Talk:Pedestrian crossing

Walk button was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 07 February 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Pedestrian crossing. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Traffic light#Traffic signal cycles|a period of time]] The anchor (#Traffic signal cycles) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Archive of past discussion

Archive 1

Huge Oversight

This artical fails to mention if pedestreans have the right of way if the crossing says "don't Walk" which is a huge oversight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.250.66.62 (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Largely because this is en.wikipedia.org not us.wikipedia.org - different rules in different countries. I guess even different US states ?

In UK there is a 'race condition' on Zebra crossings - whoever gets to the crossing first has right of way. Even if you have a foot on the crossing first, it would be unwise to assume motorists will stop.

https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/pedestrian-crossings-191-to-199

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

N. America section

I changed the paragraph I originally wrote a long time ago to be slightly more informative, and also added references. Agnosticaphid (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

I think a merge with "Zebra crossing" and a 'in the UK/SA/Australia' or 'in the US' explanation with both terms would be a good idea, unless there's some real difference other than you have look the other way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.0.25 (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small caps for sign legends

Hex, I don't agree with your format changes removing the small-caps sign legend callouts from the article text. It's not just random "jazzy" frippery as you contend, it's standard (or at least very common) publication usage of small caps. Wiki markup includes provisions for small caps so that it might easily be used where appropriate. Certainly it's much more formal and less clunky than using regular caps or quotation marks. I don't find one, but is there some concrete reason, perhaps based on something in MoS, why the small caps must definitely go away? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C20:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Manual of Style says "Avoid writing in all capitals." While no specific mention is made there of signage, unless there is a citable source that indicates that United States crossing sign text is rendered in small caps (which, to my knowledge, it is not), then doing so here is non-standard. The article road signs in the United States certainly does not do so. Hence I have again removed this formatting from this article. — Hex (❝?!❞) 23:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your ref to the MoS doesn't appear to support your distaste for the small-caps rendering. It quite correctly states that writing in all caps is to be avoided, but it is silent on the matter of representing sign legends. Your assertion that the signs themselves do not carry legends in small caps is neither true nor false; I'm reminded of once asking a printer whether my business cards could be set in all small caps — it took me a few times asking the question before I realised its folly: without lowercase letters and/or ordinary caps for immediately contextual comparison, there is effectively nothing such as a small cap! The actual sign legends in question are, in fact, in all-caps, so rather than your apparent preference for unrepresentative lower case with quotation marks, it is appropriate for us to represent them in uppercase within the text. Using small caps to do so is quite common in all kinds of literature; the very raison d'être of small caps is to diminish the visual awkwardness of capital letters hindering the flow of a paragraph.[1] We must strive for both accuracy and elegance in our construction of this encyclopædia; "dont walk" is not an accurate representation of the sign legend, DONT WALK is accurate but visually jarring, and don't walk fits and flows smoothly with its surrounding text and is an accurate representation. Why, then, would we settle for a less-than-optimal pick?

It may be that Road signs in the United States does not presently use small caps, but Stop sign does—and has done for quite some time, without question or dissent by any of many editors. NB I will not go and put small caps in Road signs in the United States, and I would ask that you likewise coöperatively not remove them from Stop sign, pending consensus on this stylistic point.

It looks to me as though your removal is based more on UGH than any applicable provision of MoS, so I find your unilateral reversion troubling, particularly since this article doesn't appear to get enough traffic to generate conversation wider than our present debate. You have presented no evidence that small caps are incorrect; I am putting them back until either such evidence is presented or consensus develops to remove them. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C00:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't read your story about business cards or whatever it was.

My argument is based on not making stuff up because you think it looks good; and there being absolutely no citable source or or even local stylistic guideline to back up your opinion. I disagree entirely with your assertion that the small caps are not jarring - they are equally jarring, or even more so, than regular capitals.

Wikipedia does not attempt to slavishly reproduce the stylistic appearance of things it discusses; it prefers plain English orthography. Hence the article Korn rather than "KoЯn"; Firehose rather than "fIREHOSE"; E. E. Cummings rather than "e e cummings"; and many others. Nor do we use illuminated capitals or ligatures in our articles, or many other things that the literati of Typophile.com may favor.

Writing for an encyclopedia should focus on content and meaning. The meaning of a "don't walk" sign is "don't walk". don't walk contributes no additional information and serves only to distract, as an entirely invented and inaccurate attempt to mimic the lettering of the sign itself.

I will leave it to other editors to decide whether you have ownership issues with this article. — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Opinion

An editor recently requested a neutral opinion on WP:3O. I want to first say that it is good to see sincere discussion of editorial matters. I am sure that both Scheinwerfermann and Hex are good editors with much to contribute. I believe that it is important to conform to general style guidelines for uniformity across the encyclopedia. I am therefore remaining neutral until I have time to research what practices are followed in other similar articles, as well as if any MoS guidelines are applicable. This is a good question, and I'm sure we can find either precedent or a highly experienced style editor to help guide us. --Matheuler 21:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked into the matter on various style pages. It appears to me that there is no direct concensus regarding this issue. That being said, I am personally inclined, based on my observation of other Wikipedia pages, to advise against the use of the small caps. I was not able to find another situation in which small caps are used comparably, except the Stop sign article, where they were put in by User:Scheinwerfermann. So, in short, I do not find any policy guidelines or past concensus indicating either preference. But my neutral opinion, with respect to both editors, is that the article is better without small caps. Thanks, and best wishes with further editing. --Matheuler 22:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth opinion

I also wanted to chime in. I can say I know first hand that the signs in question use small caps. However, displaying them as such doesn't really add anything to the article. The presentation isn't usually necessary for a complete understanding, especially since the point of that section is that those signs aren't being viewed. The "walk" and "don't walk" are being referenced as specific "modes" that the signs could be in, not the actual signage displayed. The goal is to display the content as clearly as possible, and not be beholden to stylistic trademarks except where it is advantageous. For example, earlier in the article "PED X ING" is used, which is a good, singular example. As for the MoS, some application from WP:ALLCAPS can be drawn. It explicitly says to reduce case names, headlines, and album titles from all caps. Take one example, such as the Moon landing. That headline is far more iconic than a stop sign, but it's not advantageous to display it in all caps. Much better to print the information inherent within it. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 01:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flashing Green

In addition to British Columbia, are there other areas around the world that use a flashing green system for pedestrians? What happens is:

It initially starts flashing, and when a pedestrian pushes the button, it stops solid green. Then it functions as a normal traffic light (triggering the "stop ahead" sign lights), and then turning yellow followed by red.
Once the "Don't Walk" light stops flashing, there are a few seconds before the red light for vehicles turns flashing green again.

Are there any other countries, provinces or states that do something comparable to that? Mechamind90 (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Actually, let me re-specify that as a reference to them. Mechamind90 (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UK Pelican crossings flash : being gradually superceded by Puffin crossings that dont - sensors check when the pedestrian has gone, instead.

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very US-centric

This article is very US-centric. WALK/Don't walk is not used anywhere in Europe, so most of the world in fact does NOT use walk/don't walk. I will try to expand this article a bit, since it's pretty short and doesn't list other countries... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.70.20.187 (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most (new) crosswalk signals use symbols. Rarely see words unless you're in an old part of a city. - M0rphzone (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

10 years on, and it's still almost entirely about US laws and standards. I propose having a basic worldwide general concepts and historical outline at the top, followed by regional sections below that contain specific designs used only in those regions. The current layout is extremely confusing as it chops and changes between worldwide, US-centric and regional styles.2406:3400:212:A0D1:6C54:7832:20BE:C800 (talk) 08:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Common near schools

In the article's lead there is a sentence "They are common near schools or in other areas where there are a large number of children". I'm just curious what the source of that is, because I'm a little skeptical that there are really more crossings in front of schools than in other locations. Emika22 (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Many jurisdictions also commonly install marked crosswalks at school crossing locations (such as where adult crossing guards are used)"

http://www.walkinginfo.org/training/collateral/resources/Effects_Un_MarkedCrosswalks_Summary.pdf

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Listing of country

For some reason user: Wtshymanski does not feel we need to list country for Portland, Oregon yet other countries, for example Germany and Canada are listed on their respective images. This user should either explain why we are not listing US but every other country or remove country from the other images. Zarcadia (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take out the others, then, if there's already a link. I think it's redundant and wordy - if the reader wants to know where the city is, it clicks on the link. Otherwise it's just more pointless Wikipadding. Terabytes are cheap, bandwidth nearly so, but reader's time is precious. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I'll do that. I think it's important for WP that there is consistency within the articles. Thanks for replying. Zarcadia (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every crossing should be fully capable

Former disabled crossing signals should be replaced with fully capable crossing signals - I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.242.221.39 (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Safety

The safety of unsignalled pedestrian or zebra crossings is somewhat contested in traffic engineering circles.

I deleted the following as blame-the-victim POV !

This is because pedestrians sometimes use the crossings without looking to see that cars have seen them and are actually stopping.

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 03:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More reports to cite:

http://www.walkinginfo.org/training/collateral/resources/Effects_Un_MarkedCrosswalks_Summary.pdf

Zegeer, already cited in Pedestrian_crossing#cite_note-Zegeer-5 !

"Unfortunately, simply installing a marked crosswalk without other more substantial crossing facilities often does not result in the majority of motorists stopping and yielding to pedestrians, contrary to the expectations of many pedestrians."

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/04100/

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/04100/04100.pdf - the full text summarises other studies eg:

"In a 1999 study involving the relationship between crashes or conflicts and exposure, Ekman and Hyden compared intersections with and without zebra crossings on major streets in the cities of Malmö and Lund, Sweden. ... the positive effects of pedestrian refuge islands seem to be stronger than the negative effect of zebra crossing, at least in the lower region of car exposure."

"Bowman and Vecellio and also a study by Garder that found safety benefits for pedestrians due to raised medians and refuge islands, respectively."

http://streetswiki.wikispaces.com/Pedestrian+Refuge+Island

Just a wiki, but gives a good discussion. They conclude this from the above '4100 Zegeer' report

"providing raised medians or pedestrian refuge areas at pedestrian crossings at marked crosswalks has demonstrated a 46% reduction in pedestrian crashes. Installing such raised channelization on approaches to multi-lane intersections has been shown to be particularly effective. At unmarked crosswalk locations, medians have demonstrated a 39% reduction in pedestrian crashes. Medians are especially important in areas where pedestrians access a transit stop or other clear origin/destinations across from each other. Midblock locations account for over 70% of pedestrian fatalities. Also it is where vehicle travel speeds are higher which contributes to the injury and fatality rate at this location."

http://www.walksandiego.org/resources/research/

A list of studies adding:

Nolan, Robert. 2003. Traffic fatalities and injuries: the effect of changes in infrastructure and other trends. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 35 (2003): 599-611.

typical "safety" improvements such as adding and widening lanes have actually increased rather than decreased injuries and fatalities

http://www.massengale.typepad.com/venustas/files/SwiftSafetyStudy.pdf

revealed a dramatic increase in injury accident frequency as street width increases - 24-feet is best

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/Factors-Influencing-pedestrian-safety-literature-review.pdf

Lists many studies

http://www.traffexengineers.com/documents/Articles/Road_Safety_at_Pedestrian_Refuges.pdf

"the provision of refuges reduced vehicle-vehicle collisions, but surprisingly increased vehicle-pedestrian collisions" - (TfL summary)

"The results regarding strings of refuges, not at junctions, will disappoint those who felt this means of largely dividing the road was a a safe and cheap alternative to provision of crossing facilities at specific points.

... can produce significant accident reductions if they are associated with anti-skid surfacing and guardrails"

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/memo071008/#ped_refuge

"pedestrian refuge areas at pedestrian crossings at marked crosswalks has demonstrated a 46% reduction in pedestrian crashes"

I can't find his source, though.

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one citation in the Crash Modification Factor Clearinghouse for pedestrian refuges, which claims a 56% reduction. The quality of this factor is unrated. --Triskele Jim 18:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

New article?

I think that the section about pedestrian signals should be split up into its own article, Pedestrian signal. It makes the article about pedestrian crossings a bit easier to read.

Any takers? Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 14:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've consolidated most of the signal stuff in one section, although some remains in the regional variations sections. Not sure there is enough material right now for a new article. I'd like to see this expanded and spun off at some point. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

As the first sentence of the article we've got this definition: "A pedestrian crossing or crosswalk is a designated point on a road at which some means are employed to assist pedestrians wishing to cross." But at least in the US, this isn't exactly right. Many, perhaps most, crosswalks in the US do not have any means "to assist pedestrians wishing to cross." I would propose changing this to something like "A pedestrian crossing or crosswalk is a designated point on a road at which it is legal for pedestrians to cross." Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true everywhere. In NY State (outside of NY City, at least), it is legal to cross the street anywhere unless there is a sign prohibiting it. The difference is who must yield - vehicle drivers must yield to walkers at unsignalized crosswalks, and walkers must yield to drivers if there is no crosswalk. To make things more complicated, NY State law says crosswalks exist at intersections with sidewalks on both sides, even if there are no pavement markings. I suggest simply "a place designated for pedestrians to cross a road." --Triskele Jim 16:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, that's better. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted a change that suggested a crosswalk could be a place where pedestrians don't cross. That seems contradictory to me. I would want to see a source for that. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Layout

It seems to me the "Characteristics" section should just go away, and its subsections promoted. The section is way too long. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Color

Are the stripes always white? I've seen places with yellow stripes. –H T D 15:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to national regulations in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, US crosswalks are required to have white stripes. Colored pavement between the stripes is optional, as long as it isn't yellow or any other color restricted for a specific purpose. Other countries could have different standards. --Triskele Jim 01:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the original question asked if the stripes "are" always white, not if they "should" be white. As an example, which can be cited as an exception to the protocol, refer to this intersection that has white stripes filled in with yellow paint https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bridge+St,+Dracut,+MA/@42.6689105,-71.3033832,69m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e3a5eca9820595:0x271ed93b95d0c700!8m2!3d42.6815496!4d-71.3090434 --Tylr00 (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of "crossing"

Crossing does not only mean get across a road perpendicularly according to the typical image associated with the word. One may get across any area or longitudinally through a way (all along but inside).
Hence, the correct definition of a "pedestrian crossing" is simply a delimited place where pedestrians can securely walk where the vehicles run.
Internationally, there are indeed pedestrian crossing (paintings) that do not look like the canonical image.
I'm stressing this because, when proposing a widened support of the word 'crossing' to OpenStreetMap, I met a negative reaction caused by the restricted idea of 'crossing' that they had in mind.
Here are some pictures and I wish I could include one at (5.6286,50.5350) all along the road to access a school.
http://referentiel.nouvelobs.com/wsfile/2151402563993.jpg
http://www.lesoir.be/sites/default/files/imagecache/475x317/2012/10/09/816656018_ID3414785_09_saintgilles_101940_024HP1_0.JPG
https://scontent-b-fra.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/t1.0-9/529707_379452988772468_304655380_n.jpg
--A Pirard (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you move this section to the end of the talk page. Otherwise no one will see it unless they have this article watchlisted. Also please sign your posts.

Thanks for the tips.--A Pirard (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what you're asking, since the photos you link to all seem to match the definition given in this article. Can you suggest the alternate text you want to use? Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised with what you say because 1) my second phrase states "the correct definition is ... a delimited place where pedestrians can securely walk where the vehicles run" and hence contain the text you're asking and 2) every other place where I read text or see a picture, it's what I call the "typical image" of a narrow path that goes perpendicularly to a road albeit the word "crossing" also means walking through a wide area or alongside a road on a part of it painted for safe walking, and that exists in reality. I simply couldn't find many photographs departing enough from that "typical image" because they made typical photographs and I didn't have time making them.
And if you look right here above, there it goes again: I suggest simply "a place designated for pedestrians to cross a road."
Restricted to crossing a road and no concern for safety (why walk there instead of elsewhere).
No, it's definitely "a designated, delimited place where pedestrians can securely walk where the vehicles run". --A Pirard (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pedestrian crossing. 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/20100218123637/http://www.nytimes.com:80/2004/02/27/nyregion/27BUTT.html?ex=1393218000 to http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/27/nyregion/27BUTT.html?ex=1393218000

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: 5 June 2024).

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} 03:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diagonal crossing

In Taipei, Taiwan, I encountered a type of crossing I did not see in this article. Should it be? --FredTC (talk) 11:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is dealt with in one sentence here but has its own article at pedestrian scramble. I'll add this image to Pedestrian scramble § In Taiwan. — AjaxSmack 22:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pedestrian crossing is usually a legal term

This article is nice, and informative of Pedestrian crossing culture worldwide.

However it does not enough highlight the fact that Pedestrian crossing is a legal term, and legally defined.

In many countries Overtaking is illegal over a Pedestrian crossing and it is a strong factor for Suspension (punishment) of Driver's license, and it is necessary to know what the law is talking about.

The Swedish trafikförordningen (Traffic Ordinance law), Chapter 3, Section 40

 Vehicles or trams must not be overtaken shortly before or at an unguarded pedestrian crossing, an unguarded bicycle passage or a bicycle crossing.

In Sweden the definitions of traffic legal terms comes from a hierarchy; 1.) Svenska Akademiens ordlista (about the same as OALD in English), 2. Swedish Language Council (TNC) and 3. The Gov Traffic authority (Trafikverket), dependent on the generality of terms. In this case by the authority:

 Pedestrian crossing
 part of a street that is intended to be used by pedestrians to cross a roadway or a cycle path and indicated by road marking or road sign
 A pedestrian crossing is guarded if the traffic is regulated by traffic signals or by a police officer and otherwise unattended.

The important topic here is that a Installation art for crossing pedestrians with a Traffic island are in fact legally two Pedestrian crossings with a Traffic island in between. There are no Pedestrian crossings over Traffic islands and Shoulder (road)s and issues like overtaking and pedestrians rights are indeed strongly regulated according to this.

Also expressions like definitions of Overtaking are important in this theme and the Swedish definition of Overtaking is:

 passage of other or other vehicles on the same road or street and with the same direction of movement

Meaning that like lane changes before or after an Overtaking is not legally a part of the Overtaking, but usually are in vulgar non legal language.

I think this article should be developed in a more legally crisp section.

Also it would be interesting to be informed of particular differences in law in various countries? Are there any legal international agreements etc (isen't it)?

I think it is a good high lighting of the security topic of the Swedish Traffic Ordinance law, Chapter 3, Section 40, Overtaking on a pedestrian crossing is illegal because the overtooken car shades a possible pedestrian for the overtaking car, and is a huge risk of personal damage. While if there is a Traffic island this risk is eliminated.

I think it is important to in Wikipedia legally distingwish Road, Street, lanes, Shoulder (road) etc, because they make a legal difference. I can't see it clear enough?

--Zzalpha (talk) 04:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Zebra crossing

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.

Closed; no consensus, no rationale for merge, policy reasons not to. Moonraker12 (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is minor difference (other than EngVar) between these subjects. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 15:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - a zebra crossing is just one of many types of pedestrian crossing. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is like merging this with this because the former is a part of the latter. Seemplez | Chat 09:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a terrible analogy. Merging "zebra crossing" into "pedestrian crossing" is more like merging an article for "striped Telecaster" into an article for Telecaster. Bueller 007 (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if merged, “zebra crossing” should be merged into “pedestrian crossing,” not vice-versa.—Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 17:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the reason articulated by User:Seemplez. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into pedestrian crossing. Obviously. It's ridiculous to have a whole separate article for "zebra crossing", which is just a dialectal term for a particular visual variant of a crosswalk. Almost all of the refs on the zebra crossing article appear to be generic crosswalk references. And almost every image in the pedestrian crossing article is of a zebra crossing. "Zebra crossing" can be summarized adequately in a single sentence on the pedestrian crossing article. Bueller 007 (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on the ground that the Zebra is an independently notable subset of Pedestrian crossing. There are several other subsets with independent pages, such as Pelican crossing, toucan crossing and Puffin crossing, and its reasonable to keep all of these for separate discussion. Also, it's a big topic; Pedestrian crossing is already at 89k and if all subpages were merge would certainly be WP:TOOBIG. Klbrain (talk) 18:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m closing this. It’s been here a year and there is no consensus for this proposal (3 for, 3 against). More to the point, there is no rationale for the merge either, except unsupported opinions ("There is minor difference (sic) between these subjects", "just one of many types of pedestrian crossing", "just a dialectal term for a particular visual variant"). OTOH there are at least two policy reasons for not merging; Zebra crossing, at 22kb and with copious references, is a "notable subset of pedestrian crossing" (ie. a discrete subject warranting its own article) and, at 89Kb, this article is already at the point where the resulting article would be too big). Moonraker12 (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2020 (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.

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:

DY-STM-Road-Marking-Machine-Working-in-Bahrain.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Signals and buttons

Some of the information about signal buttons for NYC is wrong. Inactive buttons installed in the 1960s weren't meant to be placebos but were for future use, so that control boxes could be added later. I can't correct it because it would be considered original research. My father was the borough engineer for the department of highways at the time and had firsthand knowledge. It was something that I knew growing up from the time the buttons were installed. The buttons in question were not working at one time. It was easy to confirm when the buttons were first put in, but again, Wikipedia won't accept "I was there and tried it."

While I can't put in the correct information per Wikipedia rules, the text indicates that it's speculation that they were put in as placebos. It seems reasonable to remove speculation since it's essentially a wild guess that the city spent money for no reason to accomplish nothing. It's also speculation that they were working at one time, and is clearly not evidence based. There's more than enough justification for someone to remove incorrect information that was speculation to begin with. Hagrinas (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]