![]() | 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 |
What do the members here think about a guideline for the use of old-style shields? I ask this because User:Freewayguy has been very vocal about his opposition to the Roads in Maryland Project's use of state-name Interstate shields, which are no longer officially in use by Maryland. He has even gone so far as to tag them for speedy deletion. We've been using them simply as an example of the older style; our project's shield guideline has never recommended that they be used in routeboxes etc. Since there isn't a guideline here, it would probably be a good idea to write one that says where they can be used so as to avoid any further confusion. -Jeff (talk) 03:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
There is a debate on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Interstate Highways as to whether a particular website is acceptable as a source or not. Any input is welcome. Bwrs ( talk) 17:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Some image issues recently raised at the FAC for NY 32 have got me to thinking: Do we really need to have detailed junction lists anywhere in the article at all? Either in the infobox or the main text. The more you think about it, the harder it is to justify overall:
Perhaps we should seriously consider whether this information we've all spent so much time gathering, sourcing and putting together is really, in the end, necessary. Daniel Case ( talk) 17:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, why can't I fix the infobox for Interstate 10 in New Mexico? ---- DanTD ( talk) 00:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Route information | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Maintained by MDOT | ||||
Location | ||||
Country | United States | |||
State | Michigan | |||
Highway system | ||||
|
For some strange reason this infobox isnt working. It the same syntax I used for different states, any clue what not working. BeckyAnne (talk) 06:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
This may've been discussed somewhere else before, but what do you do with multiple roads using the same name? An example is Arkansas Highway 9, which runs from Malvern, Arkansas to Camden, Arkansas, but in the northern part of the state, another, separate, Highway 9 runs from smaller towns Choctaw to Crows. Do I put both routes on the same page or make two pages like Arkansas Highway 9 (north) and Arkansas Highway 9 (south)? Brandonrush ( talk) 19:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I was looking at U.S. Route 68 (archived link just in case it changes) just now and, well, the images didn't do anything for me. The first image is taken from a car, which I think looks tacky. The other two images don't really tell the reader anything. I'd imagine the reader can assume in good faith that Image:040804_20.jpg really is US 68, but that picture could be inserted into almost any article and it would be believable.
What I'm trying to ask is this, are there any standards for what types of images go into USRD articles? Should images always include a shield for proof that it really is that route? Should images not be taken in traffic? -- Fredddie ™ 06:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I do have some things I'd like to see in this area, though. Mainly, the broad adoption of my own philosophy of taking pictures for road articles.
I agree with Daniels points in principle, and I've violated every one. Some many times over. I agree the guideline should be no pictures from inside the car. I think we all know why Daniel is saying what he's saying. It's a no-brainier that any picture of bridges, tunnels, etc. that do not have shoulders or pedestrian paths will have to be taken from a moving vehicle, and that's just the way it is. I think it's also understood that some pictures will be taken from when the uploader was a passenger on a bus/train/carpool and did not have the authority to request the vehicle stop. But the picture is better than nothing, so it's used. It doesn't mean our guidelines shouldn't encourage the best picture possible. Dave ( talk) 15:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and remember to put batteries into your camera so you aren't forced to use your computer webcam (e.g. California State Route 78) XP -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 18:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
The hatnote (link color styled, not really a wikilink):
is mentioned in the Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Standards/Archive 1 guidelines at WP:USRD/MOS, based on U.S. Route 50 in Nevada. There are only 15 other articles using this hatnote. I think the wording is a bit awkward, and should be rewritten. To me, it seems as though it is possible to confuse the clause which is modifying the main article wikilink with one refering to the detail article itself. I think not understanding that an article is able to "possess" other articles is possible. In the example case the topic Interstate X is "possessing" the hatnoted state-detail article, along with other state-detail articles for other states. However, to readers not familiar with USRD articles this may be unclear. As a reader can interpret the phrase "This is a glove of Bill Buckner" as equal to "This is Bill Buckner's glove", then the reader can also see "This is the state-detail article of Interstate X" as "This is Interstate X's state-detail article". That would make the entire sentence seem to say "This is Interstate X's state-detail article, which focuses on the highway in its entire length". Not so, obviously. I have a history of English teachers in my family, so I am speaking from experience about the possibility of improving the current slightly ambiguous wording. My suggestion is:
That wording eliminates the possessive "of", using "for" to properly define "This article" as focusing on Nevada, and places the wikilinked main article after the comma and the imperative verb "see", clearly distinguishing the two articles. This will help casual readers who arrive at the state-detail article not knowing that state-detail means the project contains not only main highway articles but also detail articles focusing on state portions of highways, and also help foreign language readers who understand English less that we might.
I realize that the hatnote specified in the project standard passed an FAC review, but that doesn't mean that it can't be improved or even that reviewers noticed it might be awkward. Sswonk ( talk) 05:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
(od) I updated the text of the guideline with LJ's version, as I can't see anyone objecting to this improvement. Sswonk ( talk) 13:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
It's already been implemented, but I just wanted to say that the new wording is much, much better. – T M F 04:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest a couple of tweaks to the wording. This is what's being used right now on U.S. Route 44 in New York:
What I would change it to is:
Thoughts? – T M F 09:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
{{about|the section of {{PAGENAME}}|the entire length of highway|U.S. Route 44}}
{{Highway detail hatnote|U.S. Route 44}}
yields: Template finished and Standards updated
Sswonk (
talk)
23:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Today, there was an informal discussion on IRC about the new WP:ALT guideline that is now being enforced at FAC. Somewhere along the way, the discussion moved to maps and the usage of map_notes. I've been told that no article with a map has passed FAC without a caption being added (through map_notes), so I'm going to officially propose that the use of "map_notes" for infobox maps be made mandatory for all articles. My reasoning is that if it's basically mandatory for a successful FAC, it should be mandatory everywhere to provide a building block towards a high-class article. – T M F 21:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Putting "alt text" aside, since that's something else: should we require the use of "map_notes" at all times? (If so, it probably isn't a half-bad idea to force it to show up whenever a map is used.) – T M F 03:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
map_notes=
parameter of the infobox. (od) This is getting off topic. Agree to all points about adding labels, but the caption question is what is being asked. That is even easier than adding labels, and if FAR reviewers have asked for captions, having a one sentence guideline in the standards will help that along. Sswonk ( talk) 02:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Also backing up just a bit. Every road FAC I've participated in, there's been a complaint about the map needing context, map being confusing, what's the blue verses red lines for etc. I've always resolved this with a caption, which usually made the concerns go away. I've yet to participate in a road FAC where the map had shields and other contextual information included. Therefore, a caption may not always be required, just has been so far in every road FAC I've worked with. Something to think about. Dave ( talk) 15:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
(od) TMF, it appears adding the automatic captioning as described above is fine and has consensus. Please add it to the template if it hasn't been already. Scott, we also have a consensus to improve maps, I think it would be helpful for you to start a thread at WP:USRD/MTF talk and get the ball rolling on many of your concerns there in a new topic. I want to avoid having that discussion drag on here in this thread so this can be closed, it really should be a separate one and the maps task force page is where it should be. Sswonk ( talk) 19:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I just discovered that a list of control cities for highways has been deprecated. Why is this? Powers T 16:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Not sure where to put this, but many articles on roads and highways give no sense of what came first - thus, "US 11 parallels Interstate 81". No, it doesn't, as US 11 was built/designated decades before I81 was constructed. Also, US highways often were built on or designated by existing routes, which followed historical patterns of travel and settlement, including Native American trails. There should be some sense of this in the articles.-- Parkwells ( talk) 16:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey all,
Have been meandering through the Texas articles trying to rearrange them south to north, as the standards mention. Read the wrongdir infobox yesterday, and noted that this is because roads mileages are posted south to north. Now the monkeywrench. Texas marks their non-numbered US Routes and State highways north to south. For example, State highway 130 exit signs on the north side of Austin start in the low 400s, and reach the mid 400 at Highway 71. On the other hand, US 75 north of DFW metroplex is numbered south to north, while the tiny roadside mile markers on a different non-labeled US Route near me increase as you go south (final marked number is 814). Now, should I stick to standards for all highways here, or will I need to go through the state routes and reverse them N-S? Either way, still have a good amount of work ahead. 25or6to4 ( talk) 05:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
...I noticed it said "cover the cost of driving the entire Turnpike", but I didn't see anything on individual toll plazas that charge a flat rate. If I remember correctly, a lot of the flat-rate toll barriers on Maryland articles, like I-95 (Fort McHenry Tunnel) intentionally excluded this info (...yeah, they're not turnpikes either, but still). That example in mind, I removed the rather intricate list of toll rates on each exit (for every axle, too) for Pennsylvania 43's article, but it would appear that an anonymous IP put them back. The "Tolls" section does say "turnpikes only", yes, but is what the anon did acceptable by the standards, since it is not the "whole" turnpike? — Onore Baka Sama( speak | stalk) 13:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
“ | Use the standard abbreviations for bannered routes ("BUS", "BYP", "ALT",...) for the displayed text. Their mixed-case counterparts ("Bus., "Byp.", "Alt.",...) are equally acceptable. Shorter banners, such as Loop, Spur, and Truck can either be abbreviated or used in their full form. | ” |
This should be changed to indicate the name should be spelled out the first time (e.g. US xx Bypass (US xx BYP)). Or am I wrong? -- Admr Boltz 23:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
...for comments on the application of these standards in GA reviews. Geometry guy 22:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Instead of the template reading "Previous state:" and "Next state:" could it use something involving the cardinal directions instead? I'm willing to put in the work, but I can't think of something that doesn't sound awkward. -- Pgp688 ( talk) 19:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Discussion pages from before the merger:
Moved to WT:USRD#Interstate Navbox. Imzadi 1979 → 02:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Moved to Template talk:jct#Fixes for Arkansas uses of Template:Jct. Imzadi 1979 → 03:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Moved discussion to WT:USRD#US 301 SC Junction list. Imzadi 1979 → 14:45, 9 June 2011 (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 |
What do the members here think about a guideline for the use of old-style shields? I ask this because User:Freewayguy has been very vocal about his opposition to the Roads in Maryland Project's use of state-name Interstate shields, which are no longer officially in use by Maryland. He has even gone so far as to tag them for speedy deletion. We've been using them simply as an example of the older style; our project's shield guideline has never recommended that they be used in routeboxes etc. Since there isn't a guideline here, it would probably be a good idea to write one that says where they can be used so as to avoid any further confusion. -Jeff (talk) 03:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
There is a debate on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Interstate Highways as to whether a particular website is acceptable as a source or not. Any input is welcome. Bwrs ( talk) 17:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Some image issues recently raised at the FAC for NY 32 have got me to thinking: Do we really need to have detailed junction lists anywhere in the article at all? Either in the infobox or the main text. The more you think about it, the harder it is to justify overall:
Perhaps we should seriously consider whether this information we've all spent so much time gathering, sourcing and putting together is really, in the end, necessary. Daniel Case ( talk) 17:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, why can't I fix the infobox for Interstate 10 in New Mexico? ---- DanTD ( talk) 00:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Route information | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Maintained by MDOT | ||||
Location | ||||
Country | United States | |||
State | Michigan | |||
Highway system | ||||
|
For some strange reason this infobox isnt working. It the same syntax I used for different states, any clue what not working. BeckyAnne (talk) 06:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
This may've been discussed somewhere else before, but what do you do with multiple roads using the same name? An example is Arkansas Highway 9, which runs from Malvern, Arkansas to Camden, Arkansas, but in the northern part of the state, another, separate, Highway 9 runs from smaller towns Choctaw to Crows. Do I put both routes on the same page or make two pages like Arkansas Highway 9 (north) and Arkansas Highway 9 (south)? Brandonrush ( talk) 19:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I was looking at U.S. Route 68 (archived link just in case it changes) just now and, well, the images didn't do anything for me. The first image is taken from a car, which I think looks tacky. The other two images don't really tell the reader anything. I'd imagine the reader can assume in good faith that Image:040804_20.jpg really is US 68, but that picture could be inserted into almost any article and it would be believable.
What I'm trying to ask is this, are there any standards for what types of images go into USRD articles? Should images always include a shield for proof that it really is that route? Should images not be taken in traffic? -- Fredddie ™ 06:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I do have some things I'd like to see in this area, though. Mainly, the broad adoption of my own philosophy of taking pictures for road articles.
I agree with Daniels points in principle, and I've violated every one. Some many times over. I agree the guideline should be no pictures from inside the car. I think we all know why Daniel is saying what he's saying. It's a no-brainier that any picture of bridges, tunnels, etc. that do not have shoulders or pedestrian paths will have to be taken from a moving vehicle, and that's just the way it is. I think it's also understood that some pictures will be taken from when the uploader was a passenger on a bus/train/carpool and did not have the authority to request the vehicle stop. But the picture is better than nothing, so it's used. It doesn't mean our guidelines shouldn't encourage the best picture possible. Dave ( talk) 15:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and remember to put batteries into your camera so you aren't forced to use your computer webcam (e.g. California State Route 78) XP -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 18:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
The hatnote (link color styled, not really a wikilink):
is mentioned in the Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Standards/Archive 1 guidelines at WP:USRD/MOS, based on U.S. Route 50 in Nevada. There are only 15 other articles using this hatnote. I think the wording is a bit awkward, and should be rewritten. To me, it seems as though it is possible to confuse the clause which is modifying the main article wikilink with one refering to the detail article itself. I think not understanding that an article is able to "possess" other articles is possible. In the example case the topic Interstate X is "possessing" the hatnoted state-detail article, along with other state-detail articles for other states. However, to readers not familiar with USRD articles this may be unclear. As a reader can interpret the phrase "This is a glove of Bill Buckner" as equal to "This is Bill Buckner's glove", then the reader can also see "This is the state-detail article of Interstate X" as "This is Interstate X's state-detail article". That would make the entire sentence seem to say "This is Interstate X's state-detail article, which focuses on the highway in its entire length". Not so, obviously. I have a history of English teachers in my family, so I am speaking from experience about the possibility of improving the current slightly ambiguous wording. My suggestion is:
That wording eliminates the possessive "of", using "for" to properly define "This article" as focusing on Nevada, and places the wikilinked main article after the comma and the imperative verb "see", clearly distinguishing the two articles. This will help casual readers who arrive at the state-detail article not knowing that state-detail means the project contains not only main highway articles but also detail articles focusing on state portions of highways, and also help foreign language readers who understand English less that we might.
I realize that the hatnote specified in the project standard passed an FAC review, but that doesn't mean that it can't be improved or even that reviewers noticed it might be awkward. Sswonk ( talk) 05:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
(od) I updated the text of the guideline with LJ's version, as I can't see anyone objecting to this improvement. Sswonk ( talk) 13:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
It's already been implemented, but I just wanted to say that the new wording is much, much better. – T M F 04:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest a couple of tweaks to the wording. This is what's being used right now on U.S. Route 44 in New York:
What I would change it to is:
Thoughts? – T M F 09:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
{{about|the section of {{PAGENAME}}|the entire length of highway|U.S. Route 44}}
{{Highway detail hatnote|U.S. Route 44}}
yields: Template finished and Standards updated
Sswonk (
talk)
23:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Today, there was an informal discussion on IRC about the new WP:ALT guideline that is now being enforced at FAC. Somewhere along the way, the discussion moved to maps and the usage of map_notes. I've been told that no article with a map has passed FAC without a caption being added (through map_notes), so I'm going to officially propose that the use of "map_notes" for infobox maps be made mandatory for all articles. My reasoning is that if it's basically mandatory for a successful FAC, it should be mandatory everywhere to provide a building block towards a high-class article. – T M F 21:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Putting "alt text" aside, since that's something else: should we require the use of "map_notes" at all times? (If so, it probably isn't a half-bad idea to force it to show up whenever a map is used.) – T M F 03:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
map_notes=
parameter of the infobox. (od) This is getting off topic. Agree to all points about adding labels, but the caption question is what is being asked. That is even easier than adding labels, and if FAR reviewers have asked for captions, having a one sentence guideline in the standards will help that along. Sswonk ( talk) 02:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Also backing up just a bit. Every road FAC I've participated in, there's been a complaint about the map needing context, map being confusing, what's the blue verses red lines for etc. I've always resolved this with a caption, which usually made the concerns go away. I've yet to participate in a road FAC where the map had shields and other contextual information included. Therefore, a caption may not always be required, just has been so far in every road FAC I've worked with. Something to think about. Dave ( talk) 15:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
(od) TMF, it appears adding the automatic captioning as described above is fine and has consensus. Please add it to the template if it hasn't been already. Scott, we also have a consensus to improve maps, I think it would be helpful for you to start a thread at WP:USRD/MTF talk and get the ball rolling on many of your concerns there in a new topic. I want to avoid having that discussion drag on here in this thread so this can be closed, it really should be a separate one and the maps task force page is where it should be. Sswonk ( talk) 19:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I just discovered that a list of control cities for highways has been deprecated. Why is this? Powers T 16:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Not sure where to put this, but many articles on roads and highways give no sense of what came first - thus, "US 11 parallels Interstate 81". No, it doesn't, as US 11 was built/designated decades before I81 was constructed. Also, US highways often were built on or designated by existing routes, which followed historical patterns of travel and settlement, including Native American trails. There should be some sense of this in the articles.-- Parkwells ( talk) 16:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey all,
Have been meandering through the Texas articles trying to rearrange them south to north, as the standards mention. Read the wrongdir infobox yesterday, and noted that this is because roads mileages are posted south to north. Now the monkeywrench. Texas marks their non-numbered US Routes and State highways north to south. For example, State highway 130 exit signs on the north side of Austin start in the low 400s, and reach the mid 400 at Highway 71. On the other hand, US 75 north of DFW metroplex is numbered south to north, while the tiny roadside mile markers on a different non-labeled US Route near me increase as you go south (final marked number is 814). Now, should I stick to standards for all highways here, or will I need to go through the state routes and reverse them N-S? Either way, still have a good amount of work ahead. 25or6to4 ( talk) 05:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
...I noticed it said "cover the cost of driving the entire Turnpike", but I didn't see anything on individual toll plazas that charge a flat rate. If I remember correctly, a lot of the flat-rate toll barriers on Maryland articles, like I-95 (Fort McHenry Tunnel) intentionally excluded this info (...yeah, they're not turnpikes either, but still). That example in mind, I removed the rather intricate list of toll rates on each exit (for every axle, too) for Pennsylvania 43's article, but it would appear that an anonymous IP put them back. The "Tolls" section does say "turnpikes only", yes, but is what the anon did acceptable by the standards, since it is not the "whole" turnpike? — Onore Baka Sama( speak | stalk) 13:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
“ | Use the standard abbreviations for bannered routes ("BUS", "BYP", "ALT",...) for the displayed text. Their mixed-case counterparts ("Bus., "Byp.", "Alt.",...) are equally acceptable. Shorter banners, such as Loop, Spur, and Truck can either be abbreviated or used in their full form. | ” |
This should be changed to indicate the name should be spelled out the first time (e.g. US xx Bypass (US xx BYP)). Or am I wrong? -- Admr Boltz 23:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
...for comments on the application of these standards in GA reviews. Geometry guy 22:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Instead of the template reading "Previous state:" and "Next state:" could it use something involving the cardinal directions instead? I'm willing to put in the work, but I can't think of something that doesn't sound awkward. -- Pgp688 ( talk) 19:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Discussion pages from before the merger:
Moved to WT:USRD#Interstate Navbox. Imzadi 1979 → 02:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Moved to Template talk:jct#Fixes for Arkansas uses of Template:Jct. Imzadi 1979 → 03:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Moved discussion to WT:USRD#US 301 SC Junction list. Imzadi 1979 → 14:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)