Template talk:Interstates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 86 95 2 Interstate 22 3 Interstate H-201 4 Formatting 4.1 Restore centering 4.2 Leave cells not centered 4.3 Comments 5 238 6 Interstate 192? 7 Vandalism? 8 Broken link and misalignment 9 Organization? (revised) 10 Pink background. 11 I-45 is not a "main" interstate 12 Vote: definition of primary interstates 13 Please vote: New Proposal 14 Another template idea 15 Redesign attempt 2 15.1 Attempt 2.2

[edit] 86 95

That "95" in every article is very confusing. How about replacing it with a blank shield in the template? 68.81.231.127 07:59, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to do exactly that. Thanks for the idea. --SPUI 18:29, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Interstate 22

I added Interstate 22 since it's on track for completion in 2006. I don't know what the feelings are about including interstates that are incomplete, however. -- Cleduc 06:10, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No real feeling either way - the number has been written into law, so we should expect it to be signed in the future. The issue is not completeness, though, but existence (for example, 73 is not complete and maybe never will be, but has signed sections). I'd say in this case to include it - it seems to be pretty well known by that number and on track to being signed. Something like I-7 for CA 99 shouldn't be included, even if it's been considered by Caltrans, until the number is officially adopted by AASHTO or written into law. --SPUI 06:21, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Interstate H-201

Added H-201 to the unsigned portion of the template. Snickerdo 03:58, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My mistake, H-201 is signed. Impressive! Snickerdo 03:58, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, I feel like a fool. H-201 removed. Snickerdo 03:59, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting

I just reformatted this template to make it properly toccolours-compliant [1]. User:SPUI reverted my edit with the comment "rv to centered version", referring to the cell contents being centered (which only shows up in a handful of browsers) [2].

Most tables and templates in Wikipedia don't have their contents centered, but it wouldn't be too difficult to add that back in to this one. After a brief conversation on his Talk: page, I suggested I bring it here, to gain consensus either way. Opinions anyone? — OwenBlacker 21:40, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Restore centering

Enter a new line here containing # ~~~:

1. I just think the centering looks better. --SPUI (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Leave cells not centered

Enter a new line here containing # ~~~:

1. OwenBlacker

[edit] Comments

Add your comments here:

[edit] 238

In my opinion, I-238 does not belong in the list of "primary" Interstates. It functions as an I-x80, not as a 2di, even if it couldn't be numbered as such. Certainly not a "primary" route and never will be. CrazyC83 00:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The idea is that all others are reachable by going to the 2DI pages, which link to 3DIs. No 2DI page links to 238 in the way that others link to their children. --SPUI (talk) 03:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Not to mention 238 is considered a primary by the federal gov't.Gateman1997 16:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • That is complete falsehood, I-238 is considered Auxillary by the Federal Goverment http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/routefinder/table2.htm. -- Please remove it from the box and put it on the I-80 auxillary routes where it belongs. KelleyCook 14:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interstate 192?

Is there an Interstate 192? Is it primary? That's what this template said until I reverted it... an IP address did the change. --Rschen7754

There is no Interstate 192 or Interstate 92 for that matter. The article should be VFD for being BS.Gateman1997 17:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Is there even an article on I-192? All I saw was the link on the template. I thought I-192 was bogus so I fixed it. Could that be vandalism?--~~

Probably was.Gateman1997 18:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism?

When I checked this page from my watchlist I noticed that "A1A" was added to the bottom of the template. Since this is the second nonsense edit that has been added (see I-192 above) I sent a {{subst:test-n|Template:Interstates}} to the user, User:67.78.15.138. (It is an IP address as well. ) --Rschen7754 16:43, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Broken link and misalignment

Noticed a few broken links within the Hawaii interstates. H-3 and 201 were not taking me to those pages. Corrected those links (one of the brackets was missing from the H3 link) and not sure what was up with 201 but it works now). Also the alignment seemed to be off. Some of the E/W interstates had (for example): 84E and others had 84(W). Don't know how it was intended to look, but to save space and make it more linear, I removed the parentheses. -wilicali00 PS, I just realized I probably should have brought this up before making any adjustments. I apologize if I caused any problems.

The problem with this is that then we get Interstate 76E. There were Interstates with lettered sufixes at one time, so I reverted it. For the first part I assume you;re talking about the Hawaii template? By the way thanks for coming back to sign your entry (you can do it with --~~~~ as well. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Organization? (revised)

It'd probably be easier to navigate through the list if it was presented like this (imagine table markup and links):

edit Main Interstate Highways								Image:Interstate blank.svg
H-1	H-2	H-3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30
31	32	33	34	35	36	37	238	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50
51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70
71	72	73	74	75	76 (W) 76 (E)	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84 (W) 84 (E)	85	86 (W) 86 (E)	87	88 (W) 88 (E)	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
Unsigned			A-1	A-2	A-3	A-4	PRI-1	PRI-2	PRI-3
Lists			Main - Auxiliary - Suffixed - Business - Proposed - Unsigned Gaps - Intrastate - Interstate standards

I understand that there are quite a few non-numbers, but it makes routes easier to find and looks less cluttered. æle ✆ 16:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The template is small because of space concerns. Big templates with red links tend to be inefficient. The way the template is is a good trade-off between space and convenience. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Me too, but for a different reason. Some interstates in this format (such as 30 and 85) are not major interstates. Vishwin60 02:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pink background.

Key needed? Rich Farmbrough. 17:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I looked for a while to try to figure out what the pink background meant.

A legend would just make it bigger. It should be pretty obvious that the pink ones end in 0 and 5, and the Interstate Highway System article explains that those are the most major ones. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Why can't we use the hide/unhide features of NavFrame for the legend? Kinda like how Template:SonicGames has theirs? --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 22:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• New Idea, how about 4-8 get background color X, 10-19 get background color Y; 20-29 X; 30-39 Y etc. This would eliminate the function/number debate, the need for a "pink" key and as well as make it even easier to look up a number. KelleyCook 18:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I-45 is not a "main" interstate

I do not feel that I-45 is not a "main" interstate. Its only purpose is to connect Dallas and Houston, TX, and it is no more significant than other limited-purpose interstates.

As a case in point, I-44 is a much longer interstate that connects more cities and passes through more states. Despite this, I-44 is not designated as a "main" interstate.

"Main" interstates should be designated as such because of factors including, but not limited to, their length and routing. Let's not get hung up on numbering, which is an artifical designation.

Novasource 23:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

As always, there are exceptions. That doesn't mean we have to make the navigation box more confusing than it should be. æle ✆ 23:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts. I actually think it would simplify it by having fewer highlighted boxes. The only complexity would be for the authors, and I'm sure we can handle that. I'd rather be more accurate even at a coast of a tad more authoring complexity. Novasource 03:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I-45 is certainly one of the major Interstates. We should color them as defined by the nunmbering system, not some arbitrary length criterion. AASHTO could have easily chosen several other numbers for I-45, but they didn't, because they felt it was long enough to be a major one. Though I do wonder if it would have been I-35E if the D/FW split hadn't been included. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

What the bureaucrats and politicians say something is does not always hold up to a litmus test. Case in point, compare their pick for a "maximum safe speed" with reality.

A "primary" interstate needs to be definied by real factors like its actual use, location, purpose, etc. I-45 is no more primary than I-37. If you call I-45 a primary, then I-37 also needs to be a primary. Both connect major Texas cities, both presumably carry lots of port cargo, etc.

I have put I-45 back to a non-primary status. Please don't revert until there is a consensus here.

Nova SS 20:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

"Primary" Interstate highways are determined solely by numbering, just as "primary" U.S. Routes are. U.S. Route 91 is only 120 miles long, and yet it's considered "primary". æle ✆ 21:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and the coloring helps in using the template: since it's not as neat as, say {{U.S. Routes}}, the colored primary routes help people to find Interstates with numbers near their own. æle ✆ 21:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I've searched all over AAHSTO and the FWHA websites and I can't find one reference to the "0/5" rule making one a primary interstate. I-45, I-30, and I-85 are significantly smaller and less economically important than say I-69 and I-94, for example. I severely disagree with some of the smaller roads being on the major junctions list. KelleyCook 14:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote: definition of primary interstates

There is an apparent disagreement on the definition of the primary interstate highways per the prior section on this page. The template appears to highlight the primary interstates with a pink background. There are two methods of determining primary interstates:

• Number: a primary interstate is a primary interstate because the FHWA and AASHTO selected a number ending in 5 or 0.
• Function: a primary interstate is a primary interstate because of its actual function and use.

I would like to call a vote on this. Vote here:

• I vote Function for a few reasons. 1. If all we are doing is highlighting numbers that end in 0 or 5, we aren't providing any useful information except to people who haven't passed 2nd grade math. 2. If I-45 is a primary interstate, then why not I-44 and I-37? I-37 has a similar function (connects major Texas cities), and I-44 is much longer and more significant than I-45. 3. It is weird to call a minor intrastate Interstate a primary. Nova SS 21:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Number. That's the legal definition. Otherwise we get into debates about whether 64 is major, etc. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Number per Rschen7754. æle ✆ 02:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Number per Rschen7754. ...Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 17:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Number or otherwise we'll have like 100 individual debates. It's far easier to go by a simple rule. --Chris 00:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Number if we use function, then people who really like a certain interstate will just campaign for that one. Numbers are more official than personal opinions. Station Attendant 23:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Number, however I propose that ALL 2dis are MAJOR routes. For instance Route 8 is major yet it doesn't fit the existing listing. I'm sure others can point out other similarly "major" routes that are not 5 or 0 ending. I93 in New England is another prime example.Gateman1997 08:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Function, because the 0/5 rule doesn't officially exist. KelleyCook 14:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Number, but I'd really rather have neither (get rid of the background entirely). Function is incredibly subjective, and no definition of function can possibly pass the NPOV policy (is it a matter of length? traffic? major metro areas served? this arbitrary listing, or a version thereof? And with any of those methods, how many should we have?), but Number is arbitrary and meaningless, for reasons discussed above. I-20 and I-40 laugh at I-30. Morgan Wick 04:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Function, especially if we are calling these highways "major", like the template still says. However I agree with the person above me and say neither. Splent 22:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Number per legal definition. Andros 1337 18:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Precisely what "legal definition" are you referring to? KelleyCook 19:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    • There is no legislation regarding Interstate numbering. AASHTO isn't an official government body. However, they make the rules regarding numbering of highways and they've decided to give 0/5 numbers to routes they decided were major...Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 07:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Obviously, as shown by the majorness I-45 and I-30 as opposed to, say I-94, that "decision" was much more of a general guideline than a rule. Assuming of course that decision was ever made, there is no mention of 0/5 are major on their (or for that matter, FHWA's) website. As such "major in pink" is an unsupported statement which of course is against Wikipedia's guidelines.KelleyCook 13:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Remember, though, a lot of AASHTO's revenue comes through selling manuals through their bookstore, so I don't think that they have that information just lying around on their website. The 0/5 rule is confirmed in other sources, for example The Roads that Built America by Dan McNichol. We can't decide which interstates are major ourselves, as that would violate both WP:NOR and WP:NPOV as I understand it...Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 20:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
          • OK, so we can choose a "POV" system, a defective system (which equates relatively minor routes like I-45 with undeniably major routes like I-10), or no system at all. I choose the POV system first and no system at all second. Either is preferable to a demonstrably defective system. Nova SS 20:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. What about highlights as a navigational aid? It's harder to find a certain number without the 0s and 5s highlighted. And by the way: "In both plans [U.S. and Interstate], numbers ending in zero are used for transcontinental and other major multi-State routes." [3] æle ✆ 2006-05-24t20:35z
  • Also, "[n]umbers divisible by 5 are intended to be major among the primary routes, carrying traffic long distances" (Interstate Highway System#Primary routes). We can at least be self-consistent. Of course there are exceptions. There are always exceptions. Interstate 99 is west of Interstate 81. æle ✆ 2006-05-24t20:39z

[edit] Please vote: New Proposal

edit Main Interstate Highways
4	5	8	10	12	15	16	17	19	20	22	24	25	26	27	29
30	35	37	39	40	43	44	45	49	55	57	59	64	65	66	68
69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76 (W)		76 (E)		77	78	79	80	81
82	83	84 (W)		84 (E)		85	86 (W)		86 (E)		87	88 (W)		88 (E)
89	90	91	93	94	95	96	97	99	H-1	H-2	H-3
Unsigned			A-1	A-2	A-3	A-4	PRI-1		PRI-2		PRI-3
Lists		Main - Auxiliary - Suffixed - Business - Proposed - Unsigned Gaps - Intrastate - Interstate standards - Replaced

No. It's not what we've agreed on. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. POV. This version states that every interstate with the first digit being an odd number is a major interstate. Interstates such as 5 (main city: LA) and 85 (main city: Atlanta) are more significant than 99. Let's stick to the official definition. Andros 1337 19:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• • No it doesn't, as it takes out the P.O.V as you might note that the contentious phrase "major in pink" was deleted. Pink or Blue are just colors to help you quickly find the number you are looking ... it could be Purple and Orange for all I care. Though clearly shades of red, white and blue would be the obvious choices because on the interstate shield.

[edit] Another template idea

Making it more like the US highway one:

edit Main Interstate Highways (major in pink)
				4	5			8
10		12			15	16	17		19
20		22		24	25	26	27		29
30					35		37		39
40			43	44	45				49
					55		57		59
				64	65	66		68	69
70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79
80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89
90	91		93	94	95	96	97		99
(238)	H-1	H-2	H-3	A-1
A-2	A-3	A-4	PRI-1	PRI-2	PRI-3
Lists		Main - Auxiliary - Suffixed - Business - Proposed - Unsigned Gaps - Intrastate - Interstate standards - Replaced

Needs formatting fixes, but I think the idea is obvious.

Whoa, way too big and there are some interstates that are not major, such as 30 and 85. Vishwin60 02:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

30 and 85 are major interstates per AASHTO. Read a few sections above where a discussion ensued about this very subject. And yes, this template is way to huge. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 02:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

We shouldn't be determining which is major based purely on length. While I-45 and I-30 are subjective, I-85 is definately a major interstate. It passes through many major cities in the SE United States. IMO I-85 is more of a major interstate than I-25 (the only two major cities I-25 passes through are Albuquerque and Denver). Andros 1337 20:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I added the current template to Requests for protection. Andros 1337 20:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Too big, too much wasted space, etc. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redesign attempt 2

Main Interstate Highways (major in pink) H1 H2 H3 4 5 8 10 12 15 16 17 19 20 22 24 25 26 27 29 30 35 37 238 39 40 43 44 45 49 55 57 59 64 65 66 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 93 94 95 96 97 99 Unsigned A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 PRI-1 PRI-2 PRI-3 Lists Main - Auxiliary - Suffixed - Business - Proposed - Unsigned Gaps - Intrastate - Interstate standards - Replaced

Main Interstate Highways (major in pink) H1 H2 H3 4 5 8 10 12 15 16 17 19 20 22 24 25 26 27 29 30 35 37 238 39 40 43 44 45 49 55 57 59 64 65 W 66 E 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 W 76 E 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 W 84 E 85 W 86 E 87 W 88 E 89 90 91 93 94 95 96 97 99 Unsigned A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 PRI-1 PRI-2 PRI-3 Lists Main - Auxiliary - Suffixed - Business - Proposed - Unsigned Gaps - Intrastate - Interstate standards - Replaced

Comments on either? æ² ✆ 2006‑12‑08t06:14z

I don't like either. The left one links to disambiguation pages, and the right one is rather wide, as well as not clearly indicating where to click for the western routes (it took me about 15 seconds to realize it wasn't saying 83W 84E 85W 86E). --NE2 10:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attempt 2.2

I tried to address the W/E problem in this revision. The wideness issue isn't likely to go away any time soon; it's a limitation of the numeric grid. I don't believe it's excessively wide, however. æ² ✆ 2006‑12‑09t17:35z

In all honesty what is the problem with the current template? It is fine how it is right now. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I simply think a grid is better-organized and easier to use. æ² ✆ 2006‑12‑10t05:23z

The current template is a grid... Many have tried to get the template revised, but few have succeeded. The current setup holds consensus. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, yes, the current template is a grid, but all of the numbers are simply smushed together. This version organizes each Interstate in columns by last digit as well. By the way, "[m]any have tried to get the template revised, but few have succeeded" does not mean that the template could not benefit from changes. æ² ✆ 2006‑12‑10t23:57z

IMHO, trying to get the template revised is a waste of time since most people prefer how it is. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I happen to enjoy "wasting my time". ;) æ² ✆ 2006‑12‑11t20:22z