Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Standards/INNA archive

message: #Establish a clear consensus on both the infobox and navigation standard discussion pages.
#Write up the standards page for both topics.
#Enforce the standards across WP:USRD.
If we do this in order, we should be in pretty good shape. I've posted some ideas on the two discussion pages; feel free to add your own ideas or concerns as well. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Step 2 is now complete. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 17:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Steps to making this project

message: As many of you witnessed, the ELG was formerly a USRD subpage, but was recently moved to a MOS entry.  This brings these guidelines to question; should these be moved to MOS entries as well?  Please remember that these are style guidelines; would these be more suitable as MOS entries? V60 干什么？ · 喝掉的酒 · 路 14:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why not.  --myselfalso 16:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If they are moved, a lot of the sections will need massive rewrites to become more universal in nature. These guidelines were intended for application on U.S. roads only, a purpose that is reflected in the language and examples used on the pages. It's also an issue that has plagued the ELG ever since it was moved... To get back to the original point, I guess they could be moved, but I don't see the benefit in doing so. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 17:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is, sooner or later somebody like Matt Yeager might come over here and say that these two guidelines are style guidelines, and would be more suitable as MOS entries. V60 干什么？ · 喝掉的酒 · 路 18:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd oppose such a move.  --MPD T / C 18:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? V60 干什么？ · 喝掉的酒 · 路 18:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A couple of page moves 

message: Q1: anybody know why the shield graphic is not being displayed on Utah State Route 20. I've scoured the template and can't figure out why.
Q2 (a consequence of Q1): I've had several problems using the template  aside from one. The state highway articles I've worked on where the project uses  seem to work much better, seems to be a more robust template. Any reason why the Utah project is using their own? Could/should it use the general road template?
Davemeistermoab 18:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding Q1: this is related to bug 5463 and is a problem with the shield and not the template. See WP:USRD/S for more info. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Regarding Q2:  is based off  (if you look at the coding). So you are free to use whichever one you choose. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, one further question. Is it really ok to use both templates interchangeably on Utah highways articles, or should the project page be changed to encourage everybody to migrate towards the infobox road template?Davemeistermoab 23:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably doesn't matter which template is used. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2Q's regarding template problems on Utah Highways pages 

message: The background to this is Interstate 155 (Missouri-Tennessee), specifically browsing at the bottom vs. browsing in the infobox.
There's currently nothing here mentioning what to do. Of the Interstates, there is only one three-digit Interstate - I-275 - that spans three states, and I believe all two-digit Interstates that span three or more states will be split into state-detail articles eventually. So, except on I-275, we'd only have one more line in the infobox than on a single-state route. On the other hand, placing browsing in the infobox leads to consistency in browsing between routes; you don't have to wonder where the browsing is when it doesn't appear in the infobox.
Can we discuss this? Thank you. --NE2 18:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This (2 state-routes having browse at bottom) has been the current operating procedure for a long time. Furthermore, consistency is a red herring; what abut I-80, for example? Therefore, I support the current operating practice. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean with I-80? Interstate 80 shouldn't have any browsing, since the state-detail articles are in the chain. --NE2 18:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or with multi-state routes (3+ states) that have no S-D articles. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can keep those at the bottom until the state-detail articles are created. I-275 should be a reasonable exception. --NE2 19:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You make it sound as if every interstate route needs state-detail articles. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Ditto. How that was overlooked when this was drafted, I don't have a clue. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: That example is acceptable, as that is an intrastate route. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So would this be an unacceptable example? Loop (Texarkana)  --Holderca1 00:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be unacceptable when going by straight practice; however, I don't have that much of a problem with that setup, maybe due to how the list links in that article are placed as they would be in an intrastate route infobox. I dunno. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 07:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So something like Loop (Texarkana) would be fine on I-155? --NE2 13:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know this is a fairly old discussion, but I originally moved the browse into the infobox on Interstate 155 (Missouri-Tennessee) because I saw it on this article Interstate 280 (Illinois-Iowa).  I was auditing existing TN routes the other day for INNA browse compliance, and on U.S. Route 58 the browser for VA is in the infobox with another VA state route browse box on the bottom of the page, I ended up adding tn browse to the bottom since this is a multi-state route.  My personal opinion is that all browsing should be done from the infobox to maintain continuity with state-level articles.Pepper6181 (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Browsing in multistate routes

message: I just found tons of glitches on infoboxes, exit lists, and intersection charts that are happening today. They're on almost every state-specific Interstate 95 article, Interstate 495 (New York), and New York State Route 59. I thought somebody screwed up the NY 59 intersection chart, until I tried to fix it, and found this problem existed throughout WikiProject U.S. Roads. ----DanTD (talk) 14:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Has it been fixed? I don't see anything. --NE2 18:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears they were. I wonder who did it, and how it was done. ----DanTD (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Screw-Ups Happening NOW! 

message: Can somebody please tell me how to make shields in imageshack?
If you can help, thanks--Roadgeek55 (talk) 10:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Imageshack, as I know it, is a media hosting website.  You're probably wasting your time trying to make shields there.  Try out Inkscape instead. --Fredddie™ 20:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to make shields in imageshack?