Talk:Median strip

Contraflow systems

"On British motorways the central reservation is never broken" - does anyone know how this fits in with contraflow systems? (when traffic is diverted to the opposing carriageway, thus necessitating the central reservation be crossed)128.232.250.254 16:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Cable barriers

Why no mention of Cable Barriers?142.167.245.192 05:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

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 no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The preferred term in British English is "central reserve" (see BS 6100: Glossary of building and civil engineering terms), and this is the term almost exclusively used in the Highways Agency's Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. However, "central reservation" is still frequently used, even in certain official publications such as the DfT's Traffic Signs Manual.

Well, that depends on whether "central reserve" is in common use in the United Kingdom yet. See WP:NAME.

Also, while we're on the topic of moves, I would personally support a move to median or median strip. The central reservation terminology used in the UK is extremely confusing to Americans because in the United States, reservation in the context of pieces of land is commonly used to refer to Native American reservations.--Coolcaesar (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I oppose the move, because I think it is commonly known as "central reservation" in the UK. 128.232.1.193 (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support move to median strip. 'Central reservation' shows up in 'The Free Dictionary' as a UK/Australian term but it does not appear in the 'Merriam-Webster Dictionary.' 'Central reserve' does not appear in either. Median in listed in the 'Merriam-Webster Dictionary' but the first three definitions have nothing to do with this topic and the fourth is a pointer to 'median strip' with a date of 1948. This is a phrase that has been in use for 60 years and avoids the confusion problem with using reservation completely which eliminates the possibility for any confusion with central reservation systems. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't choose names because they are officially preferred (see WP:OFFICIALNAMES); we use what is most common, and in my experience that is "reservation" Knepflerle (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

And in my experience (the shared experience of the majority of native English language speakers, who use American English), it is median, because that is what the vast majority of U.S. and Canadian publications use due to the traditional use of reservation in U.S. publications in the context of land to refer to Native American reservations. For example, if I were to say to my friends that I am going on the reservation or going to a reservation, the common response by far would be, "Which one?" If I were to refer to a "central reservation," my fellow Americans would get the impression that I am planning to visit a reservation in a place called "Central" like the Central Valley, or located in a state in the Central United States like Colorado.--Coolcaesar (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

But to most people outside North America, "median strip" doesn't mean anything. See WP:ENGVAR. It is appropriate to "retain existing variety". 128.232.105.60 (talk) 20:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If the only issue was between median and median strip, then I would accept either. Both have fewer issues then the ones in the proposal. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Central reservation" is the common term used in the UK, and gets significantly more google hits than either "central reserve" or "median strip". PC78 (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Google hits are not a reliable indicator in this case - how many "central reservation" hits are related to hotels and how many "central reserve" hits are about banks? In my experience, "central reserve" is the UK term more commonly used by those who work in highway engineering or other highway-related areas (e.g. traffic police), and the term has been in use during the motorway building era of the 1960s. However, it does seem that "central reservation" is more common within general usage. (See also pavement/footway. I would not oppose a move to "median strip", seeing as that article uses the US term.) 216.31.202.145 (talk) 08:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Fair point about the google hits, but I'm not seeing much other evidence in support or opposition of a move. "Central reserve" may be used by those who work in highway engineering, but Wikipedia caters for a wider audience. PC78 (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Good reasons to use neither 'central reservation' or 'central reserve' since those terms are ambiguous and would need disambiguation. We have a term in common use that does not need disambiguation so why not use it? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

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.

Title of article

As someone from outside the english language area, I never before heard the term Central reservation. Reservation (to a non-native-speaker) almost inevitably leads to associations like military or indian reservations. In the context of this article I always came across the terms median strip (mostly) or median barrier or just median (sometimes) --Gamgee (talk) 11:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is this article at this title when Median was created with road information over a year earlier?

Title says it all. The history of Median shows that information for roads was added on August 28, 2003,[1], whereas this page was created as a redirect to it over a year later on October 4, 2004.[2] - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 2

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 moved. --BDD (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Central reservation → Median strip – The first title used to describe the road dividing structure was "median", not "central reservation". Out of all the names used, the most commonly used term for this structure is "median strip", which is used in North American, New Zealand, and Australian English, while "central reservation" is only used in British English. Per WP:COMMONNAME, the article title should be located at median strip, not central reservation. (Also, search engine hits are not reliable since "reservation" commonly refers to hotel/restaurant/location reservations, or Indian reservations in AmE). - M0rphzone (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Note: the two earlier sections from above show additional support for the move. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
• Cautious support per WP:ENGVAR. Red Slash 04:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Median had content a year before this article was created. By such merits, WP:ENGVAR validates the change in title in this instance. See the above section for a link. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 08:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• The ENGVAR rationales (which I assume are referring to WP:RETAIN) are a bit disingenuous. There was a redirect of central reservation to a stubby article on various types of medians (prominently, statistical medians) but "the first non-stub revision" solely on central reservations/medians was here at "central reservation". —  AjaxSmack  01:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

That content was copied from the original dab page, and it was actually a stub at the time. Regardless, it's irrelevant if it's not the common name. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. But, more specifically, User:Steinsky moved it out of median on October 15, 2004.[3] He only added a paragraph on the term "central reservation" with regards to the UK. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 06:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The link I cited was when the "stub" tag was removed from the article. At that time, the article was called "central reservation". —  AjaxSmack  17:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a rather trivial point to grasp on to. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe. But the article has been stable at "central reservation" ever since. I had to pick some point since the guidelines refer to "the first non-stub revision". If you feel that point was reached sometime later, the article was still at "central reservation". —  AjaxSmack  02:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support the more commonality version. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support. A central reservation is a a large hub among a group of reservations. bd2412 T 21:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Really? Nothing is mentioned of this at the Indian reservation article, and even with a (albeit quick) web search, I can't find other evidence of such usage. —  AjaxSmack  17:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
    • That's what it sounds like, however. It could also be the main reason why someone feels reticent about something - as it, the ambiguity of the term, "reservation" is my central reservation with respect to keeping this title. bd2412 T 18:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
      • And "median" is not ambiguous? To me, "median strip" sounds like a kind of multivariate median or a just average striptease. However, that a term might sound like a non-existent entity to a particular reader should not force the move of a title that is a common name. —  AjaxSmack  02:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Hot Stop 03:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RETAIN. The most common names for this entity are "central reservation" and "median". Neither in the nomination nor the support votes is evidence given for "median strip" being a common name and this Google Ngram comparison shows "median strip" far less common than "median" (I understand that the results for "highway median strip" would include those for "highway median", but even then, "highway median" is much more common.) Therefore, keep the current (common) title per WP:RETAIN (see above discussion). —  AjaxSmack  17:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind using Median (road), but Median strip is another way to disambiguate the term. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

We already have an unambiguous common name for a title. —  AjaxSmack  02:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a rather meaningless term for at least 7/8 of the world, so I believe it to be rather ambiguous. Looking over the hits for "central reservation", it's use is exclusive to Britain. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support. "Median strip" better matches most of the content. Most of the content relates to relatively thin medians that cannot be reasonably called a "reserve". The cases of median strips that could be called "central reservations" should be moved to the article Boulevard. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:RETAIN. There are many variants of terminology for this feature, and the term "median" comes in many different flavours. The article has been stable at the current title for years, so there is no need to move it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• The term median is used by every other part of the world except Britain. Consensus can change, so stability just means nobody's done something yet.

• Comment - Highway median may be a more appropriate title to distinguish from a numerical median while continuing to use a common term. Yes, they aren't always on "highways", but most places define a highway as a road for automobiles. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

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.

Language variations

I was bold, and changed the couple remaining instances of 'central reservation' back to 'median'. The article changed from one to the other via a move, and I'm betting that these just weren't changed. Just making it consistent. Got a little too bored looking through infrastrucutre articles lately! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.65.196.20 (talk) 10:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I reverted NikNak's edit, I don't agree with changing the terminology halfway through the article, just because the topic is discussing implmentation in varied countries. If a paragraph discussed the medians in France, would we be calling them the French term? For better or worse, this article is written in one version of English, it should be consistent throughout. 143.65.196.20 (talk)Whatever IP this happens to be — Preceding undated comment added 21:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

No, regional variations of English should remain on the regionally applicable sections. This is done to avoid labelling a term for a country that does not use the term. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

As evidenced by my revert, I agree with Floydian. There is no such thing as a "median" on a road in this country, so the phrase "the median strip in the United Kingdom" would be meaningless to most of the people in the UK, which seems more unreasonable than having consistency in the article. For the same reason, that section of the article uses "motorway" not "highway".

Were the paragraph talking about France, then any of the terms could be most appropriate, as "terre-plein" (or "filled land") doesn't seem to lend itself to any particular translation, so presumably we should use median there.

You're welcome to try to gain consensus against my view, but as yours was the original change, the onus falls on you, not me. The Manual of Style suggests we should err on the side of consistency, but given that there is no ubiquitous word - as I said, "median" is simply not understood over here, and neither are "travel lanes" as far as I'm aware - it seems reasonable to go against it in this case. Using bracketed terms alongside would satisfy the MOS and probably be the most technically correct solution but would probably look very ugly so I think it should be avoided. NikNaks _{talk - gallery} 22:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Spelling variations should be consistent (ie colour, realize, that sort of language differentiation). However, the use of various terms prevalent to one region, but not another, so that we have one article instead of six or seven, is certainly ideal in this situation where one concept is known by a dozen different terms throughout the world. I tried to accomplish this with controlled-access highway as well, which merged the freeway and motorway articles into one very comprehensive, worldwide article. It's unfortunate that in the case of median/central res., there is no neutral term I can think of. That all said, the photo captions need to be fixed and the Width section should be (re)organized to make the term switching less in-your-face. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Should the variety of english be consistent throughout?

The following discussion 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.

---

Result: No consensus (follow WP:ENGVAR).

There were five "no" votes and three "yes" votes (one of which stated "yes/don't care", so I think it is only right to give it less weight). A key "no" argument was that WP:ENGVAR does not apply here, because it is only concerned with spellings, not national differences in terminology. This view appears mistaken. WP:ARTCON, a subsection of ENGVAR, states: "within a given article the conventions of one particular variety [of English] should be followed consistently". Two "no" voters appear to be under a misapprehension in this regard, and so that should be taken into account in weighing their votes.

ENGVAR is a guideline, rather than a policy, so it is possible to vote it down with regard to a particular article. However, taking into account the foregoing, I think the argument is too finely balanced to say that this is what has happened in the current discussion. What we have are two perspectives which both have merit, and a voting differential which is not large enough to declare a winner. In the absence of a consensus, we should default to the status quo position, which is also supported by the guideline, and use American terminology throughout (except where explaining the existence of other terminology).

Consensus can change though, so there is no reason for editors who care enough not to continue further discussion and perhaps try to get more eyes on a future RfC. I'm sorry that this one couldn't be decisive.

As an aside, it is common for articles that have an ENGVAR issue like this one to include appropriate alternative names in the first sentence of the article, and I think this one should mention that "central reservation" is used in British English right from the start.

Should the same word be used throughout the article, irrespective of which country it is discussing? 143.65.196.20 (talk) 16:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC) IP I don't know offhand

• No Floydian is correct; British roads do not have medians any more than American skyscrapers have 'lifts'. Ideally we'd use a neutral, universally-understood term, but as there isn't one we should use the correct terminology for each geographic region. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
• No As per User:Balaenoptera musculus's reason. --JustBerry (talk) 01:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
• No - however, the article should be reorganized into sections based on region, rather than covering every region under each attribute-based section, so that a paragraph doesn't switch between variants. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
• I think that it should, based on my earlier comments. I believe in consistency throughout the articles, makes for an easier reading experience. Someone reading about median strips (lord knows why) may wonder what a central reservation is, when it flips halfway through an article, simply to appease one group of people. If we have EngVar for a reason, we should stick to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.65.196.20 (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
• Yes/Don't Care I'd rather have an article that only Americans can understand easily than have an article that neither Americans nor British can understand easily. I assume British roads have medians in American English, and that American roads have central reservations or whatever in British English. I couldn't find any American WP:RS talking about British strips/reservations, or vice versa, but I suspect such documents also use consistent terminology. Maybe we can say things like 'On British motorways the median strip (called a "central reservation")...' if this allows everyone to get on their lives and avoid cluttering up the RfC board. :-) Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The trouble is that 'median' just doesn't have that meaning in British English at all. It's not like 'elevator', where we don't use it but we know what it means. When I saw the title of this RfC I assumed it was something to do with statistics - I was imagining the 'median strip' might be the second and third quartile, or something like that. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• No As with the discussion from before, it seems less sensible to talk about highways and medians for UK roads than it does to simply use the British terminology (and similarly with other regional variations). All the terms are used at the top of the page, and without any neutral word to use as a substitute, I think this reads best. Even in the above example, 'motorways' is used as it simply makes more sense in context. If it would help clarity and save readers having to return to the top of the page, then having 'central reservation (median)' would seem an acceptable compromise. However, using words entirely uncommon to most language variants in favour of one particular term when the article is describing regions where the term is never used seems entirely illogical. Consistency might be keeping to the letter of ENGVAR, but that doesn't seem like the spirit of that policy at all. I would also second the idea to split regional variations into separate sections to make it a little clearer as well. NikNaks _{talk - gallery} 23:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
• Yes I must disagree with NikNaks and Floydian, there is a policy in place to keep articles consistent, and it should be followed, regardless of nationalistic favour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.79.76.34 (talk) 21:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• As mentioned, that policy applies to language variations in spelling, not in terms used in different countries to describe different things (though it mentions that vocabulary is one of the things that varies with region). The spelling should be consistent, regardless of which part of the world a section deals with. Terms are a different ball game. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems that someone edited the section, making it consistent but rather unwieldy. I've removed two references to the term completely (hopefully both sentences are still clear from the context) but the opening line of the section still reads very poorly. Most of the section is about the UK yet it still references Europe and hence has a clarification about the terms (i.e. none of the ones listed apply). It also still uses "carriageways", which seemed to fall into the same bracket of terms as "central reservation" in the discussion, so the current wording is now a mix of terms. I'm wary of reverting the whole thing, though, given I made the first revert that brought the discussion here. NikNaks _{talk - gallery} 11:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• No plus Comment. The question of WP:ENGVAR policy is not relevant in this context and policies in any case should not be distorted against their intended objectives; for one thing, even in the US the usage is not limited to a single consistent term, but varies with the region. A consideration more functionally relevant to this article was that as NikNiks pointed out, the lede and parts of the article read poorly; the fundamental reason was not the concepts or terminology, but the fact that discussion of the terminology did not belong in the lede. I checked, and several of the regional terms do occur in redirections to this article, which solves part of the problem anyway. I furthermore edited the lede and split it to create a regional terminology section. I think that improved the reading and the layout and also meant that anyone reading the internal text of the article where there might be a bit of inconsistency, should already realise which terms simply happen to be alternative terms. Over to anyone for alternative improvements. JonRichfield (talk) 09:05, 14 June 2014 (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.

Wouldn't "no consensus" mean that we keep the current status-quo of intermixed terminology. Regardless of the result, I will be making some changes to the article eventually that will hopefully make things work from a non-regional standpoint. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

AFAICT, "median strip" is used throughout the article except in text that is explicitly saying "here is an alternative name...". "No consensus" could be taken to mean either stick with the status quo or defer to the guideline, IMO. Luckily, the two things seem to coincide in this case. Please do continue working on the article but please do not edit against the status quo or the guideline without getting the go-ahead via a consensus first. Formerip (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Parkway as synonym for median strip?

A median strip can happen to be a parkway (an increasingly obscure term in NA English) if it's big enough, but I've never personally heard of parkway used as a *synonym* for media strip; the first few ungated dictionaries I saw don't support this; and the American English source given in the article is gated so I don't know whether it's in context. Any objections to its removal? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit suspicious of esplanade as well, despite [4]; communities often give their roads and such overly grandiose names. I'd be happier with a neutral media source characterizing esplanades as another word for medians. Otherwise we'd have to say "cove" is a synonym for "cul-de-sac" and "manor" is a synonym for "neighborhood". Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm suspicious of esplanade too; it appears to be vandalism. --Coolcaesar (talk) 09:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

For my part, suit yourselves. I never checked the terms unfamiliar to me when I edited the article, and I hold no brief for them.JonRichfield (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm also dubious about both terms, have never heard them used that way, but have often heard them used in other unrelated contexts. If nobody can find a WP:RS, both terms should be removed. Reify-tech (talk) 14:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

No response in 10 months. I'm taking out the garbage. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Inverted median, locations

For foreign En-WP visitors it would be helpful to have geographic coordinates available, especially for the example "I-85 in central North Carolina". --79.216.222.242 (talk) 18:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Meridian vs Median

I've encountered people using the term "meridian", which I think is just a misinformed interpretation of the term "median". Do others encounter this misspelling? Is it worth mentioning in the article? --RealGrouchy (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Never, ever heard of that one. Definitely an ignorant misunderstanding. --Coolcaesar (talk) 03:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah it's a mistake. A meridian, as it applies to roads, is kind of like a colonization road drilled into the wilderness off which concessions and sidelines are based. A baseline road is an example of this. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 01:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Lead image

Why does the caption for File:Ireland Road Lanes.svg refer to "Typical left-hand motorway road layout .." etc? Surely that's a generic layout plan with no indication of direction of traffic flow? And why are those linked countries used exactly? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

World's widest?

The section Width mentions several examples of which the widest given is the Trans-Canada Highway at 5km between lanes. However to the side is a picture captioned "The world’s widest (50 metres width) median strip in Inagi, Tokyo". Ingai is not even mentioned in the width section, nor does it qualify as the world's widest unless we have reason to reject the examples that are given so why is this there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.243.84 (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)