Talk:Road signs in the United States/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Road signs in the United States. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Gallery
There's a good amount of descriptive text about the signs, which helps to make this less gallerylike, in anycase it is very nice work. But considerations should be taken so that to derive a good amount of information from the article one does not have to rely on viewing images, this a good consideration for the blind, or possible future written versions which are likely to be truncated.Synchronism (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- I just hope somebody can fix all the broken files in the gallery. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
California Speed Limit
FYI, California usually puts a "radar enforced" sign under speed limits that are 55mph+, which isn't in the list. How should I add this on? Kevon kevono (talk) 04:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC) (What the hell is UTC?) 21:17 (PT)
Two way left traffic?!
I saw a sign that looked like "two-way traffic" (W8), but the up arrow was on the left and vice versa. Can somebody add it to the gallery?
(talk) 17:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Oregon speed limit
Oregon uses speed limit signs which simply say "SPEED" and the number instead of "SPEED LIMIT." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:CA:83C7:BE00:F1AE:F367:B119:4615 (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Retired Signs Section
Should I move the old signs into a 'Retired Signs' section along with some other old signs added in
-TheSpaceFace Let's Chat 23:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
New examples of regulatory signs
Back then, only prohibition sign were in the "Signs such as… …are considered regulatory signs" section. Can we also include mandatory signs in the section? 2601:C6:C580:6B20:6DCB:7C3A:1FB0:7D9D (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm open to considering adding additional examples, but not by removing the ones that exist. Imzadi1979 reverted your edit because they have concerns with it, so you need to discuss why the changes you want to make are an improvement or otherwise needed per WP:BRD. I am not sure I understand your reasoning above. If two editors have concerns about your edit, do not reinstate the edit, because there is clearly no consensus for it, at least not yet. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Old signs
Regarding old signs, what about the old style of "merge" sign in Iowa? I've hardly seen an old-style IA merge sign except on a couple places along the US-218 expressway between Iowa City and Mount Pleasant. --173.213.163.114 (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Object Marker/Hazzard
H-1R; H-1L; OM-3R; OM3-L not present Ncsr111 (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
W18
Why is there no W18?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- There is now a W18 series 2601:C6:C580:6B20:A8FA:9AB2:6CDD:82B5 (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Unarchived discussions
I recently replied to archived discussions, which means unarchiving them.
When nobody has replied to a discussion for over a week, they tend to get archived. What about unarchiving them after somebody has replied? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.241.14.29 (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for raising this concern. Per WP:ARCHIVE#Continuing discussions we shall restore the thread that has been archived prematurely, such as when it is still relevant to current work or was not concluded by unarchiving it by copying it back to the talk page from the archive, and deleting it from the archive. Is it still relevant? A09090091 (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- It is still relevant. 50.241.14.29 (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- It is current set that if a year goes by since the last comment on a thread, it will be archived. So the original contention that they get archived here after a week is false.[1] After that long (and many talk pages are set to shorter intervals), the discussion has gone quite stale. That doesn't mean it can't be resumed. Either someone can copy the section back from the archive, or just start a new discussion and link to the archived version. Imzadi 1979 → 01:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- The IP in question is evading a block on user:Kaguyafromtouhouproject Meters (talk) 03:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- The discussion should have already been archived back in 2017. The way the last comment was signed in 2016 is not standard so the bot never picked it up. The discussion is just not relevant, even added "there is now" adds nothing to the conversation. – The Grid (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- It is current set that if a year goes by since the last comment on a thread, it will be archived. So the original contention that they get archived here after a week is false.[1] After that long (and many talk pages are set to shorter intervals), the discussion has gone quite stale. That doesn't mean it can't be resumed. Either someone can copy the section back from the archive, or just start a new discussion and link to the archived version. Imzadi 1979 → 01:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- It is still relevant. 50.241.14.29 (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- ^ The bot hadn't been set up, so it archived a bunch at once, all older than a year. The earliest this thread could be archived is May 2023 unless someone does so early or the parameters are shortened.
Give way
I use the term "Give way" to refer to a yield sign. Could we use "Give way" instead of "Yield" in this page so that I don’t get confused? 2601:C6:C580:6B20:A8FA:9AB2:6CDD:82B5 (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Please see MOS:ENGVAR (specifically MOS:TIES). Because this is an article about signage in the United States, it should be written in American English, never mind the fact that the changes didn't match the actual wording on the signs depicted. Imzadi 1979 → 18:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
The UK uses "Give way". Should the US use it too? Can we use any dialect in the page? Also, why does the UK use the customary system? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C6:C580:6B20:A8FA:9AB2:6CDD:82B5 (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- According to MOS:ENGVAR, no, we can't use just any dialect of English given that "in the United States" is in the title, so we need to use American English. Imzadi 1979 → 18:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe every page on road signs in non-English speaking countries is written in Australian English? 2601:C6:C580:6B20:6DCB:7C3A:1FB0:7D9D (talk) 13:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- According to MOS:ENGVAR, no, we can't use just any dialect of English given that "in the United States" is in the title, so we need to use American English. Imzadi 1979 → 18:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- This article is about road signs in the United States, and in the U.S. signs say "Yield" and never "Give way", so the article should use "Yield". Mdewman6 (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- But I use "Give way" all the time! 2601:C6:C580:6B20:6DCB:7C3A:1FB0:7D9D (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Page cleanup?
I'd like to gauge the interest of removing location-specific images and only have images found in the national MUTCD. The MUTCD is inherently flexible, so it's not necessary to list every example. I would not be against creating Road signs in X pages for those locations that have their own manuals. –Fredddie™ 19:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with the cleanup. There's a reason why there's a supplement specifically for signage. There's also a new edition expected next year. There's just going to be more examples to use. (For instance, RRFBs will definitely be added) – The Grid (talk) 02:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia editors at large are very good at creating exhaustive lists of instances rather than explaining why anything does anything. This article doesn't explain the importance of sign shape and color at all! I suppose I'll start a draft and see where it goes. –Fredddie™ 03:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- So the only removal would be location specific items? I think the MUTCD tries to state the usual items first and then unique situations are either stated afterwards or in the supplement documents. I guess I could wait until the draft is made for comments. – The Grid (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia editors at large are very good at creating exhaustive lists of instances rather than explaining why anything does anything. This article doesn't explain the importance of sign shape and color at all! I suppose I'll start a draft and see where it goes. –Fredddie™ 03:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Concern about removed Non-Compliant Signs Section
According to this edit from the 21st of May, 2022, the Non-Compliant signs section of the Road Signs in the United States page was removed. Is there a specific reason why this edit happened? LogoFun13 (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- A non-compliant sign is basically a sign not based on the MUTCD. The article is about MUTCD-compliant signs. – The Grid (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- That answer leads into my next question: Will there be a page on Wikipedia about those Non-Compliant MUTCD signs? LogoFun13 (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- No. – The Grid (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- That answer leads into my next question: Will there be a page on Wikipedia about those Non-Compliant MUTCD signs? LogoFun13 (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
2023 MUTCD
I forgot to mention we now have the 11th edition of the MUTCD out. There's definitely changes to the signage categories but for the most part, everything should be in the main categories for the most part. I will have to see if FHWA released a streamlined version of the signage changes. I have been reviewing the redlined version showing the change in text from the 2009 MUTCD. – The Grid (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- I've been taking a good look at the new edition of the MUTCD myself, and there's defiantly a good amount of new and updated signs that need to be created (using SVG graphics), uploaded, and added to the page. Looks like we have a long road ahead of us to update this page to showcase the latest revision of the MUTCD. Luckily, some of the new signs are uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, so that cuts some slack for us and the other editors reading this reply. LogoFun13 (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- There is a project to transcribe the 11th edition to Wikisource, which will mean all of the graphics in the manual will be systematically uploaded to Commons in the future. Imzadi 1979 → 05:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Right, thank you for the information Imzadi1979. We should wait until the project is complete, then we can start updating the page and add in the new signs. LogoFun13 (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- There is a project to transcribe the 11th edition to Wikisource, which will mean all of the graphics in the manual will be systematically uploaded to Commons in the future. Imzadi 1979 → 05:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
If a sign is marked as (needs to be updated to 2009 MUTCD standards) or (needs to be updated to 2012 SHSM standards,) it doesn't means it isn't compliant, but it needs to be updated design standard-wise.If it has an asterisk next to the marking, that means it isn't compliant with the 2009 MUTCD. Higstudios3333 (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- By the way the 2023 MUTCD isn't in mandatory compliance until 2026 however the effective date is in 2024 and states don't need to comply with it until 2 years after the effective date. Higstudios3333 (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- I believe the same cushion of time was given when 2009 MUTCD was adopted, which makes sense. Each state's DMV usually mimics the language of the MUTCD for adoption so they should be in the process of updating the language in the respective state's law and code. The updating of the signage is based on the new changes from 2009 and 2012 regardless of the mandatory compliance. I would also imagine that's where we will see updates about each state's take on compliance - if they would comply to the MUTCD or with a supplement. – The Grid (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)