Talk:Triangle Expressway

Exit list using templates

County	Location	mi	km	Exit	Destinations	Notes
Durham	​			5	I-40 to NC 54 – Raleigh, Chapel Hill, RDU Airport	Western terminus of Triangle Parkway; signed as exit 5A (east) and 5B (west); exit numbers use NC 147 mileposts
	​				Hopson Road
	​				Davis Drive
Wake	Morrisville				NC 540	Eastern terminus of Triangle Parkway
		69.2	111.4	69	NC 54 – Chapel Hill, Cary	Western terminus of the Western Wake Freeway; exit numbers use NC 540 mileposts
		68.4	110.1	67	NC 147 – Durham
		66.4	106.9	66	NC 55 – Apex, Durham	Current eastern terminus of the Western Wake Freeway and TriEx; signed as exits 66A (east) and 66B (west)
	​				Green Level Road	Western Wake Freeway – under construction until terminus at NC 55, projected completion in 2012
	Apex				US 64
					Old US 1
	​				US 1
	Holly Springs				NC 55
1.000 mi = 1.609 km; 1.000 km = 0.621 mi

The above is an exit list based on what's in the article using the templates. Several comments on what is in the article currently on why this is better:

1. It doesn't repeat the column headers needlessly
2. It doesn't rely on the * and ** for footnoted information. (If we did that, we can use <ref group=lower-alpha>Yada yada yada</ref> with a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} to generate the list, and maybe even use |key= in {{legendRJL}} to embed that key in the table footer like M-120 (Michigan highway)#Major intersections did for the letters
3. It doesn't use # for exit number in violation of MOS:RJL. Please note that the reason that was eliminated is that what we call the pound or number sign in the US is the hash sign and doesn't stand for "number" in other English-speaking countries. In addition it removes a bolded link, which is deprecated under MOS:BOLD
4. It moves all of the notes about the junctions into the notes column where they belong
5. When the upcoming edits are made to the junction list templates (see WP:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Newsletter/Issues/Volume04/Issue03#Junction list template updates coming for more info) then a km column will appear automagically with the template update, further benefitting potential non-US readers of this article.
6. It avoids the duplication for the links to Wake County and Morrisville because there isn't a duplicate header in the middle of their rowspans.
7. Using the templates, colored rows gain tooltips that pop up when a reader hovers his cursor over the shaded row; the manual encoding used does not do that. Plus using the templates means that if colors used change in the future (concurrencies used to be aqua, not green) then articles will update automatically in the future.

A final note, but we should use cardinal directions for termini instead of "begins" or "ends" because the decision to use west-to-east or south-to-north order is very arbitrary, even if based on DOT mileposting practice. A reader can read the table in reverse (bottom-to-top instead of top-to-bottom) order for the westbound or southbound direction so our tables should take that into account. Feel free to copy edit my changes to the notes for each junction as necessary, but I think what's above is superior to what's in the article at this time. Imzadi 1979 → 01:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

New way to code... I'll have to learn that for future exit/junction lists I do. What I tried to do, but failed in delivery, was trying to show that the Triangle Expressway is a backwards y (has two west points, one east point; here's a link to map: Triangle Expressway Map ). I'm fine with the design change, though I prefer to block the empty city columns (looks cleaner that way). As for it arbitrary directions, I just went with how NCDOT described the toll routing, even though it counters NC 147 while NC 540 mile markers are in reverse (thanks to its looping with I-540). Generally, whatever you think is best I'll go with that. XD --WashuOtaku (talk) 02:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I just tossed up something based on the table you created as a sample of what can be done. Traditionally though, we don't block empty locations together across the various USRD articles though. Maybe it's a bias that some of the first states to implement and standardize the formatting we use have townships or towns, etc at the sub-county level. (Every location in Michigan is either in a city or a township, for instance, meaning that a table should always have a full list of locations for a Michigan highway.) Feel free to modify what I coded and put it to use though. Imzadi 1979 → 02:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

References

Requested move

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved, I only used the RM stuff to give WashuOtaku a chance to comment just in case he had a reason to object. Imzadi 1979 → 02:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Imzadi 1979 → 02:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

---

TriEx → Triangle Expressway – Comparing google hits, the full name receives 36,600 results compared to 4,200 results for "TriEx" Given that the full name is more explanatory than the abbreviation, the article should move to that on that reason alone; WP:COMMONNAME supports the full on usage basis as well. Imzadi 1979 → 01:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it was originally named TriEx since its more well known as Triangle Expressway. I just went with it at the time of updating the page. I'm in favor of this change. --WashuOtaku (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Triangle Expressway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080616185641/http://www.newsobserver.com:80/news/growth/story/1098225.html to http://www.newsobserver.com/news/growth/story/1098225.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Direction

I know this is sort of a minor detail but is the highway north-south or east-west. It's general direction is north-south but it NC 540 is signed east-west so I didn't know which was right.--Ncchild (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

A minor detail, but a major pain to switch around and not break things. So yes, both NC 147 and NC 540 is north-south along the Triangle Expressway... is it worth the few hours of your day to reverse the entire article? This page is low priority compared to many others. --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Split content of article, repurpose as disambiguation page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to Keep. OrdinaryJosh (talk) 07:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

---

I believe that this article will be more practical suited as a disambiguation page instead of its own fully fledged article. The highway featured in this article is itself technically just a composition of two segments of highway that are themselves parts of other separate highways both already covered in their own dedicated articles. I believe in creating articles based around number designation rather than name designation, and that such pages created around the latter would be much better suited as disambiguation pages, which is somewhat commonplace already.

For reference, I'm suggesting something similar with the case of the article for the Tri-State Tollway. At one point, it was its own fully-fledged article before being reduced into a disambiguation page for its respective highway segments. If not already redundant, the content on this page should be split and moved onto the respective pages corresponding to their respective highway segments.

I believe that there could be arguments made against my case, so I am very much interested in hearing all your thoughts.

OrdinaryJosh (talk) 04:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• Against - The purpose of this article is specifically about the toll road itself, how much it costs, its history and what not. To break it up is to duplicate most information in both NC 540 (not all of which is toll) and NC 885. --WashuOtaku (talk) 04:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - I could see good in both outcomes, If I were to make a choice, I would say Keep but I can see what OrdinaryJosh is saying with the infomation already being out there. This may be a bad idea but what if we added all toll roads in the state (currently the Monroe Expressway but the NCDOT seems open to building more) and managed lanes on other routes into this article to make it more like a list of Toll roads in the state? DiscoA340 (talk) 11:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  @OrdinaryJosh I also want to mention that it may be usful to add this discussion to the RFC page on Wikipedia. DiscoA340 (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

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.