Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/California/Archive 1

message: I'm not sure I like the infobox, especially the various colors. It seems it would be easier for the reader to simply have a column at right that says what the status of the intersecting route is (beginning of concurrency, unconstructed, whatever). There should also be data on where the mileposts change at the county line, so mileage can be calculated along the route. The centering of the table also looks a bit strange. Any comments? --SPUI (talk) 12:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: SPUI and I have been working on another infobox prototype for the routes.
The latest revision can be found at:  User:SPUI/onthecaca
:I think it looks fine so far. Continuing the discussion about colors in the box: Remember that a good portion of the population (1-10% depending on whose info you're reading) suffers from some level of colorblindness.  So as per Color blind#Design implications of color blindness, one should never use color alone to convey info. Perhaps rather than including the text describing the status of each junction, there could be a numbered (or lettered) footnote that matches up with the color legend.   Elf | Talk 04:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Infobox 

message: I read the little blurb about xshort state highways, but should we include them in the navigaion on the infobox?  I'm adding in the infobox for California State Route 110, but i'm not sure if the previous should be 108, or 109.  --atanamir 06:13, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  SR-109? 

message: Do you guys think maps would be useful?  Or yahoo! maps or something would suffice?
as an example, i've made a sample one up:  
what do you think? 
--atanamir 10:11, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the map. But, indeed, if it has to rely on one person to create hundreds of them, I wonder whether we'll actually end up with all articles with maps and/or in consistent format? Elf | Talk 04:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maps? 

message: Where can i find information on the section number and mile post sfo the junctions?  It's not on calnexus.... --atanamir 01:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section # / mileposts? 

message: ===Interstates===
I am assuming that we can put routeboxes, etc. on the Interstate 105 CA page (for example)? And change the structure to match this Wikiproject's? That's what it says on the main page. --Rschen7754 21:11, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
* I have been considering that for quite some time; I added thei nterstates onto the list last night becaue they are, in the strict sense, considered state routes.  Right now the infobox is setup to only use CA-XX.gif images; so we prboaby have to make another template for interstates; or we can add in a variable in the infobxo to set the type of image (CA-xx.gif or Interstate-XXX.png); it might be a probelm though as we have to go through all the articles to change it -_-.
* Yeah, make new GIFs for the interstates, if only to make it easier for infobox use.  Interstates that are entirely within California should have infoboxes.  Information should be presented much like it is on other state highway articles. Bennyp81 21:10, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
Plus, the primary interstate pages i don't think we should touch, since they span multiple states. --atanamir 01:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Interstates and US Routes

message: I am assuming that we can put routeboxes, etc. on the Interstate 105 CA page (for example)? And change the structure to match this Wikiproject's? That's what it says on the main page. --Rschen7754 21:11, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
* I have been considering that for quite some time; I added thei nterstates onto the list last night becaue they are, in the strict sense, considered state routes.  Right now the infobox is setup to only use CA-XX.gif images; so we prboaby have to make another template for interstates; or we can add in a variable in the infobxo to set the type of image (CA-xx.gif or Interstate-XXX.png); it might be a probelm though as we have to go through all the articles to change it -_-.
* Yeah, make new GIFs for the interstates, if only to make it easier for infobox use.  Interstates that are entirely within California should have infoboxes.  Information should be presented much like it is on other state highway articles. Bennyp81 21:10, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
Plus, the primary interstate pages i don't think we should touch, since they span multiple states. --atanamir 01:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Interstates

message: Also... what about US Routes (the few that CA has)? The Wikiproject makes no mention of them. --Rschen7754 04:10, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
* I haven't had time to add them on; i was going to do it tongiht but if you watn to help go ahead! =) --atanamir 05:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: US Routes

message: * I must say I disagree with doing this. We don't do it for routes like I-80 and I believe we shouldn't do it for these either. Having a CA only route box clutters the page and hides the fact the route is multistate. Unless we rework it to do one nationwide route box (which might not work because of all of the routes that will have to be listed as cross routes) I think we should keep off the routeboxes. It just doesn't work.
**Personally the reason I haven't put one on I-80 is because I haven't gotten around to it... I believe that ideally a Interstate WP and US highway WP should be created because those pages don't follow the same structure. Then a routebox for each wp would be added. Now when would we get around to all of this? I don't know, personally I have my hands full with CASR and WASR WPs and my schoolwork. But just a thought for the future... maybe for now either keep the ca routebox as a temporary solution, or just ignore it until things settle down. --Rschen7754
* I say we leave the Primary Interstate and US highway articles as they are sans routebox until a new multistate routebox is developed. Putting a CA routebox on select interstates and US highways that only enter California clutters the page with routeboxes that are both misleading and if multiple states are used, it just gets worse. A new nationwide routebox is the solution if there must be a routebox. Gateman1997 17:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: It doesn't work!