![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 8 |
This archive page was moved from Template talk:Infobox Interstate/Archive 3 after Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 September 2#Interstate infoboxes.
I hope you don't mind, but I've been bold and moved the legend to a sub-page of the wikiproject page, and linked to it in the template. Feel free to revert me if you don't like the change. Scott 5114 06:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Heya guys. I've been looking at this template and I have some ways of simplifying its design, while preserving the functionality. I've got a design which works, but involves updating the articles (which I'll take care of). This brings it in line with other similar Infobox templates:
I'll be updating the articles to reflect the template name change, and to remove route_type. I'll also be removing any empty direction_a/b and terminus_a/b parameters from articles - loops won't ever need these, and their presence may confuse editors. It also allows me to simply use a parameter default to display "Loop" in the direction row. Let me know if there are any objections. -- Netoholic @ 16:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Now THIS is a decent size. I still have issues with the separate lines for the two termini, which requires meta-templates because of the possibility of loops. -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 09:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
If this is the consensus, I'll abide by it. I just have two comments. First, should you set the Major Junctions header to span both columns? Second, the routes are on the shorter column when their names are usually longer. Perhaps the guideline should say they should be switched?-- WhosAsking 10:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
How about another idea? Would creating a section for one-liner notes be too much--just to bullet the most notable things about an interstate? For example, I-90 could have a note saying, "Longest Interstate route", I-238 could have one saying like, "There is no parent I-38.", and I-95 could note, "There is a gap in New Jersey." -- WhosAsking 11:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Just a request, I'm not sure how practical this is, but if there could be some sort of optional parameter to specify a single state name, and if it's used, then it would use Image:Interstate X (STATE).svg. This is especially useful where it has two sides, each being intrastate. Like I-88 (then there's zillions of intrastate 3dis) -- Chris 13:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
One more stupid, completely unrelated question: why the hell is the border green? Is that an artifact from California? (I'm pretty sure the first reversion of this was almost identical.) -- Chris 14:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
All Interstate highways that are in New York State have been redone. The infoboxes, I mean. Having just redone like 20 of them, I think I like it. Was alot of work though. I made {{
routeboxint/quick}} to make it very easy to add normal interstate junctions. I also made {{
routeboxint/shortdirsub}} for highways without any major junctions between its terminii. I introduced the shield_ext parameter for future use in using shields with state names. I'd really appreciate it if everyone could at least put it in as blank on all of those that they work on. Thanks. --
Chris
04:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Seeing as my pages have suddenly exploded into table code, I'll change it after we reach an understanding... are exit lists a good thing or a bad thing? I still see them as a bad thing, or something that at least should be confined to a subpage, but that's my opinion. It's hard to derive "major junctions" from 3dis, the urban ones especially. Major by volume? By interstate? — Rob ( talk) 14:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Here's my comments about the reformat... States: Probably should have been tossed. Cities: Should have been tossed. Type3 is now moot, so it is good that that went too. My only concerns are now the major junctions. While I disagree with the removal of the exit numbers I'm willing to compromise here... like take Interstate 99... it has an exit list so we don't need exit numbers on htat one. But not all of these Interstates have an exit list. And what about routes like Interstate 80? If we did an exit list on that one it would be extremely long. The cities are good to have in the junctions box though. Otherwise good work. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 03:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
All CA routeboxes are corrected, WA will soon follow. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 06:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm - there's still one (minor) issue. On Interstate 695 (District of Columbia) there's nowhere to put Washington, DC in the infobox without putting it everywhere, which seems redundant. -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 13:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Can we throw it out now that we no longer need it? -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 20:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed a move away from standard number formatting for the lengths: e.g. on I-20's page, 1539 mi instead of 1,539 mi. Is there a reason for this preference? We don't seem short on real estate in the box, so it doesn't seem to be causing a text wrap problem. (Whereas the old box led to lines wrapping between the number and the length in km.) C.Fred 16:56, 22 January 2006 (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 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 8 |
This archive page was moved from Template talk:Infobox Interstate/Archive 3 after Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 September 2#Interstate infoboxes.
I hope you don't mind, but I've been bold and moved the legend to a sub-page of the wikiproject page, and linked to it in the template. Feel free to revert me if you don't like the change. Scott 5114 06:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Heya guys. I've been looking at this template and I have some ways of simplifying its design, while preserving the functionality. I've got a design which works, but involves updating the articles (which I'll take care of). This brings it in line with other similar Infobox templates:
I'll be updating the articles to reflect the template name change, and to remove route_type. I'll also be removing any empty direction_a/b and terminus_a/b parameters from articles - loops won't ever need these, and their presence may confuse editors. It also allows me to simply use a parameter default to display "Loop" in the direction row. Let me know if there are any objections. -- Netoholic @ 16:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Now THIS is a decent size. I still have issues with the separate lines for the two termini, which requires meta-templates because of the possibility of loops. -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 09:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
If this is the consensus, I'll abide by it. I just have two comments. First, should you set the Major Junctions header to span both columns? Second, the routes are on the shorter column when their names are usually longer. Perhaps the guideline should say they should be switched?-- WhosAsking 10:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
How about another idea? Would creating a section for one-liner notes be too much--just to bullet the most notable things about an interstate? For example, I-90 could have a note saying, "Longest Interstate route", I-238 could have one saying like, "There is no parent I-38.", and I-95 could note, "There is a gap in New Jersey." -- WhosAsking 11:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Just a request, I'm not sure how practical this is, but if there could be some sort of optional parameter to specify a single state name, and if it's used, then it would use Image:Interstate X (STATE).svg. This is especially useful where it has two sides, each being intrastate. Like I-88 (then there's zillions of intrastate 3dis) -- Chris 13:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
One more stupid, completely unrelated question: why the hell is the border green? Is that an artifact from California? (I'm pretty sure the first reversion of this was almost identical.) -- Chris 14:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
All Interstate highways that are in New York State have been redone. The infoboxes, I mean. Having just redone like 20 of them, I think I like it. Was alot of work though. I made {{
routeboxint/quick}} to make it very easy to add normal interstate junctions. I also made {{
routeboxint/shortdirsub}} for highways without any major junctions between its terminii. I introduced the shield_ext parameter for future use in using shields with state names. I'd really appreciate it if everyone could at least put it in as blank on all of those that they work on. Thanks. --
Chris
04:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Seeing as my pages have suddenly exploded into table code, I'll change it after we reach an understanding... are exit lists a good thing or a bad thing? I still see them as a bad thing, or something that at least should be confined to a subpage, but that's my opinion. It's hard to derive "major junctions" from 3dis, the urban ones especially. Major by volume? By interstate? — Rob ( talk) 14:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Here's my comments about the reformat... States: Probably should have been tossed. Cities: Should have been tossed. Type3 is now moot, so it is good that that went too. My only concerns are now the major junctions. While I disagree with the removal of the exit numbers I'm willing to compromise here... like take Interstate 99... it has an exit list so we don't need exit numbers on htat one. But not all of these Interstates have an exit list. And what about routes like Interstate 80? If we did an exit list on that one it would be extremely long. The cities are good to have in the junctions box though. Otherwise good work. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 03:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
All CA routeboxes are corrected, WA will soon follow. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 06:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm - there's still one (minor) issue. On Interstate 695 (District of Columbia) there's nowhere to put Washington, DC in the infobox without putting it everywhere, which seems redundant. -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 13:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Can we throw it out now that we no longer need it? -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 20:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed a move away from standard number formatting for the lengths: e.g. on I-20's page, 1539 mi instead of 1,539 mi. Is there a reason for this preference? We don't seem short on real estate in the box, so it doesn't seem to be causing a text wrap problem. (Whereas the old box led to lines wrapping between the number and the length in km.) C.Fred 16:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)