Template talk:Infobox road/Archive 1

message: See Interstate 84 (east) for the new example. Before proceeding with converting other Interstates, I wanted to come to an accord on this one. --Rob 20:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Argh, Wikipedia is confoundingly slow today... --Rob 15:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

text: All right, every page attached to this template should be completely functional. I will do Interstate 465 later today to verify loop functionality. Usage information will be up on top of this talk page, and can (and will) be updated as the template gets updated. As it is, I think it looks pretty good. Some Interstates need the Interstate that they terminate at -- I forgot to put this in. --Rob 16:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: In Practice Example

message: Recently, as I was thinking about putting those on the NY interstates, I realised something: the majority of state highways don't even have an article. Even instates that already have WP's (such as California), not all of the state highways have articles. Someone who actually wanted to go through all the numbered highways in the state in numerical order would run into frequent dead-ends in this system. Not to mention the fact that at least a few states have duplicate routes, unlike in California where all State Routes (Interstates, US highways, and state highways) are in a comprehensive law and there are no duplicates.
Personally, I am opposed to the Browse State Hwys section. I don't see why someone would want to go through all of the numbered highways of all types in a state in numerical order. Many don't have articles, meaning dead-ends for someone that would want to do this. Not to mention, that it is not necessarily true that all states will eventually have WP's. Only three out of fifty exist at the moment.
The only reason that I'm suggesting removing the section is that the box is huge. It causes no harm other than taking up space.
I don't really know how others feel about this, but if anyone really wants it, one possible compromise would be to simply not include any for the states without WP's. To take this a step further, it would also be possible to make a copy of this template, call it something else, and take off the Browse State Hwys section. Then the new one would be used on those interstates that don't go through any states with WPs. Interstates that go through one or more states with WPs would use the old one (this).
I'm not trying to start a huge debate here, I just think the section is useless in practice. (It's not pointless, but the point of it probably doesn't matter to many readers and is not possible to reach until every state has a WP and every state highway has an article.) Please let me know what you think.
--Engleman 19:28, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
:I agree that something needs to be done about the size of the routebox... it's concerning. California State Route 1 has a huge routebox... but that has every single junction (that sure was a pain to code!) I'd go with the idea of taking off the browse state highways section for the highways that don't need it (although it might be easier to use a subtemplate... possibly?) It's just I-5, 10, 15, 40, 80, 82, 90 for CA and WA... KY might not be using this browse section anyway.--Rschen7754 03:36, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
::I think I'm going to need to research this sub-template thing you speak of. Sounds like a good idea. --Engleman 01:54, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
::Alright, so I think I get the concept here, but not sure how to implement it without breaking all of them (See the recent revisions (which I just reverted) to see what i was trying to do. With that went Template:Routeboxint subSR and Template:Routeboxint subSR no. The idea was that if an article doesn't use the field sectionSR, then it would simply use Template:Routeboxint subSR. Unfortunately, that doesn't work, because it then evaluates it as , and then obviously it can't find the nonexistant Template:Routeboxint subSR . If I were to move Template:Routeboxint subSR to Template:Routeboxint subSR yes and add that field to all of the existing articles, then I guess it wouldn't break anything.
::I got a couple of other ideas.
::--Engleman 02:30, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
:::To do a sub-template you name the subtemplate Template:Routeboxint/subSR (for example). If you need more help then you can take a look at , , or you can just ask on this page. --Rschen7754 01:15, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
::::Don't have much time to explain, but in short, what I was attempting had nothing to do with what you suggested. I completely misunderstood you. --Engleman 04:59, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
::::Ah, I see what's going on. This will need to be documented. Let me try creating Template:Routeboxint/loopdirsub and Template:Routeboxint/regdirsub, and then we can put reg or loop as the type in the parameter. spur is unnecessary as it is structurally equivalent to a reg route. --Rob 14:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Browse State Hwys 

message: Hmm. What would you do for the following situation?
* Intersection of E-W and N-S Interstates, multiplexing E-W U.S. Hwy westbound and an E-W State Hwy.
* WB exit to milepost 15 to NB and SB Interstate
* EB exit to NB milepost 13 and both U.S. / State Hwys, end multiplex of U.S. Hwy.
* EB exit to SB milepost 15
* WB exit to U.S. / State Hwys. eastbound and multiplexing westbound, but state highway does not multiplex.
Any ideas? :-) I'll work with what I've got... --Rob 17:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More Worlds of Hurt

message: Over the past month I've been putting the , , and  tags on every Interstate Highway article. I started sometime in August and now I'm on Interstate 91. I found out that there are over 200 articles on Interstate highways... If we need to make a major change like this in the future to every article (say if we have to make a routebox change  or something) should we divide up the articles so that the task can be done faster? Just a thought... please give your input. Thanks --Rschen7754 03:04, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
:By region I suppose? We don't have many people at the moment; I think I'm the only one in the Northeast. I can do all of New York, all of New Jersey, the westernmost part of Connecticut (I'm not too familiar with New England aside from the NYC suburbs.), and also cover a bit of the area east of the Delaware River to cover future and present I-95 as far as the Maryland border. I can go a bit (or I suppose a lot) beyond that if noone else lives anywhere near my area of knowledge. --Engleman 03:50, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
::I was thinking of by number... like I think we have 3-4 ACTIVE people on the project, maybe asking someone to do I-4 to I-40 for example... but this would only happen if we needed to fix something (i.e. we broke the routebox on every page and we need to tweak the code on all 200 pages). You wouldn't necessarily need to know anything about the Interstate... it's just a suggestion since otherwise it would take a month to fix all the routeboxes... --Rschen7754 04:00, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
:::Oh I get it. Still, they could be sorta based on region (like if I get all the evens from 76-90 and the odds from 81-95). Purely numeric works too though. --Engleman 05:14, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
:I noticed you marked some pretty well-done articles as stubs... I was confused for a while as to why some got marked as stubs. Oh well. :-p With regards to who does what... let's stick with regional for right now (I've got the Western Great Lakes area and anything within a day's drive of Chicago) but I know that someone's gonna end up doing Interstate H3 that may not be from Hawaii... --Rob 18:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Assignments?

message: I think the statement made at the top of the infoboxes are callous and rude, to be blunt about it (as on Interstate 44).  It seems to make the statement, "Don't you dare touch it!"  It is totally inappropriate for Wikipedia.  Wikipedia is supposed to be for everyone.  If someone does mess it up and doesn't fix it, how would this be enforced, anyway?  I was going to try to implement these, myself, but found them confusing.
I have started several articles in Wikipedia in hopes of people adding to them because I didn't know enough about them to write a complete article.  If someone messes it up, they mess it up.  It happens.  If I find this, I fix it.  This statement gives the impression that adding information is unwelcome (regardless of the intent of the statement).  Regardless of what we do, as Wikipedia's policy states, if you don't want your work mercilessly edited, then don't put it here.  I think these boxes are informational, but the comment is totally inappropriate.Rt66lt 05:31, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What we are saying is that because the routebox keeps changing, some pages may be broken, and it takes forever to fix them. But yeah I'll remove it if the statement can be misinterpereted. --Rschen7754 05:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro statement on new infoboxes