![]() | 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 |
Please comment on the removal of the mileage table and the 3di template from this page at the talk page. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 01:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Please post comments on the revert war that is ensuing right here. Also Do not break 3RR. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 01:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)`
I'd like an explanation of what these actually add to the article, not just the fact that they are "Wikiproject standards". -- SPUI ( talk) 01:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I restored the mileage table and 3di template that had been deleted several days ago. Understanding the benefits that standard formats have for people reading articles on the same type of topic, I wanted to adhere to the Interstate Project standards so I resolved those two deficiencies. -- Beirne 01:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
By the way, I'm surprised that no one's reverted back to {{ routeboxint}} yet. -- SPUI ( talk) 02:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
By the way, one objection I've seen to certain things is that it would just be too big for very long Interstates. (I don't understand why it's not considered a problem with {{ routeboxint}} too.) I've already written Interstate 80 in New Jersey and Interstate 95 in New Jersey, each of which is long enough to "deserve" its own article. The same can be done for every state of these long Interstates. -- SPUI ( talk) 02:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
One thing I want to point out about the state route things at the bottom. I like those much better than anything at the top, but I would suggest names a little more specific than start box and end box.-- Chris 00:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
If we use succession boxes though, then we get a huge one on Interstate 95? Also, I fail to see why there is red stuff in parentheses in the box. Keep in mind that having everything in the routebox is more consistent with the California, Washington, Kentucky, New hampshire, and Texas routeboxes, as well as the U.S. Highway one. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 01:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Here's my detailed analysis on the {{ routeboxint}} infobox, only looking at the things that are not in {{ infobox highway}} (comparing [1] to [2]):
I await comments. -- SPUI ( talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 16:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
My response to the "analysis":
Just to show my concept of brief junction boxes (yes the way I did it sucks, but it looks about the way I want it too), without changing routeboxint (as a result my examples don't quite fit with the 2-column format), I made all of I-95's spurs in NY ( I-295 I-495 I-695 I-895 have them. The exit # isn't particularly useful in a summary, but links to each can be. I suggest that each have their top 5, and so therefore the shields would be smaller. I did these ones so they all have 50px-HIGH shields. Anyway, please take a look and comment. I hope that these type of things may provide a compromise between full junctions and no junctions. -- Chris 05:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
See my note on the mediation page regarding a compromise with Browse STate highways. And junctions... well the five junction image setup is a bit basic... and if we convert the primary interstate routeboxes to use only 2dis it would b better. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) In regards to a better browse state highways: my thoughts are something similar to what we have at Deleted California State Routes (except at the bottom of course)... and with the state names... I'll create a better mockup when I get more time. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs)
I'm starting 2 new sections to make things easier. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 19:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)\
See my proposal for this section at User:Rschen7754/Sandbox1. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 19:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Prev | State | Next |
File:CA-4.gif Route 4 | CA | Route 7 File:CA-7.gif |
File:WA-4.gif Route 4 | WA | Route 6 File:WA-6.gif |
Is there a problem with the one at the bottom of Interstate 76 (east)? That one follows the larger ones (like on Route 33 (New Jersey)), which itself is based on the standard succession box. -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Looking at the 3 (SPUI's, Rschen7754's, and mine, I think I like SPUI's the best, but it really doesn't make much of a difference to me. I'd just like to see the Browse State Hywys section out of Routeboxint ASAP. -- Chris 20:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I have put the three candidates for a browse state highways box below. We should probably merge things to make one prototype from all 3 of these.
Ohio | I-75 | I-76 | I-77 |
---|---|---|---|
Pennsylvania | 75 | I-76 |
77 ( 76) |
New Jersey |
73 ( 74, 75) |
I-76 |
76C ( 76) |
State | Prev | Next |
CA | < File:CA-4.gif Route 4 | Route 7 File:CA-7.gif > |
OR | < File:OR-4.gif Route 4 | Route 6 File:OR-6.gif > |
WA | < File:WA-4.gif Route 4 | Route 6 File:WA-6.gif > |
Prev | State | Next |
File:CA-4.gif Route 4 | CA | Route 7 File:CA-7.gif |
File:WA-4.gif Route 4 | WA | Route 6 File:WA-6.gif |
Keep in mind that these are
prototypes; the code will not be the same as what we would actually use in the article.
-- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 02:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
A potential compromise:
Browse State Highways | ||
< I-75 | Ohio | I-77 > |
---|---|---|
< 75 | Pennsylvania |
77 > ( 76) |
<
73 ( 74, 75) |
New Jersey |
76C > ( 76) |
There's supposed to be images for all of them... but I'm not sure where they are stored... how's this? -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 03:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
It's difficult to code because we have one system of naming (FL, PA, OH, NJ, MA) and another separate system (most of the other states). We might have to recode the {{ srbox piece2}}. Also should we do a title? -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 04:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
{{ start srbox}} is done - just use that instead of {{ start box}}. As for the redirects, I'd call that a necessary evil, but you might want to try something else. -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I like the compromise one listed above. Let me just make sure I understand the different pieces:
|- style="text-align: center;" |align="center"|< {{{before}}}<small>''{{{beforeother}}}</small> !<small>[[{{{list}}}|{{{state}}}]]</small> |align="center"|{{{after}}} ><small>''{{{afterother}}}</small>
I would also recommend showing the compromise listed near the top of this section to the state wikiprojects for possible use on each systemwide. (not just on Interstates) Also, I recommend, now that there is a good compromise in place, removing the browse state highways section from routeboxint. -- Chris 05:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
This is probably a stupid idea, but what about something like this: (called Template:srbox piece NY):
{{subst:srbox piece 2| state=New York| type=State Highway| before={{{before}}}| beforeother={{{beforeother}}}| list=List of State Routes in New York| after={{{after}}}| afterother={{{afterother}}}}}
It would save alot of typing (having to specify the type and the list and writing out the state name, and also, you could even put Category:New York state highways in there to categorize stuff. Weakness: you still need to use redirects, like with type #1 and #2. -- Chris 17:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I guess I need to explain what I was thinking when I make up #3 ;) I made the link text a separate parameter for those cases where the article you're linking is not just named Interstate X, but rather something like Interstate 235 (Oklahoma) - see
Oklahoma State Highway 199 for an example of this. This is also good for end-of-range articles like highways numbered "1" - the "previous" box can just have some dummy value there and have a link text of
. I imagine it could also be useful for things like Texas, where you'd want to have the link text read IH-#, though I've not really tried this out yet.
Scott
5114
19:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Why are we using this on state highways? I thought the idea was to make something smaller for routes that pass through multiple states. But state highways like State Road 520 (Florida) are fine with the bigger one, which matches standard succession boxes all across Wikipedia. -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 21:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I believe that all of the articles that had the old system have been converted over to the new template system. Therefore, I'm removing the old Browse State Highways. Feel free to remove the now unused browse parameter. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 01:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Here's my type thing, which I'm not really recommending in this exact format, but this sort of might provide a good compromise between ommitting the section entirely and keeping as it is now:
File:Interstate-495.png | File:Interstate-695.png |
![]() |
I-495 | I-695 | I-95 |
Anyway, this sort of thing lists the major interstate junctions, but is much shorter than listing them vertically. It does omit the exit #, but is that really important for an infobox? I think two things that should be kept in mind are (even if my format is completely thrown out) that the NUMBER of junctions should be limited (for instance, including every 2di I-90 intersects makes it huge) and that horizontal probably takes less space then vertical. While I'm on the topic, would anyone object to removing either the terminii or cities section? If the cities are in order, it kind of makes the terminii section redundant. But on the other hand, if the cities section were to be removed, then the terminii section would be important. I also know that some terminii sections include what highway they end at, but an ordered junctions section makes that reduntant. I'm proposing to remove the terminii sections. -- Chris 03:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
The Junctions List really needs to go, you only really need the start/end, otherwise the box is just way too big. - FrancisTyers 00:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
What about multiplexed routes in the list? At the end of I-59, it makes sense for it to be written
I-10/
I-12, because the two roads aren't multiplexed. But for I-75 crossing the Ohio Turnpike, I think
I-80/
I-90 is a clearer description, in a nutshell, of the interchange. Feedback?
C.Fred
02:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Should this be converted to template form? -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 05:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to Rob Droz for finding these. -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Retarded question that I'm sure there's a good answer to: Wasn't I-99 just some nut from Pennsylvania and not AAHSTO? (I looked at the source material, and it's defintely there like you say, but I'm just wondering if you, or anyone else, can unconfuse me.) Thanks. -- Chris 03:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
By the way, there's a bit in [3] (PDF) about numbers written into law:
Notwithstanding established policies, AASHTO recognizes that Congress on occasion will establish highway routes, specifying the location of the route as well as designating the route number(s) to be used. In those instances when Congress designates a route, the state(s) affected will follow the established procedures relative to route numbering.
-- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Links to subpages of these sites:
have recently been added to a vareity of Interstates and other highways. They do have some useful content. OTOH, their addition has clearly been spam. Any thoughts about whether these links are worthwile? - Will Beback 18:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
See Commons:Interstate shields for a nice list of all of the SVG shields available (including Business Routes, as well as templates for making your own! -- Chris 16:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I figure this place would be the place to annnounce my first of 5 (2di nostate, 2di state, 3di state, 3di nostate, and H201 (seperate, because uses thinner font)): Image:US DOT FHWA MUTCD SHS 2004 3-1 M1-1 750x600mm 000.svg (i also made a redir at Image:Interstate-000.svg). Please see my note there about why it's probably not a good idea to start replacing everything with it. I plan on making those others, and then talk about having a bot do all of the dirty work. -- Chris 04:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I made Image:Interstate4.png from MUTCD specs - if yours looks the same (with possible differences due to no state name) it should be correct. -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 21:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I've made one at Image:I-20.svg. Please comment soon if you see anything wrong with it, as I'm going to start making them all soon. -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'm working on the 2 digit ones now. -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
commons:Interstate shields. Let me know if I forgot any. -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Should {{ routeboxint}} be switched to use the svg images? -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 07:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
IMHO, the numerals are pretty small. Every new shield I have seen out in the field has the numerals taking up a larger percentage of the blue area. If you could adjust the SVG template to have large numerals, that would make it more legible when the images are shrunk down to 20~30 px (plus I think they look better with large numerals). -- Kamlung 11:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Was it just my imagination, or were the numerals transparent yesterday or earlier today? Otherwise, they look good. What was the motivation behind going from PNG to SVG? — Rob ( talk) 03:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, any plans for doing U.S. Highway shields this way? — Rob ( talk) 03:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
The font used for "INTERSTATE" seems quite wide, at least to my Illinois eyes. Is there a new MUTCD standard none of the states have taken up yet, or are they all ignoring it, or is it just Illinois that uses a much narrower font (maybe Series B), or did someone accidentally use series D for the SVG? On the left of this paragraph are two signs; the font used in Illinois (on both 2 and 3 digit Interstates) is always like the narrow one on the old PNG as far as I know, which is narrower than both 2di and 3di signs now in SVGs. -- Closeapple 10:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
In other shield news, I made a 3di shield (based on my 3di SVG) and a 2di shield (based on SPUI's SVG) with state names. SPUI expressed concern to me about there being 15 different shields on I-95 and so forth. I think that these should be reserved for intrastate Interstates ONLY. Here's the originals (which won't look good on Wikipedia): Image:US DOT FHWA MUTCD SHS 2004 3-1 M1-1 600x600mm 88 NY.svg and Image:US DOT FHWA MUTCD SHS 2004 3-1 M1-1 750x600mm 678 NY.svg. I also made Image:Interstate 678.svg and Image:Interstate 88 (New York).svg. Only the 678 one is in use, because I'm not sure how to make the I-88 one go in the box for Interstate 88 (east), but not the other one. -- Chris 20:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Commons:Interstate shields#Business Routes;how do you guys like them? They're based on my state name ones, since i used M1-2/3 dimensions for those. (just like with my other templates, they don't look right on wikipedia. But the 95 ones are how they should look) Do we even have any articles on these? I'm not really familiar with them, since there aren't any near me (not signed ones anyway). -- Chris 21:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
All routes that have known articles have been added to the list and have all the shields replaced with SVGs. I've only seen 2dis so far, so the controversial 3di one has yet to be used in an article. -- Chris 15:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Gflores Talk 17:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm done with the disambiguated Interstate templates. I'll keep checking for awhile before asking that the templates themselves be deleted:
Template:Interstatedis (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Template:Intdis (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Template:3didis (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
now {{
disambig}}
plus
Category:Lists of Interstate Highways sharing the same title.
I placed the category under Category:Interstate Highway System, where it should be easy to find.
I'm sorry about the earlier problems with Tedernst, who didn't follow anything like standard procedure. Since I'm not a rampant disambiguation hack and slasher, please note that the pages are intact (or as intact as Ted left some of them). I merely changed the template and added the new category.
I hope things continue more peacefully on this worthwhile project.
I have just created Portal:U.S. Roads. If you have any feedback, please place it under "Portal" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads. Rt66lt 03:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Are notable deaths on specific roads encouraged? And if so is the Notes section where I should put it? Or a new "Notable deaths" or "Notable accident" section? - Roy Boy 800 20:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Has any one else noticed problems with the shield images? For example,
It seems to be only 20px that i've noticed, cuz
is 21px. I haven't been able to find this problem with other sizes, other than 20px. But it seems to be happening with these and possibly others, so I figured I'd bring it up.
The Most others work fine.
So I don't know. Any cure, or is it just me? MPD01605 03:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Interstate 96#Junctions with other interstates uses the phrase "reflexive duplex", googling for which gives only matches from Wikipedia and its mirrors. What does that phrase mean? I wonder if it is a "real world" term or one that was invented by User:68.43.21.149. -- Paddu 14:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
What's preferred in wikitables — the green standouts of Interstate 190 (Illinois) or integrated like Interstate 180 (Illinois)? Now that I've done both, it's time to choose. :-) — Rob ( talk) 19:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
So far there seems to be the following available "fields":
Just to show how different things are, compare Interstate 290 (Illinois) with Interstate 87:
County | Municipality | Exit / Milepost | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Albany | Albany | 1 | 0 | New York State Thruway ( Interstate 90) |
Colonie (village) | 2 | 1 | Central Avenue ( NY 5) | |
Colonie (town) | 4 | 3 | Albany-Shaker Road ( NY 155 West) | |
5 | 4 | Watervliet-Shaker Road ( NY 155 East) | ||
6 | 6A | Troy-Schenectady Road ( NY 7 West / NY 2) | ||
7 | 6B | NY 7 East | ||
Mohawk River |
Number | Mile | Destinations | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
File:Interstate 290.svg Western Terminus | |||
None | 0.0 |
![]()
|
![]() ![]() |
1 | 0.75 |
![]()
|
Collector-Distributor exit for Schaumburg, Illinois and the Woodfield Mall. Eastbound exit only accessible from local lanes that also serve Interstate 90. |
4 |
![]() |
Illinois 53 northbound multiplexes with Interstate 290 westbound at this point. | |
5 | Thorndale Avenue - Elgin-O'Hare Expressway | Possible future routing of
![]() |
I feel this should be standardized... and that the notes section is really, really quite important now that we've scrapped the old junctions method. What should go in the tables? — Rob ( talk) 21:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Number | Mile | Destinations | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
0 | 0.0 |
![]() |
Southern terminus of Interstate 172. |
2 |
![]() |
||
10 |
![]() |
||
14 |
![]() |
||
Columbus Road, Wishman Lane / Quincy | |||
19.7 |
![]() |
Northern terminus of Interstate 172 — becomes eastbound
![]() |
Route - (name on sign OR control cities) / city servedfor the destinations column isn't going to work. I'd like to strongly suggest having a city (served) column, and debate having a county column. Since different interstates will necessarily have different formats, I hesitate applying a universal standard to the Interchanges table. — Rob ( talk) 01:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Route Number - <name on sign OR control cities on sign>OR
<name on sign OR control cities on sign> (Route Number)depending on how important state route numbers actually are in the area. — Rob ( talk) 02:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Number | Mile | Destinations | Notes | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Old | |||||
208 | Sandy Ridge Road | ||||
210 | NC 68 - High Point/ Piedmont Triad International Airport | Greensboro | |||
211 | Gallimore Dairy Road | ||||
213 | Guilford College Road | ||||
214 | Wendover Avenue | split into 214A and 214B eastbound | |||
216 | NC 6 east - Coliseum Area | eastbound exit and westbound entrance | |||
217 | High Point Road/Koury Boulevard/ Coliseum Area | ||||
218A |
![]() |
US 220 joins eastbound and leaves westbound | |||
218B | Freeman Mill Road | ||||
219 |
![]() |
no westbound entrance; I-85 Business, US 29 and US 70 join eastbound and leave westbound; I-40 west splits from I-85 Business south via exit 36A (old exit 123) | |||
36 | 124 | Randleman Road | exit 36B westbound | ||
37 | 125 | South Elm-Eugene Street - Downtown | |||
38 | 126 | US 421 south - ML King Jr Drive/ Sanford | US 421 joins westbound and leaves eastbound | ||
39 | 127 | US 29 north/ US 70 east/ US 220 north - Reidsville | eastbound exit and westbound entrance; US 29, US 70 and US 220 join westbound and leave eastbound | ||
41 | 128 | NC 6 to US 29 north/ US 220 north - East Lee Street | |||
43 | 130 | McConnell Road | |||
44 | 131A |
![]() |
I-85 joins eastbound and splits westbound; I-85 Business begins westbound and ends eastbound; I-40 west splits from I-85 south via exit 131 |
"Present city" is handled in a column to the right of the exit description. The cell containing the city name is colored red, and spans all rows that lie within that city. I have also used this to indicate toll sections, by changing the color to green. ... Scott 5114 02:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Number | Mile | Destinations | Notes | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Old | New | Highways and/or Control Cities | Municipality | ||
If applicable — some states did not have old systems | If applicable — some exits are not numbered | Milepost Number | Format: Route Icon (if applicable) Route Number (or street name) - Control City 1, Control City 2 (if applicable). | Same as Control City if interchange is actually within the city limits of the control city. Otherwise, what city you're actually in. This may span several rows if several interchanges serve the same city in a row. | If you need a notes section. |
Example below; I definitely do not want more than six fields, because six is already quite confusing.
Number | Mile | Destinations | Notes | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Old | New | Highways and/or Control Cities | Municipality | ||
1 | 3 | 2.5 | Park Blvd - Springfield, Shelbyville | Nowhereville | Full cloverleaf interchange. Northern terminus of mysterious highway 6. |
Toll Booth #172 | |||||
1A | 7 | 6.9 |
![]() |
Oklahoma City | Southern terminus of mysterious highway 6. |
None | 23.0 |
![]() |
Glen Ellyn, Illinois | Example of implicit control cities (cities are on destination signs on an exit ramp). |
Best Practices
Comments? Questions? Fierce disagreements? It's easy to create a standard (of sorts) now, instead of having to have huge arguments later. It's much easier to change templates than it is a freaking table. :-) — Rob ( talk) 18:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm using background colors for cities for a simple reason - browsers sometimes have trouble rendering the tables, and sometimes I get a table without the lines between cells. The multi-row city cells are useless then, as there's no indication of where one city ends and the next begins. This is probably the one thing I will not give up.
Interstate 80 in California is a good example of my current method. Exit number right before the destination, and city before that, with bgcolor cycling red-green-blue-etc. For destinations, I've been using what's on the signs as much as possible. Using Mapquest driving directions, one can get that information (though it's rather slow and time-consuming).
All concurrencies are included in the notes column, as are partial interchanges. A road that doesn't need notes is very rare.
I've been sizing shields so they're all 20px high - that seems the most consistent to me. This means (for MUTCD-standard shields, not California variants) 20px for 2-digit and 25px for 3-digit. All shields have been at the beginning of the cell, even if not signed. Unsigned routes then have the full name in parentheses. Every route with a shield is also mentioned in text - we don't want to require looking at the shield. -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 08:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Presently the only featured article on a road is the Ridge Route. I'm interested in promoting some other road articles to featured status, and the Interstates are probably the easiest place to start. Should we wait and get the articles up to WikiProject standards first or start looking at some of the better ones like Interstate 5, Interstate 95, Interstate 80, or Interstate 90? -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 07:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
There are a few more - Pulaski Skyway and San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge come to mind. -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 08:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Just to bring this to everyone's attention, an Interstate 101 article was created about a week ago, but I've always thought that "I-101" was just road geeks speculating on a route number for the route described in the article (and I left a comment on the article's talk page about it). The article does have some good information about the history of the Delaware Relief Route, so it should probably be moved there unless the I-101 designation has actually been approved. -Jeff (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi everyone, was wondering if I could use the interstate infobox on VT Route 289, as that was a proposed interstate? Probably for shields what I'd do is a grayscale interstate shield, with a red slash through it, and next to it would be the shield used
?
Thanks --Raj Fra 19:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
One other thing - created an exit table, but just saw the ones on the project site, and I really like. Will conform to one of those, but comments desired on whats there so far. Thx. --Raj Fra 19:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I-45 runs from Galveston, Texas north to Dallas, Texas, a distance of only 284 miles, so should this be excepted from the divisible by five rule or does it matter? Just a thought... Mr "I am probably missing something here" Zotel - the Stub Maker 16:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
We might have a problem with the Interstate shields: according to the FHWA's FAQ, AASHO (now AASHTO) registered the Interstate shield as a trademark in 1967. While it's obvious that Wikipedia is not a giant billboard next to an Interstate highway, technically it is a restriction, and all images must be tagged as saying that AASHTO owns the trademark. Very sorry to have found this out, as while the FHWA is a public agency, it follows the AASHTO, which reserves all rights. -- Geopgeop 12:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
We might have a problem with the Interstate shields: according to the FHWA's FAQ, AASHO (now AASHTO) registered the Interstate shield as a trademark in 1967. While it's obvious that Wikipedia is not a giant billboard next to an Interstate highway, technically it is a restriction, and all images must be tagged as saying that AASHTO owns the trademark. Very sorry to have found this out, as while the FHWA is a public agency, it follows the AASHTO, which reserves all rights. -- Geopgeop 12:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
This structure is starting to show its age. Here's what's there now...
1.) (implicit) Intro / overview 2.) Route description 2a.) (if > 1 state) State 2b.) State ... 3.) Length 4.) Cities 5.) Intersections with other Interstates and other main roads 6.) Spur routes 7.) Notes 8.) References 9.) External links 9a.) (if > 1 state) State 9b.) State ...
The problems are...
I might do these boldly after a few days if I don't get any comments. In addition, a lot of these sections are optional, and having an entire section that says, "None" is pretty wasteful.
This might fly in the face of 2di freeways, but I've been working 3di ones for the past couple days. — Rob ( talk) 19:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Greetings. I've been creating maps of the Interstates for articles that do not have them. I just finished a rather large batch of maps for the U.S. Highway project (which are here: Commons:Category:Maps of U.S. Routes). Anyway, I started to tinker around and I have three different kinds of maps and was looking for input on what this project community prefers. The first map is akin to the ones I made for the U.S. Highway Project: just a highlighted route. The second one is a map with nearby major cities. The third has major cities as well as cities along the route within 5 miles.
I'm going to hold off on finishing the others until I get a bit of feedback. Stratosphere 07:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Houston, Huntsville, Corsicana, Ennis, Dallas" which is a LOT of cities.) Depending how small the maps will be when they're in the infobox, I'd agree with SPUI, but it's your call as to whether or not at a given size the city text is clutter or not. Good job! — Rob ( talk) 16:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Well the maps are done. Commons:Category:U.S. Interstate Maps. Just need to plug them into the infoboxes now. I also redid the ones that were already made for two reasons. One was so they'd fit snugly in the infobox when reduced, the other is that I mapped them in the preferred United States projection. The old ones looked like they were using a Mercator Projection which stretched the country out the further north you went. I used Lambert Conformal Conic North American Projection which is what most printed U.S. maps are projected with. For some of the maps that were only within a particular state, I used that states preferred state plane system, if anyone cares :P Cheers. Stratosphere 05:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
After being corrected by Engleman ( talk · contribs) when I incorrectly thought that placing state names on Interstate shields was deprecated, I find that I still don't like the look of it. The particular article that brought this up is Interstate 390 (New York). The images in question are:
Now, it may just be because the former is far more common in New York these days, but the latter just looks bad to me. Perhaps more persuasively, however, at the size used in the info box, the state name so small as to be barely readable, at best. I can think of no good reason, then, to use the state-name-specific image over the generic one. Thoughts? Powers 23:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I think we should only use them if the state still uses them. -- SPUI ( T - C) 02:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Just a thought: what about using the neutered shields on main pages, especially interstates that are truly interstate. Then use the shields with state names for state-specific articles ( Interstate 95 in Georgia) or for 3di's within a single state ( Interstate 440 (North Carolina)). Then it just gets ambiguous for interstates that "aren't," like Interstate 4. — C.Fred ( talk) 03:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
See discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Highways#Subpage technicalities. — Rob ( talk) 15:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I have read through the archives, and cannot seem to find a consensus regarding exit lists/tables and standards for them. Was this ever completely sorted out? Are the standards still open for debate? One thing I have noticed in reference to tables is that some people have a strong opinion against them. I, on the other hand, really appreciate them, and find them rather useful. I would like some direction, if someone could assist. Thanks.
-- Homefryes 21:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, exit lists are hard. Given the patience and technical knowledge required to put together a table, comments from 4 of 10+ group members seemed like an agreement to me. One of the issues Interstate 290 (Illinois) handles is where you are at that point in the road - I know I-294 goes to Indiana and Wisconsin, but you're in Hillside/Elmhurst (depending on which way you're going) at the time. For rural Interstates, this becomes Rural X County if there's no municipality for miles around. The 5/6 field table (exit number (old, new), mile marker, regional destination, local destination (where am I?), notes) allows more flexibility and gives more information than the 4 field table, while keeping good visual presentation. — Rob ( talk) 12:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Even though I kinda dismissed this issue with my comments a week ago, I believe that it's time to come up with a hard standard for exit lists (after seeing 4 different formats on 4 different articles). Before anyone thinks that these comments are an echo of my comments from August 3, I'm willing to take a different approach to come up with a standard. Instead of looking at one type of table and deciding which one to use, we should start with the basics and think about what should an exit list should contain. From what I've read above and from what other editors have used, here's what I've found, in the order that they would be in the table from left to right:
An example using the above proposal:
County | Location | # | Mile | Destinations | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Monroe | Brighton | 0.0 |
![]() |
Southern terminus. | |
1 | 1.7 | Winton Road | |||
2 | 3.1 |
![]() |
No access from NY 31 eastbound to I-590 northbound. | ||
3 | 4.0 | Elmwood Avenue | Northbound: entrance only; southbound: exit only. | ||
4 | 4.6 | Highland Avenue | Northbound: exit only; southbound: entrance only. | ||
Rochester | 5 | 5.3 |
![]() ![]() |
Northern terminus. | |
![]() ![]() |
If anyone thinks something is missing, please comment. The reason I'm adamant on this issue is that, for one, I will be spending a good amount of my time here now with the mess going on with state roads, and two, the articles would look much better with a standardized exit list format. -- TMF T - C 16:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
←For exits that are only one direction I usually put something like westbound only in bold.
I think the reasoning for including both 'exit' and 'mile' is that 'exit' is for the actual exit number (e.g. 101) and 'mile' is for the exact location (say 101.44), which is determined by postmiles in California. Correct me if I'm wrong.
SPUI mentioned that the reason he includes the cycling red/green/blue colors on the exit tables he uses is because sometimes the Gecko renderer (used by Mozilla, Firefox, K-Meleon, etc.) will glitch up and not show the table's lines, which makes determining where one city starts and the next begins impossible without the colors. — Scott5114 ↗ 21:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Does this project cover Business Interstates? There's a few of them that have articles but I'm not sure whether they should fall under the purview of this project, the state project, or USRD. Thoughts? — Scott5114 ↗ 14:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
For reference by the interested reader: List of Business Routes of the Interstate Highway System. Powers T 14:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I decided I should bring this up with the project instead of just the two articles it really deals with. As with Interstate 76 and Interstate 84, I feel that now, especially since someone just made the Interstate 74 in North Carolina page, we should rename the two pages. There is the intention to eventually connect the two pieces of interstate, but we're looking at a long long time away until that happens. I propose that, since it is an east-west interstate, that the current Interstate 74 article become Interstate 74 (west) and the I-74 in NC article become Interstate 74 (east). They're two entirely different highways that won't be connected within the foreseeable future. -- MPD01605 ( T / C) 17:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a decent layout:
-- NE2 11:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
If we do go forward with this, it would probably make sense for I-66 as well; Virginia and West Virginia are not building freeways along the extension. -- NE2 11:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
See Template talk:Infobox Interstate. -- TMF T - C 15:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Articles such as I-5 exit list and such should be called? There is no convention right now... -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 05:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I've asked this before, but...
Route description is a second-level header. Each state name is a third-level header below it.
Do we wiki them, or not? Current consensus is 50/50 across all articles I've read. — Rob ( talk) 07:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Copied from User talk:TwinsMetsFan.
Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 October 29. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 01:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
{{3di|parent=25|child1=225|child2=etc...}}couldn't it serve the same purpose or am I missing something? Stratosphere ( U T) 03:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
{{ 3di xx}} simply prepares the table header row and automatically fills in parameters for {{ 3di row}}. For 2dis with a single spur, what is the problem with simply substing the template or filling in {{ 3di row}} manually? It's only going to be used on the 2di article anyway since it's useless in the 3di article itself. -- Polaron | Talk 16:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
How about something like this for these single link templates?
{{User:Polaron/test2|89}} {{3di row|I-189|[[Interstate 189|Vermont]]}} |}
which produces:
{{User:Polaron/test2|89}} {{3di row|I-189|[[Interstate 189|Vermont]]}} |}
-- Polaron | Talk 19:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Are there any other comments on this? I'm planning to make some changes to the actual templates later today. The appearance of all tables would not be altered in any way. -- Polaron | Talk 16:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
What happens if I add a prose description of I-516 to Interstate 16#Spur routes? Then I can remove the table, right? -- NE2 17:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Please remember, don't make any actual changes to the articles until we have a consensus on this issue. --
Rschen7754 (
talk -
contribs)
04:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
What do people think about putting the table entries for the single-link {{3di xx}} templates directly into {{3di}}? For certain specific xx values, instead of calling {{3di xx}}, it will get the values from an inernal list. I've tried to implement something at User:Polaron/test3 (look at the bottom 4 tables). The main function is at User:Polaron/test4, which is intended to replace both {{ 3di}} and {{ 3di2}}. It currently has an awkward construction. Anybody more familiar with parser functions should be able to construct this more elegantly. -- Polaron | Talk 07:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Note that if the above function is used for {{ 3di}}, this would only require inserting a template parameter to at most 18 articles without affecting the appearance in any way of any article, and simultaneously allow for the deletion of single-link {{3di xx}} templates, as well as {{3di2}}. I am hoping this is a reasonable solution. The only drawback I see is that the proposed template is about 500 bytes larger (2x larger) than the current one. -- Polaron | Talk 17:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
As an alert, please note this AfD for regarding a major Canadian freeway's exit list: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of exits on Highway 401 (Ontario). While most votes so far are keep, there was one particularly strong demand to delete the exit list on grounds that it violates core Wikipedia policies. This may potentially lead to AfD calls on any Interstate exit list pages. The Interstate project members may want to weigh in here. Dl2000 04:43, 24 November 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 |
Please comment on the removal of the mileage table and the 3di template from this page at the talk page. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 01:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Please post comments on the revert war that is ensuing right here. Also Do not break 3RR. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 01:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)`
I'd like an explanation of what these actually add to the article, not just the fact that they are "Wikiproject standards". -- SPUI ( talk) 01:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I restored the mileage table and 3di template that had been deleted several days ago. Understanding the benefits that standard formats have for people reading articles on the same type of topic, I wanted to adhere to the Interstate Project standards so I resolved those two deficiencies. -- Beirne 01:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
By the way, I'm surprised that no one's reverted back to {{ routeboxint}} yet. -- SPUI ( talk) 02:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
By the way, one objection I've seen to certain things is that it would just be too big for very long Interstates. (I don't understand why it's not considered a problem with {{ routeboxint}} too.) I've already written Interstate 80 in New Jersey and Interstate 95 in New Jersey, each of which is long enough to "deserve" its own article. The same can be done for every state of these long Interstates. -- SPUI ( talk) 02:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
One thing I want to point out about the state route things at the bottom. I like those much better than anything at the top, but I would suggest names a little more specific than start box and end box.-- Chris 00:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
If we use succession boxes though, then we get a huge one on Interstate 95? Also, I fail to see why there is red stuff in parentheses in the box. Keep in mind that having everything in the routebox is more consistent with the California, Washington, Kentucky, New hampshire, and Texas routeboxes, as well as the U.S. Highway one. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 01:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Here's my detailed analysis on the {{ routeboxint}} infobox, only looking at the things that are not in {{ infobox highway}} (comparing [1] to [2]):
I await comments. -- SPUI ( talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 16:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
My response to the "analysis":
Just to show my concept of brief junction boxes (yes the way I did it sucks, but it looks about the way I want it too), without changing routeboxint (as a result my examples don't quite fit with the 2-column format), I made all of I-95's spurs in NY ( I-295 I-495 I-695 I-895 have them. The exit # isn't particularly useful in a summary, but links to each can be. I suggest that each have their top 5, and so therefore the shields would be smaller. I did these ones so they all have 50px-HIGH shields. Anyway, please take a look and comment. I hope that these type of things may provide a compromise between full junctions and no junctions. -- Chris 05:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
See my note on the mediation page regarding a compromise with Browse STate highways. And junctions... well the five junction image setup is a bit basic... and if we convert the primary interstate routeboxes to use only 2dis it would b better. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) In regards to a better browse state highways: my thoughts are something similar to what we have at Deleted California State Routes (except at the bottom of course)... and with the state names... I'll create a better mockup when I get more time. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs)
I'm starting 2 new sections to make things easier. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 19:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)\
See my proposal for this section at User:Rschen7754/Sandbox1. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 19:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Prev | State | Next |
File:CA-4.gif Route 4 | CA | Route 7 File:CA-7.gif |
File:WA-4.gif Route 4 | WA | Route 6 File:WA-6.gif |
Is there a problem with the one at the bottom of Interstate 76 (east)? That one follows the larger ones (like on Route 33 (New Jersey)), which itself is based on the standard succession box. -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Looking at the 3 (SPUI's, Rschen7754's, and mine, I think I like SPUI's the best, but it really doesn't make much of a difference to me. I'd just like to see the Browse State Hywys section out of Routeboxint ASAP. -- Chris 20:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I have put the three candidates for a browse state highways box below. We should probably merge things to make one prototype from all 3 of these.
Ohio | I-75 | I-76 | I-77 |
---|---|---|---|
Pennsylvania | 75 | I-76 |
77 ( 76) |
New Jersey |
73 ( 74, 75) |
I-76 |
76C ( 76) |
State | Prev | Next |
CA | < File:CA-4.gif Route 4 | Route 7 File:CA-7.gif > |
OR | < File:OR-4.gif Route 4 | Route 6 File:OR-6.gif > |
WA | < File:WA-4.gif Route 4 | Route 6 File:WA-6.gif > |
Prev | State | Next |
File:CA-4.gif Route 4 | CA | Route 7 File:CA-7.gif |
File:WA-4.gif Route 4 | WA | Route 6 File:WA-6.gif |
Keep in mind that these are
prototypes; the code will not be the same as what we would actually use in the article.
-- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 02:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
A potential compromise:
Browse State Highways | ||
< I-75 | Ohio | I-77 > |
---|---|---|
< 75 | Pennsylvania |
77 > ( 76) |
<
73 ( 74, 75) |
New Jersey |
76C > ( 76) |
There's supposed to be images for all of them... but I'm not sure where they are stored... how's this? -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 03:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
It's difficult to code because we have one system of naming (FL, PA, OH, NJ, MA) and another separate system (most of the other states). We might have to recode the {{ srbox piece2}}. Also should we do a title? -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 04:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
{{ start srbox}} is done - just use that instead of {{ start box}}. As for the redirects, I'd call that a necessary evil, but you might want to try something else. -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I like the compromise one listed above. Let me just make sure I understand the different pieces:
|- style="text-align: center;" |align="center"|< {{{before}}}<small>''{{{beforeother}}}</small> !<small>[[{{{list}}}|{{{state}}}]]</small> |align="center"|{{{after}}} ><small>''{{{afterother}}}</small>
I would also recommend showing the compromise listed near the top of this section to the state wikiprojects for possible use on each systemwide. (not just on Interstates) Also, I recommend, now that there is a good compromise in place, removing the browse state highways section from routeboxint. -- Chris 05:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
This is probably a stupid idea, but what about something like this: (called Template:srbox piece NY):
{{subst:srbox piece 2| state=New York| type=State Highway| before={{{before}}}| beforeother={{{beforeother}}}| list=List of State Routes in New York| after={{{after}}}| afterother={{{afterother}}}}}
It would save alot of typing (having to specify the type and the list and writing out the state name, and also, you could even put Category:New York state highways in there to categorize stuff. Weakness: you still need to use redirects, like with type #1 and #2. -- Chris 17:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I guess I need to explain what I was thinking when I make up #3 ;) I made the link text a separate parameter for those cases where the article you're linking is not just named Interstate X, but rather something like Interstate 235 (Oklahoma) - see
Oklahoma State Highway 199 for an example of this. This is also good for end-of-range articles like highways numbered "1" - the "previous" box can just have some dummy value there and have a link text of
. I imagine it could also be useful for things like Texas, where you'd want to have the link text read IH-#, though I've not really tried this out yet.
Scott
5114
19:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Why are we using this on state highways? I thought the idea was to make something smaller for routes that pass through multiple states. But state highways like State Road 520 (Florida) are fine with the bigger one, which matches standard succession boxes all across Wikipedia. -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 21:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I believe that all of the articles that had the old system have been converted over to the new template system. Therefore, I'm removing the old Browse State Highways. Feel free to remove the now unused browse parameter. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 01:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Here's my type thing, which I'm not really recommending in this exact format, but this sort of might provide a good compromise between ommitting the section entirely and keeping as it is now:
File:Interstate-495.png | File:Interstate-695.png |
![]() |
I-495 | I-695 | I-95 |
Anyway, this sort of thing lists the major interstate junctions, but is much shorter than listing them vertically. It does omit the exit #, but is that really important for an infobox? I think two things that should be kept in mind are (even if my format is completely thrown out) that the NUMBER of junctions should be limited (for instance, including every 2di I-90 intersects makes it huge) and that horizontal probably takes less space then vertical. While I'm on the topic, would anyone object to removing either the terminii or cities section? If the cities are in order, it kind of makes the terminii section redundant. But on the other hand, if the cities section were to be removed, then the terminii section would be important. I also know that some terminii sections include what highway they end at, but an ordered junctions section makes that reduntant. I'm proposing to remove the terminii sections. -- Chris 03:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
The Junctions List really needs to go, you only really need the start/end, otherwise the box is just way too big. - FrancisTyers 00:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
What about multiplexed routes in the list? At the end of I-59, it makes sense for it to be written
I-10/
I-12, because the two roads aren't multiplexed. But for I-75 crossing the Ohio Turnpike, I think
I-80/
I-90 is a clearer description, in a nutshell, of the interchange. Feedback?
C.Fred
02:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Should this be converted to template form? -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 05:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to Rob Droz for finding these. -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Retarded question that I'm sure there's a good answer to: Wasn't I-99 just some nut from Pennsylvania and not AAHSTO? (I looked at the source material, and it's defintely there like you say, but I'm just wondering if you, or anyone else, can unconfuse me.) Thanks. -- Chris 03:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
By the way, there's a bit in [3] (PDF) about numbers written into law:
Notwithstanding established policies, AASHTO recognizes that Congress on occasion will establish highway routes, specifying the location of the route as well as designating the route number(s) to be used. In those instances when Congress designates a route, the state(s) affected will follow the established procedures relative to route numbering.
-- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Links to subpages of these sites:
have recently been added to a vareity of Interstates and other highways. They do have some useful content. OTOH, their addition has clearly been spam. Any thoughts about whether these links are worthwile? - Will Beback 18:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
See Commons:Interstate shields for a nice list of all of the SVG shields available (including Business Routes, as well as templates for making your own! -- Chris 16:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I figure this place would be the place to annnounce my first of 5 (2di nostate, 2di state, 3di state, 3di nostate, and H201 (seperate, because uses thinner font)): Image:US DOT FHWA MUTCD SHS 2004 3-1 M1-1 750x600mm 000.svg (i also made a redir at Image:Interstate-000.svg). Please see my note there about why it's probably not a good idea to start replacing everything with it. I plan on making those others, and then talk about having a bot do all of the dirty work. -- Chris 04:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I made Image:Interstate4.png from MUTCD specs - if yours looks the same (with possible differences due to no state name) it should be correct. -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 21:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I've made one at Image:I-20.svg. Please comment soon if you see anything wrong with it, as I'm going to start making them all soon. -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'm working on the 2 digit ones now. -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
commons:Interstate shields. Let me know if I forgot any. -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Should {{ routeboxint}} be switched to use the svg images? -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 07:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
IMHO, the numerals are pretty small. Every new shield I have seen out in the field has the numerals taking up a larger percentage of the blue area. If you could adjust the SVG template to have large numerals, that would make it more legible when the images are shrunk down to 20~30 px (plus I think they look better with large numerals). -- Kamlung 11:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Was it just my imagination, or were the numerals transparent yesterday or earlier today? Otherwise, they look good. What was the motivation behind going from PNG to SVG? — Rob ( talk) 03:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, any plans for doing U.S. Highway shields this way? — Rob ( talk) 03:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
The font used for "INTERSTATE" seems quite wide, at least to my Illinois eyes. Is there a new MUTCD standard none of the states have taken up yet, or are they all ignoring it, or is it just Illinois that uses a much narrower font (maybe Series B), or did someone accidentally use series D for the SVG? On the left of this paragraph are two signs; the font used in Illinois (on both 2 and 3 digit Interstates) is always like the narrow one on the old PNG as far as I know, which is narrower than both 2di and 3di signs now in SVGs. -- Closeapple 10:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
In other shield news, I made a 3di shield (based on my 3di SVG) and a 2di shield (based on SPUI's SVG) with state names. SPUI expressed concern to me about there being 15 different shields on I-95 and so forth. I think that these should be reserved for intrastate Interstates ONLY. Here's the originals (which won't look good on Wikipedia): Image:US DOT FHWA MUTCD SHS 2004 3-1 M1-1 600x600mm 88 NY.svg and Image:US DOT FHWA MUTCD SHS 2004 3-1 M1-1 750x600mm 678 NY.svg. I also made Image:Interstate 678.svg and Image:Interstate 88 (New York).svg. Only the 678 one is in use, because I'm not sure how to make the I-88 one go in the box for Interstate 88 (east), but not the other one. -- Chris 20:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Commons:Interstate shields#Business Routes;how do you guys like them? They're based on my state name ones, since i used M1-2/3 dimensions for those. (just like with my other templates, they don't look right on wikipedia. But the 95 ones are how they should look) Do we even have any articles on these? I'm not really familiar with them, since there aren't any near me (not signed ones anyway). -- Chris 21:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
All routes that have known articles have been added to the list and have all the shields replaced with SVGs. I've only seen 2dis so far, so the controversial 3di one has yet to be used in an article. -- Chris 15:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Gflores Talk 17:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm done with the disambiguated Interstate templates. I'll keep checking for awhile before asking that the templates themselves be deleted:
Template:Interstatedis (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Template:Intdis (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Template:3didis (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
now {{
disambig}}
plus
Category:Lists of Interstate Highways sharing the same title.
I placed the category under Category:Interstate Highway System, where it should be easy to find.
I'm sorry about the earlier problems with Tedernst, who didn't follow anything like standard procedure. Since I'm not a rampant disambiguation hack and slasher, please note that the pages are intact (or as intact as Ted left some of them). I merely changed the template and added the new category.
I hope things continue more peacefully on this worthwhile project.
I have just created Portal:U.S. Roads. If you have any feedback, please place it under "Portal" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads. Rt66lt 03:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Are notable deaths on specific roads encouraged? And if so is the Notes section where I should put it? Or a new "Notable deaths" or "Notable accident" section? - Roy Boy 800 20:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Has any one else noticed problems with the shield images? For example,
It seems to be only 20px that i've noticed, cuz
is 21px. I haven't been able to find this problem with other sizes, other than 20px. But it seems to be happening with these and possibly others, so I figured I'd bring it up.
The Most others work fine.
So I don't know. Any cure, or is it just me? MPD01605 03:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Interstate 96#Junctions with other interstates uses the phrase "reflexive duplex", googling for which gives only matches from Wikipedia and its mirrors. What does that phrase mean? I wonder if it is a "real world" term or one that was invented by User:68.43.21.149. -- Paddu 14:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
What's preferred in wikitables — the green standouts of Interstate 190 (Illinois) or integrated like Interstate 180 (Illinois)? Now that I've done both, it's time to choose. :-) — Rob ( talk) 19:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
So far there seems to be the following available "fields":
Just to show how different things are, compare Interstate 290 (Illinois) with Interstate 87:
County | Municipality | Exit / Milepost | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Albany | Albany | 1 | 0 | New York State Thruway ( Interstate 90) |
Colonie (village) | 2 | 1 | Central Avenue ( NY 5) | |
Colonie (town) | 4 | 3 | Albany-Shaker Road ( NY 155 West) | |
5 | 4 | Watervliet-Shaker Road ( NY 155 East) | ||
6 | 6A | Troy-Schenectady Road ( NY 7 West / NY 2) | ||
7 | 6B | NY 7 East | ||
Mohawk River |
Number | Mile | Destinations | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
File:Interstate 290.svg Western Terminus | |||
None | 0.0 |
![]()
|
![]() ![]() |
1 | 0.75 |
![]()
|
Collector-Distributor exit for Schaumburg, Illinois and the Woodfield Mall. Eastbound exit only accessible from local lanes that also serve Interstate 90. |
4 |
![]() |
Illinois 53 northbound multiplexes with Interstate 290 westbound at this point. | |
5 | Thorndale Avenue - Elgin-O'Hare Expressway | Possible future routing of
![]() |
I feel this should be standardized... and that the notes section is really, really quite important now that we've scrapped the old junctions method. What should go in the tables? — Rob ( talk) 21:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Number | Mile | Destinations | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
0 | 0.0 |
![]() |
Southern terminus of Interstate 172. |
2 |
![]() |
||
10 |
![]() |
||
14 |
![]() |
||
Columbus Road, Wishman Lane / Quincy | |||
19.7 |
![]() |
Northern terminus of Interstate 172 — becomes eastbound
![]() |
Route - (name on sign OR control cities) / city servedfor the destinations column isn't going to work. I'd like to strongly suggest having a city (served) column, and debate having a county column. Since different interstates will necessarily have different formats, I hesitate applying a universal standard to the Interchanges table. — Rob ( talk) 01:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Route Number - <name on sign OR control cities on sign>OR
<name on sign OR control cities on sign> (Route Number)depending on how important state route numbers actually are in the area. — Rob ( talk) 02:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Number | Mile | Destinations | Notes | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Old | |||||
208 | Sandy Ridge Road | ||||
210 | NC 68 - High Point/ Piedmont Triad International Airport | Greensboro | |||
211 | Gallimore Dairy Road | ||||
213 | Guilford College Road | ||||
214 | Wendover Avenue | split into 214A and 214B eastbound | |||
216 | NC 6 east - Coliseum Area | eastbound exit and westbound entrance | |||
217 | High Point Road/Koury Boulevard/ Coliseum Area | ||||
218A |
![]() |
US 220 joins eastbound and leaves westbound | |||
218B | Freeman Mill Road | ||||
219 |
![]() |
no westbound entrance; I-85 Business, US 29 and US 70 join eastbound and leave westbound; I-40 west splits from I-85 Business south via exit 36A (old exit 123) | |||
36 | 124 | Randleman Road | exit 36B westbound | ||
37 | 125 | South Elm-Eugene Street - Downtown | |||
38 | 126 | US 421 south - ML King Jr Drive/ Sanford | US 421 joins westbound and leaves eastbound | ||
39 | 127 | US 29 north/ US 70 east/ US 220 north - Reidsville | eastbound exit and westbound entrance; US 29, US 70 and US 220 join westbound and leave eastbound | ||
41 | 128 | NC 6 to US 29 north/ US 220 north - East Lee Street | |||
43 | 130 | McConnell Road | |||
44 | 131A |
![]() |
I-85 joins eastbound and splits westbound; I-85 Business begins westbound and ends eastbound; I-40 west splits from I-85 south via exit 131 |
"Present city" is handled in a column to the right of the exit description. The cell containing the city name is colored red, and spans all rows that lie within that city. I have also used this to indicate toll sections, by changing the color to green. ... Scott 5114 02:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Number | Mile | Destinations | Notes | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Old | New | Highways and/or Control Cities | Municipality | ||
If applicable — some states did not have old systems | If applicable — some exits are not numbered | Milepost Number | Format: Route Icon (if applicable) Route Number (or street name) - Control City 1, Control City 2 (if applicable). | Same as Control City if interchange is actually within the city limits of the control city. Otherwise, what city you're actually in. This may span several rows if several interchanges serve the same city in a row. | If you need a notes section. |
Example below; I definitely do not want more than six fields, because six is already quite confusing.
Number | Mile | Destinations | Notes | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Old | New | Highways and/or Control Cities | Municipality | ||
1 | 3 | 2.5 | Park Blvd - Springfield, Shelbyville | Nowhereville | Full cloverleaf interchange. Northern terminus of mysterious highway 6. |
Toll Booth #172 | |||||
1A | 7 | 6.9 |
![]() |
Oklahoma City | Southern terminus of mysterious highway 6. |
None | 23.0 |
![]() |
Glen Ellyn, Illinois | Example of implicit control cities (cities are on destination signs on an exit ramp). |
Best Practices
Comments? Questions? Fierce disagreements? It's easy to create a standard (of sorts) now, instead of having to have huge arguments later. It's much easier to change templates than it is a freaking table. :-) — Rob ( talk) 18:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm using background colors for cities for a simple reason - browsers sometimes have trouble rendering the tables, and sometimes I get a table without the lines between cells. The multi-row city cells are useless then, as there's no indication of where one city ends and the next begins. This is probably the one thing I will not give up.
Interstate 80 in California is a good example of my current method. Exit number right before the destination, and city before that, with bgcolor cycling red-green-blue-etc. For destinations, I've been using what's on the signs as much as possible. Using Mapquest driving directions, one can get that information (though it's rather slow and time-consuming).
All concurrencies are included in the notes column, as are partial interchanges. A road that doesn't need notes is very rare.
I've been sizing shields so they're all 20px high - that seems the most consistent to me. This means (for MUTCD-standard shields, not California variants) 20px for 2-digit and 25px for 3-digit. All shields have been at the beginning of the cell, even if not signed. Unsigned routes then have the full name in parentheses. Every route with a shield is also mentioned in text - we don't want to require looking at the shield. -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 08:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Presently the only featured article on a road is the Ridge Route. I'm interested in promoting some other road articles to featured status, and the Interstates are probably the easiest place to start. Should we wait and get the articles up to WikiProject standards first or start looking at some of the better ones like Interstate 5, Interstate 95, Interstate 80, or Interstate 90? -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 07:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
There are a few more - Pulaski Skyway and San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge come to mind. -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 08:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Just to bring this to everyone's attention, an Interstate 101 article was created about a week ago, but I've always thought that "I-101" was just road geeks speculating on a route number for the route described in the article (and I left a comment on the article's talk page about it). The article does have some good information about the history of the Delaware Relief Route, so it should probably be moved there unless the I-101 designation has actually been approved. -Jeff (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi everyone, was wondering if I could use the interstate infobox on VT Route 289, as that was a proposed interstate? Probably for shields what I'd do is a grayscale interstate shield, with a red slash through it, and next to it would be the shield used
?
Thanks --Raj Fra 19:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
One other thing - created an exit table, but just saw the ones on the project site, and I really like. Will conform to one of those, but comments desired on whats there so far. Thx. --Raj Fra 19:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I-45 runs from Galveston, Texas north to Dallas, Texas, a distance of only 284 miles, so should this be excepted from the divisible by five rule or does it matter? Just a thought... Mr "I am probably missing something here" Zotel - the Stub Maker 16:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
We might have a problem with the Interstate shields: according to the FHWA's FAQ, AASHO (now AASHTO) registered the Interstate shield as a trademark in 1967. While it's obvious that Wikipedia is not a giant billboard next to an Interstate highway, technically it is a restriction, and all images must be tagged as saying that AASHTO owns the trademark. Very sorry to have found this out, as while the FHWA is a public agency, it follows the AASHTO, which reserves all rights. -- Geopgeop 12:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
We might have a problem with the Interstate shields: according to the FHWA's FAQ, AASHO (now AASHTO) registered the Interstate shield as a trademark in 1967. While it's obvious that Wikipedia is not a giant billboard next to an Interstate highway, technically it is a restriction, and all images must be tagged as saying that AASHTO owns the trademark. Very sorry to have found this out, as while the FHWA is a public agency, it follows the AASHTO, which reserves all rights. -- Geopgeop 12:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
This structure is starting to show its age. Here's what's there now...
1.) (implicit) Intro / overview 2.) Route description 2a.) (if > 1 state) State 2b.) State ... 3.) Length 4.) Cities 5.) Intersections with other Interstates and other main roads 6.) Spur routes 7.) Notes 8.) References 9.) External links 9a.) (if > 1 state) State 9b.) State ...
The problems are...
I might do these boldly after a few days if I don't get any comments. In addition, a lot of these sections are optional, and having an entire section that says, "None" is pretty wasteful.
This might fly in the face of 2di freeways, but I've been working 3di ones for the past couple days. — Rob ( talk) 19:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Greetings. I've been creating maps of the Interstates for articles that do not have them. I just finished a rather large batch of maps for the U.S. Highway project (which are here: Commons:Category:Maps of U.S. Routes). Anyway, I started to tinker around and I have three different kinds of maps and was looking for input on what this project community prefers. The first map is akin to the ones I made for the U.S. Highway Project: just a highlighted route. The second one is a map with nearby major cities. The third has major cities as well as cities along the route within 5 miles.
I'm going to hold off on finishing the others until I get a bit of feedback. Stratosphere 07:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Houston, Huntsville, Corsicana, Ennis, Dallas" which is a LOT of cities.) Depending how small the maps will be when they're in the infobox, I'd agree with SPUI, but it's your call as to whether or not at a given size the city text is clutter or not. Good job! — Rob ( talk) 16:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Well the maps are done. Commons:Category:U.S. Interstate Maps. Just need to plug them into the infoboxes now. I also redid the ones that were already made for two reasons. One was so they'd fit snugly in the infobox when reduced, the other is that I mapped them in the preferred United States projection. The old ones looked like they were using a Mercator Projection which stretched the country out the further north you went. I used Lambert Conformal Conic North American Projection which is what most printed U.S. maps are projected with. For some of the maps that were only within a particular state, I used that states preferred state plane system, if anyone cares :P Cheers. Stratosphere 05:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
After being corrected by Engleman ( talk · contribs) when I incorrectly thought that placing state names on Interstate shields was deprecated, I find that I still don't like the look of it. The particular article that brought this up is Interstate 390 (New York). The images in question are:
Now, it may just be because the former is far more common in New York these days, but the latter just looks bad to me. Perhaps more persuasively, however, at the size used in the info box, the state name so small as to be barely readable, at best. I can think of no good reason, then, to use the state-name-specific image over the generic one. Thoughts? Powers 23:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I think we should only use them if the state still uses them. -- SPUI ( T - C) 02:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Just a thought: what about using the neutered shields on main pages, especially interstates that are truly interstate. Then use the shields with state names for state-specific articles ( Interstate 95 in Georgia) or for 3di's within a single state ( Interstate 440 (North Carolina)). Then it just gets ambiguous for interstates that "aren't," like Interstate 4. — C.Fred ( talk) 03:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
See discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Highways#Subpage technicalities. — Rob ( talk) 15:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I have read through the archives, and cannot seem to find a consensus regarding exit lists/tables and standards for them. Was this ever completely sorted out? Are the standards still open for debate? One thing I have noticed in reference to tables is that some people have a strong opinion against them. I, on the other hand, really appreciate them, and find them rather useful. I would like some direction, if someone could assist. Thanks.
-- Homefryes 21:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, exit lists are hard. Given the patience and technical knowledge required to put together a table, comments from 4 of 10+ group members seemed like an agreement to me. One of the issues Interstate 290 (Illinois) handles is where you are at that point in the road - I know I-294 goes to Indiana and Wisconsin, but you're in Hillside/Elmhurst (depending on which way you're going) at the time. For rural Interstates, this becomes Rural X County if there's no municipality for miles around. The 5/6 field table (exit number (old, new), mile marker, regional destination, local destination (where am I?), notes) allows more flexibility and gives more information than the 4 field table, while keeping good visual presentation. — Rob ( talk) 12:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Even though I kinda dismissed this issue with my comments a week ago, I believe that it's time to come up with a hard standard for exit lists (after seeing 4 different formats on 4 different articles). Before anyone thinks that these comments are an echo of my comments from August 3, I'm willing to take a different approach to come up with a standard. Instead of looking at one type of table and deciding which one to use, we should start with the basics and think about what should an exit list should contain. From what I've read above and from what other editors have used, here's what I've found, in the order that they would be in the table from left to right:
An example using the above proposal:
County | Location | # | Mile | Destinations | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Monroe | Brighton | 0.0 |
![]() |
Southern terminus. | |
1 | 1.7 | Winton Road | |||
2 | 3.1 |
![]() |
No access from NY 31 eastbound to I-590 northbound. | ||
3 | 4.0 | Elmwood Avenue | Northbound: entrance only; southbound: exit only. | ||
4 | 4.6 | Highland Avenue | Northbound: exit only; southbound: entrance only. | ||
Rochester | 5 | 5.3 |
![]() ![]() |
Northern terminus. | |
![]() ![]() |
If anyone thinks something is missing, please comment. The reason I'm adamant on this issue is that, for one, I will be spending a good amount of my time here now with the mess going on with state roads, and two, the articles would look much better with a standardized exit list format. -- TMF T - C 16:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
←For exits that are only one direction I usually put something like westbound only in bold.
I think the reasoning for including both 'exit' and 'mile' is that 'exit' is for the actual exit number (e.g. 101) and 'mile' is for the exact location (say 101.44), which is determined by postmiles in California. Correct me if I'm wrong.
SPUI mentioned that the reason he includes the cycling red/green/blue colors on the exit tables he uses is because sometimes the Gecko renderer (used by Mozilla, Firefox, K-Meleon, etc.) will glitch up and not show the table's lines, which makes determining where one city starts and the next begins impossible without the colors. — Scott5114 ↗ 21:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Does this project cover Business Interstates? There's a few of them that have articles but I'm not sure whether they should fall under the purview of this project, the state project, or USRD. Thoughts? — Scott5114 ↗ 14:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
For reference by the interested reader: List of Business Routes of the Interstate Highway System. Powers T 14:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I decided I should bring this up with the project instead of just the two articles it really deals with. As with Interstate 76 and Interstate 84, I feel that now, especially since someone just made the Interstate 74 in North Carolina page, we should rename the two pages. There is the intention to eventually connect the two pieces of interstate, but we're looking at a long long time away until that happens. I propose that, since it is an east-west interstate, that the current Interstate 74 article become Interstate 74 (west) and the I-74 in NC article become Interstate 74 (east). They're two entirely different highways that won't be connected within the foreseeable future. -- MPD01605 ( T / C) 17:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a decent layout:
-- NE2 11:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
If we do go forward with this, it would probably make sense for I-66 as well; Virginia and West Virginia are not building freeways along the extension. -- NE2 11:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
See Template talk:Infobox Interstate. -- TMF T - C 15:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Articles such as I-5 exit list and such should be called? There is no convention right now... -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 05:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I've asked this before, but...
Route description is a second-level header. Each state name is a third-level header below it.
Do we wiki them, or not? Current consensus is 50/50 across all articles I've read. — Rob ( talk) 07:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Copied from User talk:TwinsMetsFan.
Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 October 29. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 01:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
{{3di|parent=25|child1=225|child2=etc...}}couldn't it serve the same purpose or am I missing something? Stratosphere ( U T) 03:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
{{ 3di xx}} simply prepares the table header row and automatically fills in parameters for {{ 3di row}}. For 2dis with a single spur, what is the problem with simply substing the template or filling in {{ 3di row}} manually? It's only going to be used on the 2di article anyway since it's useless in the 3di article itself. -- Polaron | Talk 16:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
How about something like this for these single link templates?
{{User:Polaron/test2|89}} {{3di row|I-189|[[Interstate 189|Vermont]]}} |}
which produces:
{{User:Polaron/test2|89}} {{3di row|I-189|[[Interstate 189|Vermont]]}} |}
-- Polaron | Talk 19:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Are there any other comments on this? I'm planning to make some changes to the actual templates later today. The appearance of all tables would not be altered in any way. -- Polaron | Talk 16:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
What happens if I add a prose description of I-516 to Interstate 16#Spur routes? Then I can remove the table, right? -- NE2 17:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Please remember, don't make any actual changes to the articles until we have a consensus on this issue. --
Rschen7754 (
talk -
contribs)
04:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
What do people think about putting the table entries for the single-link {{3di xx}} templates directly into {{3di}}? For certain specific xx values, instead of calling {{3di xx}}, it will get the values from an inernal list. I've tried to implement something at User:Polaron/test3 (look at the bottom 4 tables). The main function is at User:Polaron/test4, which is intended to replace both {{ 3di}} and {{ 3di2}}. It currently has an awkward construction. Anybody more familiar with parser functions should be able to construct this more elegantly. -- Polaron | Talk 07:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Note that if the above function is used for {{ 3di}}, this would only require inserting a template parameter to at most 18 articles without affecting the appearance in any way of any article, and simultaneously allow for the deletion of single-link {{3di xx}} templates, as well as {{3di2}}. I am hoping this is a reasonable solution. The only drawback I see is that the proposed template is about 500 bytes larger (2x larger) than the current one. -- Polaron | Talk 17:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
As an alert, please note this AfD for regarding a major Canadian freeway's exit list: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of exits on Highway 401 (Ontario). While most votes so far are keep, there was one particularly strong demand to delete the exit list on grounds that it violates core Wikipedia policies. This may potentially lead to AfD calls on any Interstate exit list pages. The Interstate project members may want to weigh in here. Dl2000 04:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)