Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut: WT:IH

Archives
1 2

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 60 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways/Archive2. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Contents 1 Project directory 2 Exit lists 3 Interstate spur navboxes 4 State subcategories 5 Interstate 5 peer review 6 AfD on Canadian exit list - next stop, Interstate lists? 7 Major cities

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exit lists

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)

Interstate 5 exit list, to stay consistent with article naming (we don't call the article for I-5 "I-5", now do we? ;) ). --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do these exist? Shouldn't they be in individual state articles? --NE2 05:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Consensus on... I-95 exit list I think it was. Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I was just going to mention that, but the edit conflict stopped me. I think we can point to that and say that the I-5 exit list should not exist. That took a good chunk of time to get settled. I also redirected that link to the talk page since "I-95 exit list" is now a redirect to I-95. --MPD01605 (T / C) 05:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interstate spur navboxes

Copied from User talk:TwinsMetsFan.

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 October 29. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Holy hell. That's it, this deleting of navboxes has to end now, and it begins by keeping these templates. I've added my $.02. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 01:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Would it be possible to create a standard 3di template which can then be filled in using paramaters rather than creating one for every interstate that needs it? I may be missing a key idea, but I think taking that approach would quell these rampant TFDs. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 02:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...this could definitely work. I'll see what I can whip up. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 02:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree since the templates are repeated on the page, which is why templates were created, and if the template needs to be changed... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

If you had a more flexible template that could handle stuff like this:

{{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)

States too, and past-future... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Soooo, you're saying it'd be too much for a paramater based infobox? Remember Infobox road is pretty crazy, but it works. Just brainstorming a possibly way to consolidate all those templates into one easy to fold super kit for only $19.99. Cheers. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 04:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I could make a parameter-based template work, if I included a ton of parser functions (#if and the like). I'll work on this in my sandbox over the next couple of days, over which time if anyone wants to help with the coding, feel free to do so. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 04:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I failed to find a single parser function that would work correctly in this case, so I don't think a parameter based template is possible. But something has to be done. For some reason, people are prejudiced against these templates, and unfortunately the precedent for their eventual total deletion has been set. The only thing I can think of would be to recreate these templates as a subpage of WP:IH and then use them in the articles, although there's probably some policy against this. Another option would be to replace the {{3di X}} templates (not {{3di}}) with manual entries. But based on the results at DRV and TfD, the current system will not work. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 15:17, 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)

I don't have a problem with using {{3di}} in conjunction with manually-filled in {{3di row}}s. But something has to be done, as all of the "3di X" templates will be deleted soon at the current rate of deletion. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 18:29, 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:

	Auxiliary routes of Interstate 89
I-189	Vermont

--Polaron | Talk 19:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd support that. As for where the test2 template could be stored, it'd have to be in {{3di3}} or something similar (as "3di" and "3di2" already exist. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 19:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Or we could replace it on all the articles (not just the single 3di-ones), which should be easier than it sounds with subst'ing, and convert {{3di}} to this. Just a thought. -- NORTH ^talk 00:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, though some of the more massive ones (like {{3di 5}}, {{3di 90}}, {{3di 95}}, etc.) are probably best left as templates. The other ones could easily be subst'ed. I'll hold further comment until I see which way the project wants to head with this, as there are a number of avenues we can go down with this issue. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 00:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I support this for the smaller ones with one, two, or even three spur routes. However, if the others are fine as it is, they could just stay that way. IMO, any larger ones would be rather unsightly code in the article edit box. Also, how would this work with the past/future rows? --MPD01605 (T / C) 01:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It's already handled by {{3di row}} since that template doesn't automatically create links. --Polaron | Talk 21:40, 3 November 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)

In theory, I suppose so (my humble opinion only), but what's the point of adding a prose description when your linking to the I-516 article anyway? -- NORTH ^talk 20:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Because it's more useful to a reader who is looking for a certain spur. It's not so much an issue on I-16, since there's only one spur, but someone looking for a spur of I-85 but forgetting its number doesn't have to open each article if there is a short description of each. --NE2 01:45, 5 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)

So, it was no consensus on the deletion. Someone want to go to the affected articles and remove "this template is being considered for deletion etc etc etc" from the boxes? I'd do it, but I don't know where they are. --MPD01605 (T / C) 18:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] State subcategories

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)

I don't quite know what you're asking. Can you clarify?

Is it just me, or does that sound like one of those automated speak-into phone things? --MPD01605 (T / C) 07:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe he's asking about linking state names in headings under "Route description".Yes, that does sound like some sort of automated phone thing... —Scott5114↗ 17:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, linking them. I'd say no. But in the description, I'd link to the state. But then again, I'm not a big fan of wikilinking headers.--MPD01605 (T / C) 22:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interstate 5 peer review

It'd be great to have some input... Wikipedia:Peer review/Interstate 5. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think if we want to get any Interstate article up to GA or even FA, the Notes section for that highway needs to be broken up and rewritten into prose. A big section of disconnected trivia isn't really GA/FA-standard material.—Scott5114↗ 02:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think in general, there are a lot of lists. I like the idea of the list of cities template like on the U.S. Routes (U.S. Route 1 for example). That would remove one list. And to get rid of another list, perhaps we could include all Interstate junctions in the routebox. It would make the routebox really big, but it would remove another list from the article itself. Just a thought, though. --MPD01605 (T / C) 03:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't interstate junctions be merged into Route description though? (Take a look at some of the Oklahoma state highway articles to see what I mean.) —Scott5114↗ 18:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea that I can go to one place and see a whole list of junctions rather than skimming through a route description. Ease of finding information is an important part of an article. It's not bad as it is, but to be a GA or even a FA, the lists may need to be presented in a different way. --MPD01605 (T / C) 18:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd think that those should be part of an exit list. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The WP:IH guidelines say that a intersection list is optional, but should not be included if an exit list is "present and complete." On something like Interstate 5 or Interstate 95, an exit list is in a different place, so IMO, an intersection list is perfectly fine. --MPD01605 (T / C) 19:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD on Canadian exit list - next stop, Interstate lists?

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)

We've been deciding to merge exit lists with the article here, unless it's too long. I'm not sure what the standard here is though. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the two salient points are that discussion was held in the 401 article to split it off, and that the exit list is long enough that it warrants breaking off from the main article. We're probably poised to run into a few problems like that in the US (I-5 in CA; I-10 and 20 in TX), though in those cases, the body of the article may be short enough to not be problematic...whereas the 401 article has the whole narrative of the highway plus the exit list, with no easy way to subdivide it other than breaking off the exit list. —C.Fred (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. The 401 discussion will certainly provide some precedent for anything else. --MPD01605 (T / C) 05:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major cities

I looked at that, and we should add the control cities note in the template. Here's what I did, just an example:

Major cities Bolded cities are officially-designated control cities for signs
Richmond, Virginia Washington, DC Silver Spring, Maryland Baltimore, Maryland

Why do we need to have another box on each page? Is there any reason the bulleted lists are inadequate? —Scott5114↗ 22:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Iono. That's the template on the project page, so I figured it should be modified. --MPD01605 (T / C) 22:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks cleaner, IMHO. Also, it shortens up the page by placing the list in a floatable box in the description instead of devoting an entire section to it. For articles with a bunch of clutter already along the side however, then it'd probably be better to use the list.

I still say we should include this list in the infobox if we're just going to add another box. Maybe. Just a thought. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MPD01605 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

I don't like it as a box, personally, but then, I'm not a member of this project... =) Powers ^T 16:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Cities (Population > 2,000)
El Paso Socorro Horizon City Van Horn Fort Stockton Junction Kerrville Comfort Boerne Fair Oaks Ranch Balcones Heights San Antonio Seguin Luling Columbus Sealy Brookshire Katy Houston Mont Belvieu Winnie Beaumont Vidor Orange
Bold cites are AASHTO control cities.[1]

Here is what I am using for Texas interstates, it is Texas based since the cites link goes to a Texas cities article, but you get the idea. This is for Interstate 10 in Texas. --Holderca1 19:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)