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.

I was quite happy to find this WikiProject. I will start adding relevant content from my Washington State Highways site, which I haven't worked on in years because it got to be a pain to manage. Better that it should live on as a collaborative effort than continue to be neglected.

One thing that I've been doing as part of that effort is creating maps showing the route of each state highway, like this one for SR20. (The interstates are also shown for context.) Unless there are objections, I'd like to modify the routebox template to show a route map for each Washington highway, approximately the size of the route shield and perhaps located between "Highway in Washington" and the RCW statute. This would of course be a slight departure from the routebox format used for other states' highways, like California's, but maybe if enough people think it's a good idea it'll be adopted for other states as well.

I use Adobe Illustrator to create the maps and should be able to generate maps pretty quickly for all of the Washington highways that currently have articles. Please also chime in with any comments or questions about the colors, format, line thickness, etc. -- PHenry 23:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

We'd love to have the maps, but I'm not quite sure if they should go in the routebox due to size. Maybe at the top or bottom of the article? I'd have to see how it looks though to make sure the routebox isn't too big. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs - count) 02:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The routebox is 225 pixels wide, so I was thinking that maybe 180-200 pixels wide for the map would be appropriate ( example). At that size it would be about as tall as the route shield is, and wouldn't cause the routebox to get any wider. -- PHenry 02:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

For routes like Washington State Route 102 is there any way to zoom in on the map? -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs - count) 04:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

What I typically do for short highways is zoom in on the region to the extent practical, with a locator map in the corner showing the area in relation to the rest of the state. See the SR-520 map for an example (this, too, would appear much smaller in the routebox). My source file is a PDF map from nationalatlas.gov that shows most of the state highways, so it's pretty easy to arbitrarily zoom in on part of the state for a better look. -- PHenry 05:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I've uploaded the maps and updated the routebox. I think I've created maps for all the pages that currently use the routebox template, but if I've missed any please let me know. Next I'll create maps for the pages that don't yet use the routebox template, so that when the template gets added to a page its map will be ready to go. If you have a request for a specific highway, leave me a message and I'll make it as soon as I can. -- PHenry 19:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks... they look great so far! -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs - count) 19:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Love the maps. However, I see that that many have some errors.

• SR-525, travels too far up on Whidbey Island on the map. The actual route ends just above the point where the Island extends west after the long northward neck. TEG 20:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Fixed it... thanks. -- PHenry 23:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I have been creating SR signs using AppleWorks, and the Road Geeks Fonts (Similar to FHWA) at [1]. TEG 19:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'll come back and work on this. I just ran out of time. -- Rschen7754 July 5, 2005 20:30 (UTC)

The article on Transportation is currently nominated on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. Vote for Transportation there.-- Fenice 09:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I've been thinking (a dangerous thing) and was wondering why this WikiProject is called Washington State Highways. Shouldn't it be Washington State Routes, since State Highways have not existed since the 1970s. I think it might make us look a little more organized to do this, and change the bottom of the route box, because it says Washington State Highways as well. TEG 20:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

In the law, they're still called highways. [2] -- PHenry 02:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

They're "state highway routes" called "State Route X". [3] -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 15:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say leave it because the other projects are called the same thing. But it doesn't really matter to me. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 02:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the current milepost format might be improved a bit. The current format was apparently inherited from the California standard, which uses a 2- or 3-letter code to signify each county. This is necessary in the case of California, because mile numbering on California highways starts over in each county-- Route 1 has a mile 1 in Sonora County, a mile 1 in Mendocino County, and so on--and the three-letter codes are actually stenciled on each milepost in the state. [4] To copy this county system for Washington highways is, I think, undesirable for three reasons:

• California has an official list of county abbreviations, but Washington has no such list, to my knowledge. (But please correct me if I'm wrong.)
• Therefore, any such abbreviations generated for Washington counties are arbitrary, and two different editors working on different pages may unknowingly choose different abbreviations for the same county, causing confusion.
• Someone familiar with the California postmile system might get the inaccurate impression that Washington uses a similar county-based system for mileage numbering.

Check out the SR-20 page to see my idea for a standard that would solve these problems while still providing information about the counties a highway travels through. If everyone hates it, it can certainly be reverted. If people like it, we can make changes to the existing pages as we get to them. -- PHenry 02:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks good, the font is a little small though. What is the code you used? (So that it looks the same on every article) Sorry about the mess... California has become a model for WikiProjects, but the problem it creates is that CA is the exception when it comes to highway standards... -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 02:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I just created a template for it. The format is:

{{routeboxwa/county|Skagit}}

which produces

Skagit County

It uses font size 1. Font size 2 is the normal text size, which I was afraid would overwhelm the more important information in the routebox. If it does need to be bigger, at least we only need to change it in one place, instead of hundreds of places. -- PHenry 19:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I like it, but I feel it is more overhead than what we need. I think we should just drop the idea of the county. All the junctions I've been doing have been based on actual mileage, not county mileage, as it would be nuts to do it any other way in Washington. TEG 14:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the county names are, at best, optional for every state but California. Do you think it will still require too much overhead, with the new template? My preference would be to leave the template in place for people to use if they want to, but not have an expectation that every highway needs to list counties.

On a related note, I made another change to SR-20--which I seem to be increasingly using as my own personal guinea pig article--so that the route shields in the mileage list all line up nicely down the center, a la most of the California articles. I think it looks a lot better this way. -- PHenry

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 03:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You may have noticed that several highway WikiProjects are gradually converting shield graphics to SVG format because SVG graphics scale better to both larger and smaller sizes. I have created a sample route shield and map in SVG for your inspection and, hopefully, approval.

190px	75px	20px	190px	100px

I'm using Adobe Illustrator CS for both images and can create SVG versions of the rest of the graphics fairly easily, though it will take some time to do them all. If you have any feedback for me, post it here. -- phh 20:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

GOOD the GIFs scale like crap, I had to make them 30px in my exit lists to be readable! A dmrb♉ltz ( T | C) 21:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

But if you could upload them to the commons, It would be appreciated :) A dmrb♉ltz ( T | C) 21:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Great idea. I'll do that. Thanks. -- phh 21:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

SVG is a good idea as we're moving to that across the board. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 23:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)`

Okay, I've created and uploaded all the SVG route shields (there are over 200 of them!) to the Commons, and swapped them in on the routebox templates and on all the articles I could find that use them. Within the next few days I'll go ahead and list the existing gifs on WP:IfD, so if you find any I missed, just replace "gif" with "svg" in the image name—the rest of the file name is the same as before.

Some of the shields will need to be redone. I used a script to generate the SVG files from the original Illustrator artwork, and it positioned the numerals poorly on some of the shields. The problem seems to mostly affect shields with 2s and 4s in them, although not all of those will need to be fixed. I'll get to it some time soon, after I get a very large amount of sleep.

Maps next… — phh 07:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Instead of listing for IFD, tag them for speedy deletion with {{ db-redundant|IMAGE NAME}} A dmrb♉ltz ( T | C) 02:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Boy, I wish I'd known about that tag before I'd tagged all 200 shields with {{ifd}}! (Actually, the {{ifd}} tag is probably more appropriate anyway, because the new shields aren't pixelwise identical to the old ones.) -- phh 16:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I have now replaced the old PNG route maps with SVG maps on every page where I could find them, and modified the routebox template to use the SVG versions. If you find a missing map, or need one for an article you're creating or expanding, post a note here or on my talk page and I'll upload it. (The SVG format also makes it a lot easier for anyone with access to Illustrator, Inkscape, Visio, or a similar application to create maps on their own if they like; I'll post information and instructions on the project page.) -- phh 16:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Any comments on User:SPUI/SR 599 vs. Washington State Route 599? Any reason I shouldn't start using the smaller one? -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

No. There is no consensus. Also, this is simply the continuation of SPUI's edit warring from California. There is much loss of information in your template. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 01:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Er... what? Why the hell do you think I asked here? TO GET CONSENSUS THAT YOUR SHIT IS TOO BIG. -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Dude, when you say stuff like "TO GET CONSENSUS THAT YOUR SHIT IS TOO BIG." it just tends to bring in people to oppose you, blindly or not. I know it's perhaps like asking the tide not to come in, but if there is any way you could be more civil and less confrontational, it might get things done faster and with less turmoil. On the specifics of these two, I like the smaller size shield and map in your version, as well as the ends, but think mileposts and the "RCW 47.17.808" are useful things to have from the other version. I'm not sure how a state route can be a child of an interstate so am not sure about that part. Hope that helps. ++ Lar: t/ c 02:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The smaller shield is fine. I'm not sure about the map though- as long as people can see the whole red line without squinting and stuff, maybe. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 02:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The 5XX routes are all numbered based on I-5 (which is of course officially SR 5). 599 itself is also numbered from 99, but if it was mainly from 99 it would be 995. Can you explain why you think including the mileposts in the infobox (rather than a separate table in the article body) is important? -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm a visual person. I like having all the important things in the infobox. I think mileposts are important. YMMV. ++ Lar: t/ c 04:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand that at all. How do the mileposts help you to visualize where the route goes? -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

They don't help visualise WHERE the route goes, that's the job of a map. But they DO help me visualise WHAT the mileposts are and HOW they relate to each other. Ever use Hertz NeverLost? I swear by it's "next five exits" view... this is like that. I'm a visual person. I like spreadsheets better than numbers in text, I like pictures better than prose. I'm a fan of big, detail rich infoboxes in general. You may not agree, which is why I said "YMMV" (your mileage may vary) ... Maybe show/hide would be useful here? ++ Lar: t/ c 05:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I still don't get it, but whatever. Note that I'm not at all opposed to a table in the article body that includes junctions and mileposts, just including that in the infobox. -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not in the infobox? It's just going to be somewhere else on the page if you move it. Why does it matter where it's presented? Afterall infoboxes are there for a short overview. Mileposts fit that definition IMHO. JohnnyBGood 21:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Mileposts make it a long overview, and don't do all that much to help see where the road is. Putting them elsewhere on the page puts the more important stuff near the top. -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 21:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

<-- (shift) What about show/hide though? That would put it all in the box but not cluttered. ++ Lar: t/ c 23:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Seems rather hackish. And the junctions themselves are a lot more useful than the mileposts. -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a few more at User:SPUI/onthecaca. I welcome discussion, but not blind opposition. -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

How is that blind opposition? I'm not blind. In fact I knew that this was coming long before. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 02:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Blind opposition as in not thinking, just opposing because you dislike my actions. -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Because they're controversial and are confrontational. And because your infobox has less information. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 02:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

My infobox has all the important information. We don't need mileposts in it. -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Um yes we do. And I'm not blindly opposing- look at the changes to {{ routeboxwa}} I'm making. Just because I dislike your infobox doesn't mean that everything is bad about it. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 02:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Mileposts, and listing every junction on long routes, makes the infobox too long. -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It provides a good overview of the route. And there aren't any exit lists for the WASRs anyway. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 02:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that sr20 is way too long as well. Maybe we can just move the junctions list out into the main article as a compromise? That will both shorten the infobox and make the article longer, making it more pleasing on the eyes. atanamir 02:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Really, the junctions need to stay in the box. Maybe on SR-20 we should move the smaller junctions out into an exit list, but only for the extremely long ones. Most WA highways are short compared to their CA counterparts. And I've made many drastic changes to the box already. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 02:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Those "drastic changes" weren't very drastic, just some minor tweaking. There is no reason to have (a) every junction or (b) mileposts in the infobox. -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The color coding? Removing of red links? Shrinking the map and shield? Added "formed" field? Removed "Highway in Washington"? Removing the legend? And we need the stuff in the infobox because it gives a complete quick summary of the route .... where people expect it. In the infobox. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 03:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

My box provides a quick summary; yours provides useless details. -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

why "must" the junctions remain in the box? atanamir 05:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

See above. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 05:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

They expect it because they're used to it. Give any format some time and i'm sure people will end up expecting it as well. atanamir 07:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Accord

Why don't we get the principles to leave the floor for a while and see what the peanut gallery has to say?

• I haven't looked at the status quo on these infoboxes is yet, but how about we leave it like that until everyone is equally unhappy. If it's half way done, whatever, that it just gets left for a couple of days.
• It's clear what SPUI and Rschen7754 want, and they've had a chance to make their case. *hint*

For aesthetics alone I like the smaller template, but I'm going to have to look over the arguments to see about the other ways to present the information.
brenneman ^{L} 03:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

erm, you want the "principals" (that is, SPUI and Rschen7754) to leave the floor. but please, let us all stay firmly rooted in our "principles", that is, what is best for the readers? (and to a lesser extent, where it makes a difference, best for the servers, best for the editors (and in the case of, for example, copyright, libel, et al, best for the foundation)... I think we all can agree that both proposed boxes have a lot of merit, help the reader out a lot, and in the absence of alternatives, would be considered quite good. What we're talking about, presumably, is which version takes things farther in the direction of "best" rather than it being "icky" vs. "awesome". At least I hope so. Signed, (with some considerable glee at having caught Aaron in a typo!!!) ++ Lar: t/ c 03:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

That's twice in recent memeory, dammit! - brenneman ^{L} 04:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Note Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12 U.S. Roads. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 03:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, I reviewed that. - brenneman ^{L} 04:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Although it was fascinating reading, I could not figure out where to put in a comment, which was kind of a bummer, because I wanted to comment. That's what I do... Some people do, some watch, some talk. ++ Lar: t/ c 05:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediator response or comments are probably good. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 05:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. I think the current routebox leaves much to be desired, and irrespective of my disagreement with SPUI on the article names and the general way he's gone about all this stuff, I think his proposal is generally an improvement. But please, let's table this debate until the mediation process has run its course. There are so very many reasons why it's a bad idea to try to discuss this while that thing is still going on, and I can't imagine any reason why we have to tackle this now. The template will still be there when mediation is taken care of. There's no rush. -- phh 06:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I like the shortened routebox as well, but we need to have a consensus. A dmrb♉ltz ( T | C) 07:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I like some of the improvements, however fighting about these changes is not productive. I feel that keeping all the current information in the routebox is important. I say this, as it makes these pieces of information more accessible, and for some routes, they can be completely summed up in the route box. ( Washington State Route 525 Spur) as an example. I also like SPUI's idea of having a special field with the West/South and East/North Termini information. I'm beginning to think we are trying to over tech this project. I also feel that including the 'year formed' in the routebox is a stupid idea, since 90%+ of all WSR were created after the 'Great Highway Renumbering' from 1963 to 1971, with the first "new" signs going up in 1964. Therefore I suggest that that field be removed from the routebox, and suggest that we expand the main article for Washington State Routes to include this information. TEG 03:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I find the year formed useful. For instance, one might assume that State Route 14 has always had that number (post-renumbering) east of Maryhill (where US 830 ended), but it was actually State Route 12 until 1967, when US 12 was extended into Washington (taking over what had been SR 14 from I-5 to Naches). So the box would list 1967 rather than the 1964 renumbering, and someone browsing through would quickly see that something interesting happened. -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Attention! SPUI has created this page with a long list of links like " State Route 3 (Washington)," which he says are "the correct names." [5] But this is wrong! Anyone may look at the law creating the route and see that, according to the state, its "correct name" is " State Route Number 3." SPUI's "correct names" do not contain the word "number" anywhere in them at all! These so-called "correct names" are simply works of fiction that SPUI has created out of whole cloth, which have no relevance to anything in this great state!

MOREOVER, it appears that state route number 3 in Washington is, in fact, the only "state route number 3" in the entire world. Wikipedia's disambiguation guideline states quite clearly that " Disambiguation serves a single purpose: to let the reader choose among different pages that closely relate to various meanings of a particular term.… Please use them carefully and only when needed." (Emphasis mine.) It is therefore self-evidently obvious that, to be "correct," we must have a single page called State Route Number 3 that points to this page, as State Route Number 3 (Washington) would amount to unnecessary disambiguation and, of course, State Route 3 (Washington) is just entirely incorrect.

If you believe, dear reader, that I'm just being hyper-pedantic and stupid here… well, you're probably right. Please keep this in mind when parenthesis-crazed editors start talking about the "correct" name of anything. -- phh 06:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

WSDOT always* uses State Route X or SR X. -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 08:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

*All but a few pages. [6] [7]

Succeeded:	Yellowstone Trail National Park to Park Highway