan which translates directly as "Give Path" but can be considered closer to "Give Way" in it's intent. Sweden uses Väjningsplikt which translates directly as "Giving Way". Of Arabic-speaking countries, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Dubai (part of the UAE), and Bahrain like to translate their sign into "Give Way". Lastly, the United Nations' Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals makes exclusive use of "Give Way" in all it's English documents.

Clearly, GIVE WAY is the preferred term globally. Therefore I feel the article should be moved and have the term "yield sign" as a redirect. Fry1989 eh? 23:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I'm going to ignore the non-English-speaking countries for obvious reasons and assume usage is roughly 50-50 among English speakers. In such as case, WP:RETAIN kicks in (When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, it is maintained in the absence of consensus to the contrary). —  AjaxSmack  02:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
50-50? If you stick to just English-speaking countries it's 4 to atleast 12 that I can verify, plus the exclusive use of "Give Way" by the United Nations and the Vienna Convention which 71 countries are party to. Fry1989 eh? 03:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you consider the number of countries to be a meaningful measure. The 12 include the Bahamas, Jamaica, and Samoa; the 4 include the United States. 140.247.0.13 (talk) 05:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He's the one who tried to make a point of 50-50, am I not allowed to refute that with a reply? Yes I understand he's going by population, which the US is huge and will sway any count, but per my reply below a simple population count ignores factors like the commonness of the sign in said countries. Fry1989 eh? 05:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to bet good money the opposite, if that's the type of argument you want to make. In Canada and the US, yield signs are hard to find, we're stop sign-obsessed cause we think it's "safer". In Australia, New Zealand and the UK, as with Europe overall, it's the reverse, stop signs are rare and reserved only for situations where it is absolutely imperative that you come to a complete stop. Infact, in the UK's case, they even prefer altering the surroundings for better visibility to make a give way sign acceptable in preference of using a stop sign. Fry1989 eh? 05:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is based on fact. Fry1989 eh? 23:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is OR because you are the collecting the data and drawing a conclusion on your own collected data instead of providing a source that studied this matter and drew its own conclusion.— fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 18:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you wanna call it OR the fact that in the UK, Australia, Bahamas, Jamaica, New Zealand, Samoa, Hong Kong, UAE, and Bahrain not only refer to it as "Give Way" in their official documents, but their signs actually say "Give Way" on them, and it's OR that the UN's Vienna Convention documents, which are easily accessible, make exclusive use of the term "Give Way"? I can list official documents from these various governments all day long, that is not OR, that's sourced material. Fry1989 eh? 19:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would be OR to suggest the prevalence of one naming convention over the other. It is not in dispute that the term "give way" is a legitimate term, as it is already mention in the article itself, and is not the context for this move discussion. Rather the focus is which term is the prefered term to be used for the articles name. One might arge that WP:COMMONNAME suggests that the most common name should be used - which I believe is the focus of this current discussion, and what other editors are suggesting is that it is OR to claim that one term is more common than the other term. Infact, according to WP:COMMONNAME we should defer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. Therein we find basis to setup a redirect for the other term (done) and there is an strong caution against what is beinig disccussed here:
As such WP:RETAIN suggests that we can resolve this as follows:
I know that will not sit well with you, but since Yeild is not incorect, but rather simily an english language variation there is a strong BIAS to keep the current article name and simply use a redirect for Give Way. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support If this were a simple matter of varieties of English I would agree the article should stay where it is. However, the proposer has already made the point that Give way is the term preferred in international documents and conventions. In that sense, this is surely akin to Sulfur and Aluminium, where we decided that international agreement supercedes the useage in individual English speaking countries. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to close discussion

[edit]

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English and WP:RETAIN, it appear that there is a strong precident to end this dicussion:

As such, I move for a Straw Poll on closing the move discussion based on the revelation of the MOS statement regarding this move request surrounding "national varieties of english", specifically the "switch from one valid use of English to another".
For those not familiar with Staw Polls, this is not a vote - please see the link for more information...
Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, and if approprate, add a (brief and well thought out) comment. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

2013 Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved Armbrust The Homunculus 06:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yield sign → Give Way sign – I am for the second time proposing we move the name of this article to "Give Way". My first proposal was based simply on counts and popularity, without a considered reasoning. However I feel that there is policy to do this. The Community has already agreed to follow naming conventions when this issue arises, such as for chemistry where it is agreed to follow the spellings used by IUPAC. In this case, the Vienna Convention which was agreed upon by the United Nations has decided on exclusive use of the term "Give Way". The precedent of following internationally-agreed upon spellings would override both WP:RETAIN and WP:COMMONALITY. Fry1989 eh? 01:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course this isn't a chemistry topic, I never said it was. What I said is this Community has decided that in naming issues, international norms and agreements override other policies. This has been discussed a hundred times over on the talk pages of articles where this is an issue and consistently the Community has said we will follow the international norm. The largest international agreement regarding traffic signs is absolutely clear on this matter. I could easily be bold and move the page myself but I'm being democratic. Don't make me regret it with false retorts. Fry1989 eh? 03:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I was trying to say is that a topic-related naming convention should not necessary apply to a completely different topic. For example, citing WP:FLORA should be an invalid reason to rename various articles from their common name to their official scientific names. Because there is currently no such specific naming convention guideline for road signs, WP:AT#National varieties of English is the policy should apply, which basically says to follow the rules of WP:ENGVAR. Most of these other discussions to immediately use the international-agreed upon term, regardless of WP:COMMONNAME or WP:ENGVAR, have been primarily topic-based, where consensus have decided that articles on these specific topics should override WP:AT, and this as resulted in several topic-related naming conventions listed here. In other words, the Community has only agreed to using the international-agreed upon term during those articles on those specific topics and cases, but the global WP:AT and WP:ENGVAR policies should generally apply in all other cases. I am unaware of discussions that specifically pertain to articles on road signs, so that is why my position stands to leave this article name as it is per WP:ENGVAR and WP:AT (which is usually my first choice in most situations anyway). Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I must disagree quite strongly with your statement "there is currently no such specific naming convention guideline for road signs", not because it isn't true but because that isn't a hindrance to following set precedent. I highly doubt the Community will ever effort a naming convention when it comes to a minor topic like traffic signs, but they have already decided on far more prolific topics and it has been to follow international agreements and norms when there are different national varieties and it's disputed which should be used. I'm not gonna force this if everyone says "no" but quite frankly I see no other option than to follow the practice that the Community has already set out in similar cases. Fry1989 eh? 04:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that particular "no such specific naming convention guideline for road signs" reasoning may be invalid, as I stated in my last statement in parentheses, my preferred preference is to retain the existing name. I do not see a compelling reason to rename it just because other topics are doing it. Because there is no topic-naming convention, this issue is basically just conflicting guidelines and policies being cited here. Thus it really comes down to a consensus here on this article and this article alone as to whether to move it. Obviously this discussion will end up with no consensus if it's just you and me continuing to argue over which set of precedent/rules to use instead of the other set. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose fails COMMONALITY, since "give way sign" does not signify anything in North America. Further, I see no reason to favour British English over Irish/Canadian/American English, as our article states, this is not just North American, but also Irish. Further the Vienna Convention is not the law of the land in North America, nor Aus/NZ, South Africa, Ireland; so fails the English-speaking world test. If it's a convention for the non-English world, it doesn't matter, as it is only a concept applying to India/Pakistan; Britain hasn't even ratified it yet as of our article's map. -- 65.92.181.39 (talk) 05:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could just as easily say that "Yield sign" signifies nothing in Europe and Oceania, how is that a reasoning? A redirect would still be left behind. Fry1989 eh? 18:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had to actually ask some Americans what exactly was signified by the yield sign once. If there is an argument either way, COMMONALITY definitely isnt it -- Nbound (talk) 01:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is the largest and most accepted convention regarding this issue by the international community, that's as close as it's gonna get to IUPAC. Using false retorts changes nothing and if I continue to receive them instead of actual arguments against the move based on merit then I will reconsider being bold and do it myself or take this to a much larger forum. Fry1989 eh? 18:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem, as already stated several times, is that "largest" does not mean "dominant." IUPAC is *the* authority in chemistry, and it's an "international" organization in the United Nations sense of international - everyone. The Vienna Convention is "international" in the sense of "more than 1 country, but far from a majority of the world." And even IUPAC's suggestions are not always followed - "ferrous" and "ferric" are at least as popular as Iron(II)/Iron(III). Everybody in this conversation agrees that the US, Canada, & assorted others use "yield." So... clearly there isn't one answer everyone agrees on. Both "yield" and "give way" are correct. So keep the article where it is, the same as many many many other British vs. American English titling convention questions. SnowFire (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's an actual answer, something I've desired and something I can respond to. Before that I've essentially gotten the whiney nasally kid in the schoolyard response of "This isn't a science experiment". It's childish, it's dishonest because it's a response to something that was never said, and it's disrespectful to my intelligence.
However, I'm not making this a case of what's most dominant, that was the case I made in my first proposal and it was rather silly of me, but not what I'm doing now. I'm making the case that the premier international agreement regarding this issue has made it's choice, and this Community has decided with broad consensus to follow these things. This is the leading international consensus, that can not be denied, and there is no other similar international agreement supporting the other term. There is no international debate, the UN (which represents everyone) has agreed. This is larger than just British v American English as has been implied. There is no harm that anyone has shown me in our following the treaty. From what I see, the only real opposition is a big case of "I don't like change". Would any of you have even noticed if I had been bold? I highly doubt it. Fry1989 eh? 22:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Someone always notices eventually. See Talk:Theater (structure). Someone always notices. Also, regardless of what international agreements say--even if they are the premier agreement, which hasn't perhaps been proven--it is and remains perfectly fine AmE to call it a "yield sign". That's all it takes for WP:RETAIN to hold the argument. It has to be a BIG deal to overturn WP:RETAIN. Even if literally every country ever besides the United States called it "give way sign" that would not be enough. Even if the United Nations did nothing but pass resolutions 24/7 pleading with Americans to stop calling it a yield sign, unless American usage changes it's not enough to overcome WP:RETAIN. 64.134.189.110 (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It sure seems to be enough when it comes to spelling matters (ie: Kilometre, Sabre, Aluminium) so your claim is invalid. This project is not restricted to or controlled by one national form of the English language, and American English (or British, or Australian, or South African for that matter) doesn't get preferential treatment. Fry1989 eh? 01:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! I'm sorry! I thought I was talking with someone familiar with Wikipedia naming conventions--whoops! I should've explained things much more clearly. Have you read WP:RETAIN yet? Which I mentioned three different times in that paragraph? Reading WP:RETAIN might let you know why I was making that point. It has nothing to do with AmE being preferred to other varieties of English, but it does have to do with retaining the existing variety of English unless there is an extremely compelling reason not to. Try requesting a page move at Sabre from BrE to AmE... and you'll find this same group of people opposing your move request for the same reason they oppose this move request now. smile 64.134.187.230 (talk) 01:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yah know, I would love to know who it is that is hiding behind their IP, because considering you know so much I'm pretty much certain you have/had an account. Yes I've read RETAIN considering I linked it in my original statement of proposal, which of course YOU would know if you read what I've been saying at all instead of focusing so hard on just opposing. You can disagree regarding the interpretation of policies and what policy/practice is more important, but if you're gonna be a dick and get all sarcastic with me, than everything else you say I ignore from that point forward. I've been here for three years, I'm not some noob, and I've certainly been respectful of others even though I disagree. Fry1989 eh? 02:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(de-indent) For the record, I am not the above IP, although I agree with their points, basically. It's not just "I don't like change" as you put it; requested moves of these sorts that switch AmE / BrE usage between two different correct phrases can potentially waste huge amounts of time. You think this is a legit move, fine, we respect that, but surely you understand that for other cases where both terms are correct, allowing endless move votes based on "which name do you like better" would waste vast amounts of time. That is the change resistance you are running into.
My original comment about "scientific discovery of the true nature of road signs" was somewhat snarky, but the serious point I'm hinting at is that Wikipedia policy requires something akin to that. There appears to be a failure to agree on reality here, since you clearly think that standard is met. If the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals truly is the gospel road experts agree upon, that even the US has signed on to, that to quote you is "the leading international consensus that can not be denied" where consensus means everyone, then maybe, maybe we can have this discussion. However, that is not at all the impression I get from the article, which is why the rest of us are assuming a standard AmE / BrE dispute. To point this conversation in a more productive direction, I would suggest that you improve the Vienna Convention article first, Fry1989? Because from what's written there, it doesn't appear to be a powerful enough source akin to IUPAC. SnowFire (talk) 04:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the reason I can not let go is because everyone keeps saying I'm just trying to make this a choice between two national variants of the English language when I'm not! I'm trying to point out that this is larger than the US v Britain. Repeatedly I have said that the Community has decided to follow international agreements, and here we have an international agreement. If you want to take IUPAC as an example, 57 countries take part in the organisation and most of them don't speak English and in their own languages they spell things different. Kilometre is "kilometro" in Spanish for example. Yet we have agreed to follow the IUPAC's recommended spellings. MORE countries follow the Vienna Convention than IUPAC. I am so tired of everyone telling me I'm saying one thing when I'm saying something completely different, all you people have to do is actually read my arguments are they are quite compelling both from a policy point and a factual point. READ MY ARGUMENTS, READ THEM and you will see this is not one type of English versus another and simple preference, that is not my argument and never has been during this entire second proposal. I'm constantly being disrespected and told I'm saying something different, you even admit that everyone is assuming something that I'm not saying, so don't pretend it's not true! None of you have any interest in actually looking at previous precedent that the Community has set, or looking at the merit of my arguments, all you people care about is to make it look like I'm trying to make it something I'm not! Fry1989 eh? 04:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If any of you were truly interested in discussing this matter on the merits, you would read my arguments fully and you would never assume this is just AmE v BrE. The fact you admit to making that assumption means you aren't reading what I'm saying, just are just opposing for the sake of opposing. For that reason, I can not accept your opposition as valid. Fry1989 eh? 18:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again that's not an argument. There's "nothing wrong" with Give Way either, the question is which is the most agreed-upon term. Community has already said international agreements supersede RETAIN when it comes to spelling and names for other topics, the precedent and consensus of the Community is clear. Fry1989 eh? 01:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well there is no formal agreement as to whether it is called Yield or Give Way. Some countries, such as Canada and the United States, call it a Yield sign while others, such as the United Kingdom, call it a Give Way sign. The Vienna Convention should not be the final say as to what the sign should be called as only selected countries follow the conventions. Many notable English-speaking countries, such as the United States, Canada, and Australia, do not follow the convention. The U.S. has the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices that governs road signs and is significantly different from the Vienna Convention. Also, it is important to note that Wikipedia can vary on whether to use American English or British English for an article title. For example, we have gasoline (US) instead of petrol (UK) but dual carriageway (UK) instead of divided highway (US). As such, it is not a big deal that the article title is at Yield sign as Give Way redirects too and the reader will get what they want no matter what they call the sign. Dough4872 01:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing an international treaty with a national set of standards is dishonest. One is a country controlling it's internal practices, one is a group of countries agreeing on a group of standards that they will all follow together. It is honestly looking like I will have to take this to a wider forum where (hopefully) reason will win out, because all I'm getting right now is "there's no need for the move" which ignores the point of my proposal and the historical practices of the Community in similar cases, and "this isn't a science article" which I've already addressed above as flawed. Fry1989 eh? 01:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Australia, Canada, and Ireland follow standards similar to the US MUTCD. While Australia calls them Give Way signs, Canada and Ireland refer to them as Yield signs as does the United States. So the Vienna Convention should not be the determining factor for naming this article as many notable countries do not follow this convention and have their own signing practices. Dough4872 02:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If your argument is that there are countries which don't follow the Convention but instead have their own practices, that's still not as strong as you seem to make it sound. The United States doesn't follow the IBWM when it comes to spelling of measurements, but we have decided as a community to do so here. There are countries that don't follow IUPAC, in fact only fifty-seven are actually party to it which is less than the number of parties to the Vienna Convention which currently sits at 62, but we have decided to follow IUPAC. Fry1989 eh? 19:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Care to explain how this is controversial? That policy doesn't appear to apply. Fry1989 eh? 18:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does - this bit is quite clear: "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
It should be noted I hold this entire result in contempt because nobody was truly willing to look at policy and precedent, and am contemplating the next necessary process. Fry1989 eh? 14:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asian characters?

[edit]

Different directives seem to be in use in China, Taiwan, and (if it's kanji) Japan (and why does Japan use an additional text box?). Could someone add translations in the article or below the images? Much appreciated. knoodelhed (talk) 12:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

China uses Simplified Chinese characters while Hong Kong and Taiwan use Traditional Chinese characters. The sign in Japan's blue characters mean "slow", but the text box below it changes the meaning of the sign to "Give Way". Fry1989 eh? 19:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

British Virgin Islands

[edit]
Road signs: Virgin Gorda, BVI

Have moved the British Virgin Islands entry from the "give way" to the "yield" column. In general, road signage in the BVI is US-style. ("In return", traffic in the US Virgin Islands drives on the left!) -- Picapica (talk) 09:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing top image

[edit]

It seems strange that the main image on the page is such an old image, wouldn't a modern sign like File:Away from home (530006342).jpg be better? On holiday dmartin969 05:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First yield sign

[edit]

I would like to point out that Germany already had a yield sign before 1938. The yield sign was introduced in 1934. It was a downward pointing white triangle with a red border (we still use this in Germany) . France used to have the same shape but yellow with a dark blue/black border. Funky17 (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Green yield sign for protected areas
    Green yield sign for protected areas
  • Blue yield "No Fishing" signs.
    Blue yield "No Fishing" signs.

Australia

[edit]

Pretty sure Australia had a version before the current one where the white margin was just a plain red one. Jordf32123 (talk) 04:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, but we currently have no such specifications to create a drawing. Fry1989 eh? 13:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 August 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yield sign → Give Way sign – Per the older two move discussions.2600:1700:6180:6290:9DF4:436E:5E7F:66B (talk) 22:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed malformed move request. -- Netoholic @ 02:15, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:RETAIN and the results of the previous two discussions. It's been almost 9 years and almost 10 years since those discussions, and nothing of note has changed that should cause us to reevaluate the tilting of an article that has been stable for over 17 years. Imzadi 1979 → 23:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. My reasons remain the same as the past two discussions: WP:RETAIN. The article has been stable at the current title. In the first discussion, I noted that the national variety "used by most countries around the world" has never been part of the WP:ENGVAR rules AFAIK. The only thing close is WP:COMMONALITY, where we find words that are common to all varieties of English. This is not the case here. And in the second discussion, I basically argued that since there no such specific naming convention guideline for road signs like WP:CHEMNAME, then the WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN guidelines should prevail. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:01, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - RETAIN is often mistakenly used as a literal commandment, but actually it is completely reasonable to move an article based on the WP:COMMONNAME argument when there are no WP:TIES or disambiguation necessity. In this case, though, the current title is already the most commonly used term across all English sources, evidenced by dominating Google Ngrams results - and that is really the only consideration that matters. -- Netoholic @ 02:15, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per others; "give way" is not dominant over "yield" to the extent necessary for a title change. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above and apply trout liberally for reviving past failed RMs. –Fredddie™ 11:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yield_sign&oldid=1207950827"