![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
This archive page was moved from Template talk:Infobox Interstate/Archive 1 after Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 September 2#Interstate infoboxes.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between August 31, 2005 and September 17, 2005.
What is the proper way to color code each junction? None of the articles that use it so far seem to use any color codes. Also, what exactly is "browse" for? I think it's for other routes in the state, but how am I to select which ones? I can't possibly include every highway in NY. Wouldn't it be better just to link to a page with the complete list, like Category:Interstate highways in New York? -- Engleman 03:25, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
How does the concurrency color work? And what does "begin/end concurrency, bold route is carried through" mean? Unless it's a junction of more than one highway and concurrency (see: Interstate 80/94 / U.S. 6 / U.S. 41 / Indiana 152 in Hammond, IN for a particularly nasty case that may end up in Borman Expressway), bolding routes may just be confusing.
Also, what does "bold route on white background indicates termini" mean? Is this the article route's termini, or the bolded route's termini? If it is the former, I'd suggest leaving it alone... or having a row of colspan 2 and background yellow saying "End I-5" or a 2-column row saying "Mexican Border | End I-5", etc. Not all Interstates end at junctions with major highways. :-) --
Rob
19:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
File:Interstate-290.png I-290 | Mile 34.5 |
File:Interstate55.png I-55 | Mile 12.5 |
...unconstructed... | |
File:Interstate80.png I-80 | Mile 0.0 |
-- Rob 20:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
File:Interstate-290.png I-290 | Mile 34.5 |
File:Interstate55.png I-55 | Mile 12.5 |
File:Interstate80.png I-80 | Mile 0.0 |
File:Interstate-355.png Ends | |
File:Interstate-290.png I-290 | Mile 34.5 |
other junctions... | |
File:Interstate55.png I-55 | Mile 12.5 |
File:Interstate-355.png Ends | |
...unconstructed... | |
IL xxx | Mile 4 |
File:Interstate80.png I-80 | Mile 0.0 |
Future File:Interstate-355.png Ends |
Wow... I didn't think about the concurrency problem. When I copied the CA stuff from their WP I didn't think of that. In California whenever there is a multiplex (concurrency) one route typically dominates over another and the dominant route is bolded. However this is mostly untrue for the Interstate system... at least technically... in function there may be a dominance. As for the terminii... I'd imagine that it would be the article route's terminii, and Mexican border would be the terminus for I-5, for example. The yellow would be helpful as long as there are no clashes... say unbuilt or deleted terminii or whatever... so italic or underline may work better. Another possibility is making deleted strikethrough to help avoid conflicts. -- Rschen7754 03:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
A quick Google search shows that the term postmile appears to be California-specific. (The few remaining results still appear to be from California.) I know for sure postmile is rarely, if ever, used in the Northeast (I though for sure it was a typo at first glance.) Assuming that postmile is California-specific (I believe I have sufficient evidence, but please correct me if it is in common use elsewhere.), it's not good for use in the Interstate highway system. I think that milepost is the usual term throughout most of the nation. (I did another search, to make sure it wasn't just where I'm from, but if there is yet a third alternative term, please correct me.) Therefore, I am changing postmile to milepost -- Engleman 04:34, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
It's not a problem- I would have changed it eventually anyway. I am managing 3 WPs and am getting confused as to which one I fixed and which one I didn't :( Postmile is a CA-specific term since CA uses the weird boxes instead of green milepost signs... CA is just weird. -- Rschen7754 05:36, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Another thing to consider: by definition, all junctions on Interstates are interchanges with exit numbers, usually by state (In some states, it is possible for one interstate to have multiple exit numbering schemes and milage systems. examples: I-87 in New York has three (Deegan, Thruway & Northway), I-95 in New Jersey has at least two ( NJTP & Bergen-Passaic Expressway)). Also in the majority of states, exit numbers are always based based on milage. The huge exception here is the Northeast. Some states have converted some or all ( Pennsylvania recenly switched the whole state, I believe.), but there are still quite a few major Interstates that use sequential. Anyway, so what's my point? My point is that perhaps "Exit Number" or "Interchange Number" or "Exit" or something along those lines would be more relevant, and in most of the country, the data in that column would be exactly the same regaurdless of what you call it. As far as the states that use sequential numbering, have a look at what I've done for I-84. I put the mile first, and the exit number in parenthases if it is different. If the column were to be changed to say exit number or interchange number, then the two numbers would be swapped. As far as the states with multiple systems, I would suggest putting the state abbreviation first, then some common abbreviaion for the road, and linking it to the article on that particular road. (Like NJ- TP or NY- MD) Any thoughts? -- Engleman 18:56, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Merging Interstate 355 with routeboxint, just to start small... there's a few things that have no place.
I created the I-355 table, so I'd like to keep things like:
Also, for "State Highways"... let's safely assume there will eventually be 50 WikiProjects, one for each state. Does this mean for a particularly long Interstate (again, taking I-90 here) that there will be 15-20 state to maintain in this section? -- Rob 15:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Another possibility is creating a sub-template to make things work... so that for loops the phrase "Beltway" is displayed instead of the terminii fields. -- Rschen7754 03:29, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
See Interstate 84 (east) for the new example. Before proceeding with converting other Interstates, I wanted to come to an accord on this one. -- Rob 20:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Recently, as I was thinking about putting those on the NY interstates, I realised something: the majority of state highways don't even have an article. Even instates that already have WP's (such as California), not all of the state highways have articles. Someone who actually wanted to go through all the numbered highways in the state in numerical order would run into frequent dead-ends in this system. Not to mention the fact that at least a few states have duplicate routes, unlike in California where all State Routes (Interstates, US highways, and state highways) are in a comprehensive law and there are no duplicates.
Personally, I am opposed to the Browse State Hwys section. I don't see why someone would want to go through all of the numbered highways of all types in a state in numerical order. Many don't have articles, meaning dead-ends for someone that would want to do this. Not to mention, that it is not necessarily true that all states will eventually have WP's. Only three out of fifty exist at the moment.
The only reason that I'm suggesting removing the section is that the box is huge. It causes no harm other than taking up space.
I don't really know how others feel about this, but if anyone really wants it, one possible compromise would be to simply not include any for the states without WP's. To take this a step further, it would also be possible to make a copy of this template, call it something else, and take off the Browse State Hwys section. Then the new one would be used on those interstates that don't go through any states with WPs. Interstates that go through one or more states with WPs would use the old one (this).
I'm not trying to start a huge debate here, I just think the section is useless in practice. (It's not pointless, but the point of it probably doesn't matter to many readers and is not possible to reach until every state has a WP and every state highway has an article.) Please let me know what you think.
-- Engleman 19:28, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Okay, next line of business...
Editing junctions seems to be a nightmare. For the guys that have already done it, I have no idea how you guys did it, and I salute your efforts.
Going off the previous subtemplate concept, I would proposing shunting the junction part of the box (anything that previously would have belonged in {{{junction}}}) into its own subpage of Routeboxint -- for example, putting the junction tables in {{ Routeboxint/int355il}}
This is just a proposition, and comments would be greatly, greatly appreciated. -- Rob 19:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
As long as the routebox isn't very big it's not a problem. As long as the highway is significant enough to be put in the corresponding size of the article it's fine. That means don't put every state route into a 2di box, but for a small 3di that might be okay. I just don't want bloat. -- Rschen7754 04:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. What would you do for the following situation?
Any ideas? :-) I'll work with what I've got... --
Rob
17:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Nevermind.
The amusing solution is presented in Eisenhower Expressway. I've decluttered it as best as I can. -- Rob 17:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
While I'm at it, I may as well bring up my other two suggestions for this box.
The legend takes up a lot of space, and at the size it is now, it is (depending on browser; I know you can adjust the size, but I'm speaking about the default on mine) too small to easily read (6px tall). Rather than taking up space and being hard to read (not to mention that it serves no purpose on those interstates without unusual junctions), why not put the legend in a seperate page, of course with a link from the box.
Also, there is a color coding missing: junctions where there is access between the two highways, but where you must travel on a side road with traffic lights to get between the two. (example: I-87 and I-84; i listed this one as having NO access, but this isn't entirely true).
Perhaps the new coding for the above would include this, but there are also incomplete interchanges between two limited access roads. Incomplete (some good ramps exist, but at least one is missing) interchanges that involve service roads with lights are unfortunately common in New York City. Example: I-495 and I-678.
-- Engleman 20:08, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Over the past month I've been putting the {{ Interstate-stub}}, {{ 3di}}, and {{ U.S. Interstate Highway WikiProject}} tags on every Interstate Highway article. I started sometime in August and now I'm on Interstate 91. I found out that there are over 200 articles on Interstate highways... If we need to make a major change like this in the future to every article (say if we have to make a routebox change or something) should we divide up the articles so that the task can be done faster? Just a thought... please give your input. Thanks -- Rschen7754 03:04, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
I think the statement made at the top of the infoboxes are callous and rude, to be blunt about it (as on Interstate 44). It seems to make the statement, "Don't you dare touch it!" It is totally inappropriate for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to be for everyone. If someone does mess it up and doesn't fix it, how would this be enforced, anyway? I was going to try to implement these, myself, but found them confusing. I have started several articles in Wikipedia in hopes of people adding to them because I didn't know enough about them to write a complete article. If someone messes it up, they mess it up. It happens. If I find this, I fix it. This statement gives the impression that adding information is unwelcome (regardless of the intent of the statement). Regardless of what we do, as Wikipedia's policy states, if you don't want your work mercilessly edited, then don't put it here. I think these boxes are informational, but the comment is totally inappropriate. Rt66lt 05:31, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
This archive page was moved from Template talk:Infobox Interstate/Archive 1 after Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 September 2#Interstate infoboxes.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between August 31, 2005 and September 17, 2005.
What is the proper way to color code each junction? None of the articles that use it so far seem to use any color codes. Also, what exactly is "browse" for? I think it's for other routes in the state, but how am I to select which ones? I can't possibly include every highway in NY. Wouldn't it be better just to link to a page with the complete list, like Category:Interstate highways in New York? -- Engleman 03:25, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
How does the concurrency color work? And what does "begin/end concurrency, bold route is carried through" mean? Unless it's a junction of more than one highway and concurrency (see: Interstate 80/94 / U.S. 6 / U.S. 41 / Indiana 152 in Hammond, IN for a particularly nasty case that may end up in Borman Expressway), bolding routes may just be confusing.
Also, what does "bold route on white background indicates termini" mean? Is this the article route's termini, or the bolded route's termini? If it is the former, I'd suggest leaving it alone... or having a row of colspan 2 and background yellow saying "End I-5" or a 2-column row saying "Mexican Border | End I-5", etc. Not all Interstates end at junctions with major highways. :-) --
Rob
19:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
File:Interstate-290.png I-290 | Mile 34.5 |
File:Interstate55.png I-55 | Mile 12.5 |
...unconstructed... | |
File:Interstate80.png I-80 | Mile 0.0 |
-- Rob 20:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
File:Interstate-290.png I-290 | Mile 34.5 |
File:Interstate55.png I-55 | Mile 12.5 |
File:Interstate80.png I-80 | Mile 0.0 |
File:Interstate-355.png Ends | |
File:Interstate-290.png I-290 | Mile 34.5 |
other junctions... | |
File:Interstate55.png I-55 | Mile 12.5 |
File:Interstate-355.png Ends | |
...unconstructed... | |
IL xxx | Mile 4 |
File:Interstate80.png I-80 | Mile 0.0 |
Future File:Interstate-355.png Ends |
Wow... I didn't think about the concurrency problem. When I copied the CA stuff from their WP I didn't think of that. In California whenever there is a multiplex (concurrency) one route typically dominates over another and the dominant route is bolded. However this is mostly untrue for the Interstate system... at least technically... in function there may be a dominance. As for the terminii... I'd imagine that it would be the article route's terminii, and Mexican border would be the terminus for I-5, for example. The yellow would be helpful as long as there are no clashes... say unbuilt or deleted terminii or whatever... so italic or underline may work better. Another possibility is making deleted strikethrough to help avoid conflicts. -- Rschen7754 03:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
A quick Google search shows that the term postmile appears to be California-specific. (The few remaining results still appear to be from California.) I know for sure postmile is rarely, if ever, used in the Northeast (I though for sure it was a typo at first glance.) Assuming that postmile is California-specific (I believe I have sufficient evidence, but please correct me if it is in common use elsewhere.), it's not good for use in the Interstate highway system. I think that milepost is the usual term throughout most of the nation. (I did another search, to make sure it wasn't just where I'm from, but if there is yet a third alternative term, please correct me.) Therefore, I am changing postmile to milepost -- Engleman 04:34, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
It's not a problem- I would have changed it eventually anyway. I am managing 3 WPs and am getting confused as to which one I fixed and which one I didn't :( Postmile is a CA-specific term since CA uses the weird boxes instead of green milepost signs... CA is just weird. -- Rschen7754 05:36, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Another thing to consider: by definition, all junctions on Interstates are interchanges with exit numbers, usually by state (In some states, it is possible for one interstate to have multiple exit numbering schemes and milage systems. examples: I-87 in New York has three (Deegan, Thruway & Northway), I-95 in New Jersey has at least two ( NJTP & Bergen-Passaic Expressway)). Also in the majority of states, exit numbers are always based based on milage. The huge exception here is the Northeast. Some states have converted some or all ( Pennsylvania recenly switched the whole state, I believe.), but there are still quite a few major Interstates that use sequential. Anyway, so what's my point? My point is that perhaps "Exit Number" or "Interchange Number" or "Exit" or something along those lines would be more relevant, and in most of the country, the data in that column would be exactly the same regaurdless of what you call it. As far as the states that use sequential numbering, have a look at what I've done for I-84. I put the mile first, and the exit number in parenthases if it is different. If the column were to be changed to say exit number or interchange number, then the two numbers would be swapped. As far as the states with multiple systems, I would suggest putting the state abbreviation first, then some common abbreviaion for the road, and linking it to the article on that particular road. (Like NJ- TP or NY- MD) Any thoughts? -- Engleman 18:56, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Merging Interstate 355 with routeboxint, just to start small... there's a few things that have no place.
I created the I-355 table, so I'd like to keep things like:
Also, for "State Highways"... let's safely assume there will eventually be 50 WikiProjects, one for each state. Does this mean for a particularly long Interstate (again, taking I-90 here) that there will be 15-20 state to maintain in this section? -- Rob 15:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Another possibility is creating a sub-template to make things work... so that for loops the phrase "Beltway" is displayed instead of the terminii fields. -- Rschen7754 03:29, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
See Interstate 84 (east) for the new example. Before proceeding with converting other Interstates, I wanted to come to an accord on this one. -- Rob 20:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Recently, as I was thinking about putting those on the NY interstates, I realised something: the majority of state highways don't even have an article. Even instates that already have WP's (such as California), not all of the state highways have articles. Someone who actually wanted to go through all the numbered highways in the state in numerical order would run into frequent dead-ends in this system. Not to mention the fact that at least a few states have duplicate routes, unlike in California where all State Routes (Interstates, US highways, and state highways) are in a comprehensive law and there are no duplicates.
Personally, I am opposed to the Browse State Hwys section. I don't see why someone would want to go through all of the numbered highways of all types in a state in numerical order. Many don't have articles, meaning dead-ends for someone that would want to do this. Not to mention, that it is not necessarily true that all states will eventually have WP's. Only three out of fifty exist at the moment.
The only reason that I'm suggesting removing the section is that the box is huge. It causes no harm other than taking up space.
I don't really know how others feel about this, but if anyone really wants it, one possible compromise would be to simply not include any for the states without WP's. To take this a step further, it would also be possible to make a copy of this template, call it something else, and take off the Browse State Hwys section. Then the new one would be used on those interstates that don't go through any states with WPs. Interstates that go through one or more states with WPs would use the old one (this).
I'm not trying to start a huge debate here, I just think the section is useless in practice. (It's not pointless, but the point of it probably doesn't matter to many readers and is not possible to reach until every state has a WP and every state highway has an article.) Please let me know what you think.
-- Engleman 19:28, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Okay, next line of business...
Editing junctions seems to be a nightmare. For the guys that have already done it, I have no idea how you guys did it, and I salute your efforts.
Going off the previous subtemplate concept, I would proposing shunting the junction part of the box (anything that previously would have belonged in {{{junction}}}) into its own subpage of Routeboxint -- for example, putting the junction tables in {{ Routeboxint/int355il}}
This is just a proposition, and comments would be greatly, greatly appreciated. -- Rob 19:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
As long as the routebox isn't very big it's not a problem. As long as the highway is significant enough to be put in the corresponding size of the article it's fine. That means don't put every state route into a 2di box, but for a small 3di that might be okay. I just don't want bloat. -- Rschen7754 04:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. What would you do for the following situation?
Any ideas? :-) I'll work with what I've got... --
Rob
17:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Nevermind.
The amusing solution is presented in Eisenhower Expressway. I've decluttered it as best as I can. -- Rob 17:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
While I'm at it, I may as well bring up my other two suggestions for this box.
The legend takes up a lot of space, and at the size it is now, it is (depending on browser; I know you can adjust the size, but I'm speaking about the default on mine) too small to easily read (6px tall). Rather than taking up space and being hard to read (not to mention that it serves no purpose on those interstates without unusual junctions), why not put the legend in a seperate page, of course with a link from the box.
Also, there is a color coding missing: junctions where there is access between the two highways, but where you must travel on a side road with traffic lights to get between the two. (example: I-87 and I-84; i listed this one as having NO access, but this isn't entirely true).
Perhaps the new coding for the above would include this, but there are also incomplete interchanges between two limited access roads. Incomplete (some good ramps exist, but at least one is missing) interchanges that involve service roads with lights are unfortunately common in New York City. Example: I-495 and I-678.
-- Engleman 20:08, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Over the past month I've been putting the {{ Interstate-stub}}, {{ 3di}}, and {{ U.S. Interstate Highway WikiProject}} tags on every Interstate Highway article. I started sometime in August and now I'm on Interstate 91. I found out that there are over 200 articles on Interstate highways... If we need to make a major change like this in the future to every article (say if we have to make a routebox change or something) should we divide up the articles so that the task can be done faster? Just a thought... please give your input. Thanks -- Rschen7754 03:04, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
I think the statement made at the top of the infoboxes are callous and rude, to be blunt about it (as on Interstate 44). It seems to make the statement, "Don't you dare touch it!" It is totally inappropriate for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to be for everyone. If someone does mess it up and doesn't fix it, how would this be enforced, anyway? I was going to try to implement these, myself, but found them confusing. I have started several articles in Wikipedia in hopes of people adding to them because I didn't know enough about them to write a complete article. If someone messes it up, they mess it up. It happens. If I find this, I fix it. This statement gives the impression that adding information is unwelcome (regardless of the intent of the statement). Regardless of what we do, as Wikipedia's policy states, if you don't want your work mercilessly edited, then don't put it here. I think these boxes are informational, but the comment is totally inappropriate. Rt66lt 05:31, 17 September 2005 (UTC)